December 11, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 46


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, Chris Griffiths is an innovator with a sense for market opportunities. In his first job at a music store he sensed there was a lack of local people skilled in guitar repair. He traveled to the US to get training in this field, and returned to the Province to start his own business repairing and building custom guitars. Since then, he has continued to recognize opportunities and innovate.

After six years of research and development, Chris patented and produced the Griffiths Active Bracing System. It reduces the number of pieces in an acoustic guitar body from thirty-four to ten, and reduces manufacturing time for those parts from four-and-a-half hours to forty-five seconds. Also, the uninterrupted vibration path generated inside the guitar produces a better sound than a conventionally manufactured guitar.

Earlier this year, Chris Griffiths opened Garrison Guitars in Mount Pearl, a state of the art guitar manufacturing plant. The company already has more than fifty employees, and expects to make 16,000 guitars this year for export to the US, the United Kingdom and Australia. The first year's production is already sold out.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join with me in recognizing Chris Griffiths on his spirt of entrepreneurship and record of accomplishment.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to make a comment today about a good news story; a good news story happening in my district. It is a situation where a entrepreneur, Mr. Bill Barry of the Barry Group of Companies, turned a curse into an employment opportunity. I speak about Atlantic Marine Products in Catalina.

This year, out of the total seal production take off the coast, 214,000 harp seals, the Barry Group of Companies purchased 103,000. Out of those 103,000 pelts that they bought this year, I say to people opposite, there is only 30,000 left to be sold. Out of the 103,000 harp seals bought, this company produced 3,750 barrels of refined seal oil. That translates into 168,750 gallons of seal oil.

Mr. Speaker, it is a situation where this company has taken this product to its truly value-added stage. Once it leaves Atlantic Marine Products in Catalina, it is ready for the consumer. With your permission, I have a sample of the product that is being put forward at Atlantic Marine Products in Catalina. This is a harp seal pelt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Ready for the market, I say to members opposite; employing forty-five people full-time, eighty-five people on a part-time basis for fifty-two weeks of the year. This is a good news story and one that we should all be very happy about.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: From the 168,750 gallons of seal oil, this is the end result; the seal oil capsule which many people take. It is rich in Omega-3 fatty acids and it is a common product on most drug store shelves here today.

This is a good news story and I would like to congratulate the Barry Group and the employees at Atlantic Marine Products in Catalina.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to pay tribute to two volunteers who recently received the Newfoundland and Labrador Volunteer medal.

First I will talk of Joyce Churchill of Portugal Cove-St. Phillips. Joyce has been a volunteer in her community for more than forty years. She has served as mayor of her community and as a member of the school board for the area. Her chief contribution, however, has been to the Autism Society of Newfoundland and Labrador for which she has worked with exceptional dedication and is currently the Chair.

The second volunteer is Heber Walters, also of Portugal Cove-St. Phillips. Heber has given more than fifty years to volunteer activities and is particularly well-known for his work in education and youth guidance. He served for twenty-three years as mayor of the community and has served the Lions Club at the local, provincial and national levels.

The contribution that these two individuals have made to their community and, indeed, the Province a better place, and they are both deserving of recognition.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased also to count both of these individuals as friends.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join with me in paying tribute to these very active volunteers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate members of the Carol Curling Club in Labrador West in particular, and the Carol Curling Club itself in general. On October 28, two young curlers from Labrador West, Jenna Reid and Michael Costello, were successful in becoming members of the Newfoundland and Labrador Canada Winter Games team. The games will be held in Bathurst, New Brunswick in 2003.

On this past weekend, here in St. John's, the Carol Curling Club rink of Barbra Pinsent and teammates Sandra Brawley, Georgina Hamlyn and Marcheta Gallant captured the Women's Provincial Curling Championship and will represent our Province at the national championships which will be held in St. Thomas, Ontario in February.

This past weekend as well, Mr. Speaker, the curling rink of Rick Casmey and teammates Gary Pinsent, Bob Brawley and Harvey Flynn narrowly missed becoming the Provincial Senior Men's Champions during a very close final game.

Mr. Speaker, this is the same curling club that produced two members of the provincial curling rink that last year won the World Junior Championships, namely: Mike Adam and Mark Nichols.

Combined with the legendary Sue Ann Bartlett rink which captured more than a dozen provincial championships truly makes all residents of Labrador West very proud of the Carol Curling Club and their achievements.

I congratulate all curlers who took part in the quest to represent our Province and I wish them all success in the future.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to inform Members of this House of Assembly that last Tuesday the Smart Labrador Initiative made the first live video connection on Smart Labrador's Broadband network between the communities of Black Tickle and Cartwright. The connection was made between the schools and the two communities and involved both teachers and students.

The Smart Communities program was officially launched by Industry Canada on June 5, 1999. It is a three-year program created to help Canada become a world leader in the development and use of information and communication technologies for economic, social and cultural development. The Smart Labrador Initiative was one of only twelve projects selected from across Canada and is a $10 million private-public partnership that will focus to enhance information technology in Labrador communities.

The Smart Labrador Initiative will enable new services in health, education, e-commerce and community life. It will serve as a demonstration of how remoteness need only be a matter of geography.

Videoconferencing services will mean a reduction of travel time and travel cost for anyone doing business in Labrador and will connect Labrador to the world.

Mr. Speaker, I would like all members to join with me in congratulating the people at Smart Labrador on what they have accomplished so far with this initiative.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to bring greetings to a very special couple in the District of Kilbride, who are celebrating their sixty-seventh anniversary, Jack and Mary MacDonald.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: For those who know Jack and Mary, they are an institution certainly within the district that I represent and have many friends throughout the Province and indeed the country. Former ministers of agriculture would know Jack's commitment to the industry. He has been a successful dairy producer and farmer all of his life, even as a young child.

Jack, and the family itself, are noted as keen observers of the political scene, and anybody who is interested can, at any time, go in and sit down in his front room in his house and be entertained by stories of the anti-confederate movement, his strong endorsement of a certain political party of which I happen to be part, and I am not trying to politicize it. However, Mr. Speaker, the commitment that this family, in particular Jack and Mary, have brought to life in Newfoundland and Labrador certainly cannot be questioned.

Jack has been honored in many capacities, certainly as a member of the Atlantic Agricultural Hall of Fame, and I think he will be remembered most for his ongoing dedication and commitment to the agricultural industry in the Province and in the country.

I ask you, Speaker, and certainly the Premier and all members, to join with me in wishing them a very happy sixty-seventh anniversary. On December 13, two days from now, they are hosting an open house, I think, from 2:00 in the afternoon to 10:00 at night and have invited anybody who wishes to go in to join with them in celebrating that, but only to bring best wishes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform hon. members that Newfoundland and Labrador's application for admittance into The Energy Council of America has been accepted. This past weekend, I participated in the council's annual Global Energy and Environmental Issues fall conference in Santa Fe, New Mexico, where the Province was formally accepted into this organization. Mr. Ed Foran, Vice-Chair of NOIA, Newfoundland Ocean Industries Association, and Mr. Bill Wells, President and CEO of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, were also in attendance to share this Province's proud moment, along with my officials and I.

For the information of hon. members, The Energy Council is a legislative and industry stakeholders organization of ten energy-producing states ranging from the Gulf of Mexico to the Arctic Ocean. The member states produce more than 80 per cent of United States' oil and gas and includes leading coal, uranium, hydro and other renewable energy-producing states. The Energy Council is a very influential North American organization. The elected legislators and industry representatives of the Council participate in the formation of energy policy at all levels. Venezuela and Alberta are the only other international affiliates. Newfoundland and Labrador is now the third international affiliate.

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased that Newfoundland and Labrador has been accepted into this organization. Membership will provide us with insight into current energy policies and issues of other energy-producing jurisdictions and permit the Province to capitalize on opportunities for marketing the Province's resources, including to our most prospective market - the northeast United States.

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to announce today that next year Newfoundland and Labrador will host a Consumers and Producers Energy Forum in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the top energy producers and customers from the northeastern United States and members of the Energy Council's Executive Committee will be in attendance. Mr. Speaker, these are the very people to whom we want to showcase our oil, our gas, and our hydro resources. The forum will allow large potential customers in the northeastern United States to become familiar with Newfoundland and Labrador as an area that will be critical to North America's future energy supply. Public and private sector participants from the United States and Canada will discuss relevant topics and build relationships between producers and consumers for the benefit, I believe, of us all.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy: Obviously, on this side of the House, we are pleased that Newfoundland's application has been accepted now for the Energy Council of America. As the minister has indicated, it is a chance for us to truly witness what takes place in other jurisdictions with respect to the creation and purchase of energy resources.

Mr. Speaker, as well, with respect to the Consumers and Producers Forum on Energy that the minister has alluded to, I think what is significant is what the minister has indicated in his statement when he says that the forum will allow large potential customers in the northeastern U.S. to become familiar with Newfoundland and Labrador and the rich energy resources that we have available to us.

My only caution, I guess, to the minister is that, we have to make sure that our energy policy is not shaped by energy needs in other jurisdictions, such as the northeastern United States. We have to ensure that we have an energy plan which is conducive to our needs, to ensure that there is optimal benefit for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Generally, Mr. Speaker, we welcome these announcements, and it shows the direction in which we ought to go as a Province and as a jurisdiction in this very important area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I heard of OPEC, but I have to say I had never heard of the Energy Council of America, so I don't think it is an OPEC.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this is a useful forum, that we can learn about other energy policies and find out how they maximize their return on their resources. Hopefully we might learn something from them.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of markets, while we do have to sell the oil and energy products of this Province, markets are not the problem. The real problem is making sure that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians benefit from the resources that we have, that we are developing, that we want to make sure that we get the wealth that is produced for our own citizens.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, last night the federal budget made no provision for additional health care funding for the Province. But the provincial government cannot place all the blame on Ottawa, it must take some of the responsibility for the health care crisis in our Province on the basis of its own mismanagement.

Could the Premier tell the people of this Province, what is your plan for the delivery of health care services in this Province now that the federal Liberals have abandoned us?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I think everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador understands a couple of things: one, is that the government here cannot take responsibility for decisions that the Government of Canada makes or takes. They will answer for their own. It is acknowledged that there will be more challenges for every single provincial and territorial government in the country as a result of the fact that the Government of Canada, yesterday, to our disappointment, did not add any additional monies either to equalization or to CHST. That will cause some additional difficulties for us, which we will deal with in our budget in March month. I have invited everyone back for a full discussion at that time.

Mr. Speaker, I think that everyone in this Province recognizes that we just had a very successful series of health care forums, in which people came together because they want to look at the options that are available to us going into the future. We will continue with our plans for the rest of this fiscal year and we will release all of our plans for next year when the time comes due in March month.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to make some reference to those health care forums. On November 26, in response to a question by the Member for Trinity North, the Minister of Health said that key elements of planning needed to be done in this Province in order to have a strategic approach to health care and that those health care forums would assist her in doing this.

Would the Premier not agree that this is an admission from the minister that this government is spending $1.4 billion a year on health services without any plan whatsoever?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition asking me, personally, the question that one of his health critics asked the Minister of Health here some ten days ago in the Legislature. I believe that the Member for Trinity North asked that question, and also two supplementaries, in this Legislature - exactly the same question. The answer was given clearly that every bit of funding that is currently being spent in health care - unlike the belief of the Member for Ferryland, who suggests there is $100 million wasted in health care - we believe that every single cent that is currently being spent is needed and that, in fact, there are some unmet needs in health care in Newfoundland and Labrador that we are very much aware of and would very much like to be able to address but cannot because of the budgetary circumstance at this point in time.

The record will show, Mr. Speaker, that we are spending more money on health care, and there are a greater level of services available in the Province today than ever in our history. That happens to be a fact. That is the fact. Now, are there still some shortcomings? Yes. Is there a detailed plan in which every single expenditure of every single cent is laid out in this Legislature by the Minister of Health?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to conclude his answer quickly.

PREMIER GRIMES: The answer is no, but every single board is accounting for every cent that they spend and they all want more, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier has acknowledged that he doesn't have a plan, and the minister has acknowledged that she doesn't have a plan. Over two weeks ago, John Peddle, the Executive Director of the Newfoundland and Labrador Health Boards Association, stated that there was a lack of provincial strategic planning in the health care system with no operational goals, benchmarks or standards.

Would the Premier explain how it is possible for a government in power for over twelve years to spend over $12 billion on health services without a strategic plan, without sufficient performance standards, to even ensure that the system is operating efficiently?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, every single program and service that is available in Newfoundland and Labrador today in the health care sector is being delivered as part of a plan for the board that is delivering the service. Every single year there are a series of requests that come forward to the government to do certain things more than are being done today, because we acknowledge we are not meeting all the needs and funding all the requests.

There is a plan, Mr. Speaker, that is reviewed annually by every single board and there is a plan that, obviously, we are short of cash to fund every desired service. But for anyone to suggest - and I guess maybe now the Leader of the Opposition is agreeing with the Member for Ferryland - that there is a bunch of money in health care that is being wasted. We do not think, Mr. Speaker, that there is any money being wasted in health care. We think it needs some more money, and I would like to hear a clear position from the Opposition with respect to that, because we do have the Member for Ferryland on the record saying there is at least $100 million a year wasted.

Mr. Speaker, if in fact the Leader of the Opposition was so interested in health care planning as he suggests he might be today, maybe he might have shown up at the forum in Corner Brook, in his own riding that he represents -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer quickly.

PREMIER GRIMES: - and in fact health care was not a priority for him. He was busy doing something else that day, because health care was not a priority for the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier to take his seat.

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the words that I am quoting are the words of the minister and also the words of John Peddle, the Executive Director of the Newfoundland and Labrador Health Boards Association.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: These are not my words.

Mr. Speaker, George Tilley, CEO of the Health Care Corporation of St. John's, said just last week that we really have to develop some long-term strategies; which, of course, implies that there are none.

Would the Premier not agree that the lack of a long-term strategy for the biggest and most important department of government constitutes mismanagement of health care in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to see we have come full circle in a month in the Legislature; we are back to the language that the Leader of the Opposition used in the first few days when he was misquoting and misrepresenting the Auditor General's concerns and asking questions about potential mismanagement, Mr. Speaker.

The fact of the matter is that we acknowledge, as the government, that we are not meeting all of the needs and demands in health care. We say that quite openly and honestly to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have requests every single day in this Legislature from members opposite to provide more home support, to provide other services, to provide dialysis, to provide mammography at a venue closer to the constituents that they represent, and we know that we are not meeting the need at the level that members opposite would like to have it met; but we are not willing to acknowledge, like the Opposition would like to try to believe or want to believe themselves, that there is any mismanagement or that there is a waste of $100 million a year in health care because it is not happening Mr. Speaker.

The forums are talking about where we do go from here on a more strategic basis because we are open and honest enough to acknowledge that it is going to be very difficult, if not impossible, even to maintain the service levels that we have today when everybody wants to improve them and expand them, because we cannot get the Opposition to support us in trying to secure more funding. They are out there trying to make people believe that there is mismanagement and waste -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: - when in fact there is not enough money, Mr. Speaker, and we are trying to secure some more.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We cannot support what does not exist.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Peddle also stated that there is no evaluation and monitoring of the entire health care system. Given this lack of checks and balances, would the Premier explain how his government measures whether it is doing the job right or even doing the right job?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We do take some comfort in a couple of things. We take some comfort in knowing that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have repeatedly suggested that their number one priority is health care. As a result, 44 per cent of the discretionary spending of the Budget by this government is in health care. Mr. Speaker, it is almost twice as much as the expenditure on any other program area in the government. We know we are doing the right thing, Mr. Speaker, in terms of making health care the number one priority.

We also know, and it is witnessed every day in this Legislature by members opposite standing up with unmet needs, that it is still not enough. There is not $100 million wasted. In fact, every single plan is scrutinized every year through audited statements. As well, Mr. Speaker, in asking for their budgets, they go through a program review with the Department of Health and Community Services so that we can know which things we can fund and those that we unfortunately cannot fund. Every single year, Mr. Speaker, there is an exercise gone through in the Budget. I know the hon. member, the Leader of the Opposition, has not been here for it before, but I invite him to come back to the Budget debate, and he will get a full chance to examine every single request in health care and every other area - those that the government has said it can meet and those that unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we will not be able to meet again this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, could the Premier explain to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador how he expects to get a blank cheque from Ottawa, when his minister and senior officials in this Province acknowledge that there is no strategic plan? That is just not good business practice and it certainly is not good government, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it has become obvious to everybody in this Legislature and the people of the Province that with the support of the Leader of the Opposition we will get no cheques from Ottawa for anything.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Not for R and D, not for research and development. Now, the same Leader of the Opposition, less than two weeks ago, said: I will join you in Ottawa in your fight to increase equalization and fight for the clawback and get some other revenues for Newfoundland and Labrador. His version of helping is to describe in this Legislature that we have no accountability, that we want a blank cheque; and that is supposed to help us convince the people in Ottawa that they should send more money to Newfoundland and Labrador.

So, Mr. Speaker, people are seeing through - they are seeing through - the shallowness of the Leader of the Opposition the fact that his only interest is political power in Newfoundland and Labrador, and he will stand here and suggest that everything we are doing is wrong.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: While at the same time suggesting he is going to try to help support us get more money from Ottawa, which we badly need.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, will the Premier tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador: What is the consequence of Liberal mismanagement of health care in this Province? Does it mean further reduction in services? Does it mean layoffs? Does it mean bed closures? Or does it, in fact, mean hospital closures? What are the consequences, Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to report that the consequences so far in the last five years have been: increased expenditures; improvements in service delivery in Newfoundland and Labrador; dialysis in places like St. Anthony, Clarenville, Grand Falls, that never existed before; mammography services out in the regions that never existed before; better access to diagnosis than ever existed before; more doctors in the Province than we ever had in history, contrary to what the Opposition suggests. That is the record of mismanagement that we bring to the table, Mr. Speaker. Improved and increased services in every region of Newfoundland and Labrador for the last five years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, we are going to be debating all of the future of health care through the conclusion of the forum discussions and its report, and in the Budget in March month. We will gladly lay out for the people of the Province what the plans are for next year and the year beyond at that point in time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance said yesterday, and printed in The Telegram today, that provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador signed on to a CHST deal to pump new money into social programs on a per capita basis because they were assured of improvements to that equalization program.

The minister said this morning on CBC radio: The reason our Premier signed this agreement at this point in time was contingent on the fact they were going to do something about equalization.

I want to ask the minister, who gave the minister those assurances? Was it the federal Minister of Finance, our federal minister in Cabinet, or was it the Prime Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, when the ten Premiers and the territorial leaders signed the agreement on CHST, it was on the understanding, clearly, that this would be a part of an overhaul on the equalization program. All of the premiers believed, particularly those who are of equalization receiving status, which are seven provinces, they would be supportive of CHST, because everybody knows CHST, or the program that is used to provide health and post-secondary services and social services, is based on per capita. Everybody understands that provinces like Ontario and Quebec would do much better than provinces with smaller populations. Now this is very important.

I would say that it was clearly the understanding that this would be part of a process that would further look into the equalization program so that we can benefit from the services for the services for the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Apparently the Finance Minister is suffering from amnesia if she doesn't know, and I hope that is not contagious among finance ministers, because it has happened, I say to the minister, in the past.

I want to ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: If she doesn't know who told her or who told the government, what were those assurances? Did the federal government tell the minister that they would remove the cap on equalization, that they would move from a five- to a ten-province standard or that they would reduce or eliminate clawbacks on our non-renewable resources?

Minister, what were the assurances that you were given?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the member, in his low tones, that I do not have amnesia. In fact, I am quite aware of the discussions that were held. I can honestly say -

MR. J. BYRNE: Answer the question (inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I would love to try to answer the question, I say to the Member for Cape St. Francis, because it is a very important issue.

MR. J. BYRNE: Go ahead. Go ahead.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: Be quiet, Jack. Have another doggy biscuit, boy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: It is an important issue.

Mr. Speaker, obviously when the people of the Province realize, and they do, that we are spending $1.4 billion, a growth of over 40 per cent - the member opposite tries to allude to mismanagement - 40 per cent more money in health care when we are only getting over $300 million in CHST, obviously we would be focused more on improving equalization.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we were under the impression that the ceiling would be lifted, not for one year but would be lifted. We have made that quite clear. The member opposite knows. We made a presentation to the Senate Committee on Finance, and the Premier made a presentation as well. It has been very clear. We have been honest with the people of the Province. We are adamantly supporting the federal government changing equalization, as are all the premiers. This Premier led the charge and got approval for unanimity for equalization changes at the last Premier's Conference, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude her answer quickly.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Our position is clear and on the record.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member opposite: What is your position? Give us any position on health care or equalization. Share it with us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland, final supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Apparently I have hit a nerve. The minister doesn't know who told her. If that is not amnesia, it is selective amnesia. The minister doesn't know what all the assurances were, other than just a cap.

I want to ask the minister now: The Premier over there sitting next to her signed a document which binds Newfoundland and Labrador to a five-year agreement. Did anyone in the federal government sign the assurances that the minister said she received and will she table the documents of those assurances?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member usually does better research than what he is exhibiting and showing here today. He knows, I think, that the Premier of the Province, as I happen to be right now, was not involved in those meetings. This is all from a year ago, in September. I was the Health Minister at the time, Mr. Speaker, and I can tell you quite clearly, if he wants to know what the commitment is all he needs to do - he is usually very good at doing research, I give him credit for that - is to take out the communique from the First Ministers' Meeting, which was the Prime Minister of the country and all the Premiers. They met in Winnipeg. It is in writing. They commit to the five-year reinstatement of CHST, which I was on the public record at the time as saying wasn't enough, but the premiers agreed it was all they were going to get. Nobody signed anything, Mr. Speaker. It was a communique at the end of a First Ministers' Conference. He is an honourable member, Mr. Speaker, he knows exactly what I am talking about.

In that same document, Mr. Speaker, there is a reference by the Prime Minister of the country, and all the First Ministers, saying the Finance Ministers will immediately begin a full review of equalization. They were tasked to do so by the Prime Minister of the country, who is the same Prime Minister today, and by the ten Premiers and three territorial leaders, some of whom are different today.

That is in the communiqué from September, 2000, and he can gladly look at it - I am sure he does this kind of research all the time - and he will see the commitments that are there. He would read it, as would anybody, and understand that the Prime Minister of the country committed to a review of equalization which, to our disappointment and our consternation, has not yet begun. I thought they were going to help us get it started.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier now to take his seat.

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to ask the Premier: His Finance Minister said this morning, at around 8:50, on CBC Radio's The Morning Show, the reason our Premier signed an agreement at this time was contingent of the fact they were going to do something about equalization. Is the Premier now saying that what the Finance Minister said this morning was wrong and there was no agreement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, let me just take a minute for purposes of clarity. I know you want the real answer. You are always interested -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I am assuming he asked the question because he wanted the actual facts.

Mr. Speaker, it has been represented in all of the country, since September of the year 2000, when the last First Ministers' Conference occurred with the Prime Minister, the premiers and the territorial leaders attending, in their communiqué they indicated that there would be a reinstatement of CHST for five years, which was reaffirmed in the Budget yesterday. They indicated that the Finance Ministers would be tasked to immediately start a review of equalization, including removing the cap - the cap or the ceiling.

Mr. Speaker, that has been portrayed in the public ever since as an agreement between the provinces and the territories. No one signed anything, but every single leader agreed to the communiqué that contained those components. It has been portrayed in the country since then as an agreement between the provinces and the federal government. Nobody signed, physically, a particular document, but everyone has treated it as such since then.

If you want to argue over the words instead of dealing with the facts then that shows that they are really not interested in the issue. Again, they are just trying to score some political points instead of dealing with the facts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, the Special Panel on Corporate Concentration in the Newfoundland and Labrador Fishing Industry recently released its report. While the panel was not mandated to look into accusations of anti-competitive activity, it talks extensively and raises concerns about relationships between processors, relationships between fishermen and processors, and a general feeling of mistrust that runs throughout the industry.

Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is: After reading the report, what are the minister's conclusions about anti-competitive activity and the problems associated with that in the industry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The reason that the panel was not asked to investigate the anti-competitive nature of the accusations that the members opposite made is because they are being investigated by the Competition Bureau of Canada. I understand from the Leader of the Opposition that these investigations are still ongoing. We are not privy to that because it is my understanding that the Competition Bureau does not give that type of information. They certainly have not given it to us. His leader, last week, said in one of the media that the investigation was ongoing and we will wait to see what that report brings.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

Despite the huge federal government surpluses, over $17 billion in the year ending March 31, another $13.5 billion in the first of half of this fiscal year, it appears that Liberal stockings in this Province will hang limp by the chimney this Christmas, with nothing but a lump of coal for Newfoundland and Labrador in yesterday's Budget. How is it, Mr. Speaker, that his government, the longest standing Liberal government of the country, with the former Premier, Brian Tobin, in the federal Cabinet, has no influence with the Liberal government in Ottawa? How is that, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would think that the question that the Leader of the NDP, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, is asking reflects the fact that he, like us, is very disappointed that there wasn't some funding made available through either CHST or a change in equalization to provide for transfers to a Province like Newfoundland and Labrador so that we can meet more of the needs that are in this Province going unmet; and we acknowledge they are going unmet because of our inability to do so.

If that is the nature of the question, then I am glad to see that he shares our concerns because, to use phraseology, I guess some stockings, to use his language, might have a lump of coal in them. We were hoping there would be additional transfers. The Government of Canada will answer for its actions to the people right across the country, including here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are on record, through the Minister of Finance and myself, as saying that while we understand some of the expenditure choices that were made, that we are very disappointed that there weren't some other choices made that would reflect some possible improvements in the Treasury in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, so far this Premier has no made progress on the equalization clawback, no progress on change in the equalization formula, no progress on restoring health care dollars from Ottawa, and no progress on necessary infrastructure funding. What I want to know, Mr. Speaker is: What is this Premier going to do to get real action from Ottawa, other than writing letters to the editor, like he did last weekend?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understood, from a couple of weeks ago, that we had a commitment in this House that all parties - the NDP, the Official Opposition and ourselves - agree that we are not getting our fair share, as we would define it, from the Government of Canada, and that we are going to jointly - although some of the questions today from the Leader of the Opposition are not particularly helpful. If he suggests that we are looking for a blank check and those kinds of things, then it is going to be hard to take those kinds of words and then change his stance when he goes to Ottawa with us. Maybe we will think about leaving him home and just two of us will go.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer quickly.

PREMIER GRIMES: In any event, Mr. Speaker, I do understand that this House is of one mind, that we all collectively agree, that there is not a proper fiscal relationship between the Government of Canada and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we are going to strive every day to try to change the circumstance to our advantage and favour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

MR. TAYLOR: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I just want to correct the Premier on a comment that he made in his comments on health care and cuts. He spoke about how St. Anthony hospital was now the proud owner of a new renal dialysis unit. I guess, for lack of a better way of putting it, I would just like to inform the Premier that, in trying to deal with a shortfall in their budget just this past fall, they canceled the renal dialysis unit in St. Anthony and also -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is really no point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask the Premier to stand and apologize and withdraw the remark on a statement he made that I said there is $100 million wasted in the health care system. The written record of Hansard will show what I said, when I said it back a year-and-a-half ago, and it is still there for the reading. I ask the Premier to stand and withdraw that remark that was said untruthfully.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier, to the point of order..

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know that there will be enough interest raised on this issue as a result of this discussion that people will actually look at Hansard. If it does not say what I said, then I gladly apologize. I have understand and read it and I have produced it in this Legislature several times, that there is $100 million wasted in health care. The comment is attributed to the member clearly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to move the following Private Member's Resolution:

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has done nothing in twelve years to halt or slow down the rapid social and economic decline in rural communities; and

WHEREAS the government's Renewal Strategy for Jobs and Growth is all process and no action;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this House condemn the government for its failure to develop a realistic plan to maintain economically and socially viable communities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to present the following petition to this House of Assembly.

The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

WHEREAS the government has not yet dealt property with the owners of property damaged by flooding associated with tropical storm Gabrielle in September, and continues to leave people with no clear answers three months after the event; and

WHEREAS the government is discriminating by offering just 70 per cent of the appraised value of a home to those who cannot afford their own repairs; and

WHEREAS other provinces have been much more swift and compassionate in their response to similar tragedies within their borders;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately provide fair and reasonable compensation offers to all those affected by flooding associated with tropical storm Gabrielle.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, on a daily basis I get calls from constituents in this region of the Province, in particular in my own District of St. John's East, people whose homes were impacted upon by what happened some three months ago in this Province as a result of Gabrielle. These individuals have suffered losses and they have sought some form of compensation from government. I know the minister will say yes, we have issued a few cheques, Mr. Speaker, we have given some help to a few people, but the fact remains that the vast majority of individuals who have been impacted upon as a result of what happened some three months ago have not found a solution to their problems. They are frustrated, Mr. Speaker. The process is slow.

I keep hearing complaints, Mr. Speaker, that too many home owners, upon submitting their claims and trying to finalize and conclude their claims, are being presented with offers which do not represent 100 per cent of the losses, I say to the minister, and I say, Mr. Speaker.

What is happening in some cases, if people are prepared to accept maybe 60 per cent or 70 per cent of the appraised value, people are accepting that because in some cases they do not have the financial ability to get the work completed, Mr. Speaker, and then to present the receipts and the invoices that are requested by officials in the minister's department to have the work completed. In fact, I am hearing from some home owners, Mr. Speaker, that they feel like they are criminals simply because a storm affected their homes, they suffered losses, and when they go to the officials in the minister's department they are not getting the satisfactory results that they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps saying that there is a federal program in place. Well, Mr. Speaker, if there is a federal program in place, why doesn't the hon. minister go to his federal counterparts -

MR. LANGDON: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I will tell you one thing, to this House and to the people in the public, that we are scrutinizing the bills that have been presented to us. We will not pay any person any bills that we cannot validate. It is a process. It is taxpayers dollars. We will go through it. We have to be accountable at the end and if we do not do it properly, then obviously, we will not be able to be -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East, on a point of order.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I may respond to what the minister just said.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member had his three minutes to present his petition and the hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. LUSH: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I thank the hon. the Government House Leader.

Mr. Speaker, what this petition indicates is that there are many residents in this region of the Province, in particular in this portion of the City of St. John's, who have not found any satisfaction or resolution to a problem, through which - was nothing to do through their own fault, Mr. Speaker. There was a natural occurrence, there was a natural event and they seek some assistance and help from a government that has been obviously insensitive and has not addressed the direct needs and concerns of the people of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition. The petition reads:

To the House of Assembly of Newfoundland in Legislative Session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland;

WHEREAS the roads in the areas of Jamestown and Winter Brook are in very poor condition and are in desperate need of paving;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland to pave approximately one kilometer of road in Jamestown and approximately six kilometers of road leading to, and including part of the community of Winter Brook, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, here are two communities - one that just celebrated their 100th Anniversary a couple of years ago. They are still waiting to get the main road to their community paved. This past year we seen two kilometers allotted by the minister to be paved coming up through the town of Winter Brook. The connection of the road from Winter Brook to Jamestown, which is approximately six kilometers left to be paved there, and they are asking the minister to look at putting this six kilometers in his budget for the coming fiscal year.

Mr. Speaker, there is a business on this particular road, a sawmill. It is one of the biggest sawmills in Newfoundland and Labrador. In talking with the owner of that particular sawmill, Mr. Dingwall, he informs me that the lumber that he produces at Jamestown Lumber, most of it goes south of the border into the United States. This is the only piece of dirt road that he has to contend with. It is causing great problems there with operating the sawmill, with the dust coming from the road and having to continue to sharpen his saws and knives and this sort of thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many kilometers of road?

MR. FITZGERALD: Six kilometers, I say to the minister, just six kilometers that need to be paved there. The road was never paved. It was upgraded approximately five years ago - upgraded and made ready for paving. People in the community fully expected their road to be paved the following year because that is the way that it was presented to them.

I suggest to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and I suggest to the Premier, that it is probably the cheapest six kilometers of road that will be paved in Newfoundland and Labrador. The roads are upgraded; the ditching has been done; the culverts have been put in; the Class A stone has been put on it. All they need is to put the finishing level of stone on this particular road and lay the pavement down.

The Member for Terra Nova knows full well of what I speak about here. It has been brought to his attention when he was the member there. The cry has been heard in this House for many years, Mr. Speaker, and I will continue to make it until the people living in those communities receive a decent road to drive over like everybody else in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a reasonable request and I fully support the petition presented here today on behalf of the people from Jamestown and Winter Brook.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House of the Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative session convened, to present a petition of the undersigned residents of the Connaigre Peninsula and supporters; and

WHEREAS current big game laws require non-residents of Newfoundland and Labrador to pay a fee that is approximately eight times that of residents for moose and fifteen times as much for caribou in the inland part of the Province and a licensed guide is required, but present laws permit non-residents small game hunting rights equivalent to those of residents at no extra cost;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to impose equivalent regulations concerning the hunting of small game by non-residents, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I support this petition because the people of the Connaigre Peninsula believe that the small game resource in this Province is as important as the big game resource. We can avail of the revenue that could come from this resource to do the necessary studies and research into the effects of the small game hunting pressure, and also the research and studies that are needed with respect to the effects of predation on our small game and exploring the different ways that we can expand our wildlife resources to make sure that we get the maximum amount of benefit from those resources.

Our small game resources are under a lot of hunting pressure in the Province. We want to make sure that if non-residents are going to come in and avail of these resources then they would be expected to pay a reasonable amount to be allowed to avail of these resources.

The people of the Connaigre Peninsula believe that people from outside our country, particularly the people on the South Coast coming from the Islands of St. Pierre et Miquelon - to hunt the partridge, the rabbit, the wildlife on the South Coast of our Province - that they would be required to pay a reasonable amount to have that privilege. When these people come from outside of our country, they come in large numbers with dogs combing the countryside looking for these small game. The people of Connaigre Peninsula believe it is time now that we maximize that benefit.

I support this petition, and I hope that the minister will put the mechanism in place to do something about it; to study it and find out if it is possible to do that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: When, Your Honour, was going through the Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given - my colleague asked me to do this. She stood up to give Answers to Questions but, Your Honour, obviously did not see her; but since she is not here we will have to let it go.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Order 18, Bill 40, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991." (Bill 40)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to support the initiatives outlined in this bill for the purposes of addressing changes in the bill, An Act To Amend The Uniformed Services Pensions Act. These provisions will, for the first time, allow some significant changes that were currently not available to police and correctional officers, and also some members of the St. John's Regional Fire Department.

The purposes of the amendment are to bring the Uniformed Services Pension Plan in compliance with certain provisions of the Pension Benefits Act, the act that regulates all pension plans in the Province, to facilitate the transfer of pensionable service from the plan for part-time employees who move on into full-time positions.

Mr. Speaker, government is committed to ensuring consistency of benefits for employees under government-sponsored pension plans where reasonably possible, and amending this plan to comply with the Pension Benefits Act will give members more flexible termination options and will give spouses of the deceased plan members more choices to accommodate their individual needs at the time.

Mr. Speaker, it will also facilitate the proper division of pensions by the courts, in cases of marriage breakdowns, thereby creating greater flexibility and protections for each of the partners.

As well, permitting full-time employees to receive credit for previous part-time service brings this plan in line with other plans for government employees.

Again I would say, Mr. Speaker, these changes are supported by the union. They have been ones, I know, that have been asked for, for a period of time. I would be happy to go through each of the pieces, but I believe these are good changes to the plans: plans that will allow these people now to move and transfer part-time into the full-time plan, and also, as I have pointed out, more benefits for members of deceased plan holders and, as well, in the case of marriage breakdown, it secures the income for people. I would be happy to answer any questions as the debate moves on.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise, too, to make a few comments and also to certainly ask a few questions that I am sure the minister, in closing of second reading, might want to comment on, or certainly with leave during the course of that, to be able to explain their rationale in certain instances here.

Overall, it appears fairly straightforward. There are areas where I think everybody would agree that it is important to have a consistency of benefits in certain plans within reasonable limits, to ensure that there are consistencies within the plan. With reference to a few of the points here: commuted value, that is defined under the Pension Benefits Act. That particular point is fairly straightforward.

Also it makes reference, in a particular section here, section 9.1 of the act, clause 4 of the bill, it goes on to mention under (c) "a return of the contributions made by that employee, with interest at a rate prescribed, for periods of pensionable service credited...". My understanding before, if you had five years, you could not get it back. That is my understanding, and right now somebody with less than five years can elect, within 180 days, a return of the contributions made by the employee for periods of pensionable service. They can, if you worked in the system and had benefits, for instance.

A subsequent section, I think, deals with it. If you had, let's say, four years, and later on you came back in the service again and you had taken out your pension, you can go back and buy up, basically pay for those years again for the service you already had before. I think that might be mentioned in clause 7 of the bill under section (6), if the minister is following there. It says, "A former employee with at least 5 years pensionable service whose employment terminated ... and who did not receive a refund of contributions may ... make the same election as a terminating employee under section 9.1."

In the bill, too, I say to the minister, under clause 5, section 10.(1), on the bottom of page 5 of the bill, "Where a person, who was covered under a pension plan established under this Act or a predecessor of this Act, ceased to be employed and received a payment or transfer on termination and later becomes an employee, that person may be credited with the prior pensionable service that he or she may elect to purchase in accordance with the terms and conditions that may be prescribed."

In other words, if someone was covered under the plan before, another act, ceased to be an employee and they come back again and work again, if they have received a payment or transfer or whatever, and they become an employee again, they have the right to be able to use that service too. I think that is the intent of that. That is how I see it. If that is the case, I certainly agree with that. If you worked in a service and had X number of years in the service and discontinued the service and came back again and got employed in the service again, you have the right to be able to use those earlier years that you had in the service there and be able to make that particular election to do that. That is my understanding on that particular one.

In clause 7 of the bill, I have a question. I am wondering if there is a renumbering that needs to be done here. In clause 7 of the bill, and I am referring now to the consolidated because the bill, the one listed, was in 1990. There was a consolidation of that in 1991. I am looking at the consolidated one, on The Uniformed Services Pension Act. Clause 7 of the bill, I say to the minister, says here - and hopefully the minister will be able to answer this - clause 7.(1) "Subsection 22(3) of the Act is repealed." In other words, number 1 in clause 7.(1) subsection 22(3) of the Act is repealed. So, if you repeal section 22.(3) in that act, and I am looking at that now, wouldn't section 4 now become section 3? And wouldn't they be numbered accordingly there? I would assume they would, if we are going to repeal a section, because this bill is not replacing that. Clause 7.(1) is not replacing subsection 22.(3) with another new wording. If that is repealed, the act now has in section 22, five different subsections, 22.(1) to 22.(5). They are adding in a new one called 6, as you can see here in this clause, so wouldn't that new one become 5, and then 5 and 4 move up to 3 and 4?

I know the semantics of it and the proper wording. I am wondering whether that should be the case, because I do not see anything replacing the section we are repealing there. Maybe the minister could make a note of that, too, and have that addressed there; because when we refer to a section in the future obviously we want to make sure that is the proper wording there.

With the consolidated version I made a note on it. I wanted to make sure that I have the exact sections that pertain there for future reference. I think we need to have that, of course, in the consolidated version.

Also, there is another interesting one here. I am just wondering - the minister, I am sure, has Bill 40 with her - if she also has Bill 59, because there is a question here in both of those bills that refers to the one section. It refers to the one section in the act. We are talking about The Uniformed Services Pension Act, Bill 40, the one that is now being debated. If the minister would look at clause 8, section 24.(2) "A deferred pensioner's entitlement is the pension he or she would have received had he or she been 65 years of age on the date of death." That is Section 24.(2) that is put in there. The clause we are dealing with, clause 8, says, "Section 24 of the Act is repealed...". So, Minister, we are repealing section 24 in the current act, and I have a copy here of the consolidated act, we are repealing the whole thing and replacing it with what is here. We are putting back under this new act, subsection 24.(2), the one that I just read.

If you open Bill 59, just for a minute, and you look at the last page of the bill, page 4, clause 4, it says, "Subsection 24(2) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted:...". Wouldn't that be both? Both bills repeal subsection 24.(2) of the act. Bill 40 repeals the whole section 24 of the act. This bill repeals 24.(2) and puts back in its place a new 24.(2) but it is not the same 24.(2) that is coming in under this new bill, so we have two bills now, both amending section 24.(2), one with one wording and one with a different wording. I would like to get an answer to know basically what we are debating here in the act. If that is a matter of getting that numbered correctly, I would certainly like to hear from the minister because it is kind of difficult to debate a particular section or clause when I see the same one being amended two different ways, by two different acts.

MR. J. BYRNE: Are they confused?

MR. SULLIVAN: They have me confused, I say to my colleague from Cape St. Francis, because Bill 40 and Bill 59 -

MR. TULK: That is not hard to do.

MR. SULLIVAN: Sometimes it is not, I say to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

When Bill 40 and Bill 50, section 24.(2) of the Uniform Services Pensions Act is amended in two different ways, it creates a problem for me because I do not know which section 2 we are going to talk about. You have two section 2's as I see it. I certainly will await an explanation from the minister on that. If she is working on it, or if she has one now, I would like to hear it. If not, I certainly can just make some other comments here in the meantime on this.

The basic act being debated here is to amend the Uniformed Services Pensions Act, and the general thrust of it, yes, I can certainly agree with, where the minister is coming from with government on this particular act, because there are certain discrepancies and inequities out there now in terms of pensions. I think we need to be able to allow those particular inequities to get addressed because if someone is into a specific - in other words, it gives more options even to the spouse of a pensioner. It gives certain options that were not there before. You are not locked into one specific thing.

In the case of death, if it is going to come back where there is no spouse or children surviving, it would go to the particular estate of that individual. We certainly cannot find any fault with supporting those types of things.

Some of the other sections here, section 30 of the act, clause 9 of the bill, is certainly bringing it in line with marriage breakdown - as the minister referenced - with setting aside and setting out here exactly what would happen in that specific case.

On the specific issues here we do not have a major problem at all, but there are two things - I will just repeat them once more before I sit down, just to make sure. The minister might be able to address these when she has the opportunity to stand up again.

The first point I made was, if the bill should be renumbered differently in the act, in section 24 of the Uniformed Services Pensions Act, if we are repealing clause 3, if it is being repealed, wouldn't the other numbers move up accordingly?

The last one I asked, and once again repeat, Bill 40 and Bill 59 both amend the Uniformed Services Pensions Act. Bill 40 repeals the whole thing and replaces it with another one, and Bill 59 just amends section 24.(2).

I will just await an explanation. Maybe there is a valid explanation. If there is, I would certainly like the minister to indicate that. I cannot see one there myself, to be honest with you, an explanation for that, other than it might be an oversight.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER (Ms Hodder): The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I stand in my place today to say a few words on Bill 40, An Act To Amend The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991. I have been looking forward to getting on my feet and saying a few words on this bill and many other bills. In particular, I am waiting for the Public Tender Act to be called, Bill 25. I am really interested in that bill.

MR. E. BYRNE: I don't think they are going to call it.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I am sad to say, if they won't call it, I don't know if they are afraid to call it, Madam Speaker, but I have been very much looking forward to speaking on the changes to the proposed Bill 25, the changes to the Public Tender Act, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

I will say this. I will qualify the few comments I will make in that, on a finance bill such as this, the House will give us some latitude to speak on most any concern or finance concern with respect to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the policies of the government in power today, and the policies that they should have in place.

With respect to Bill 40, An Act To Amend The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, the Member for Ferryland made some good points with respect to the concerns that he had. I will not beleaguer those points, Madam Speaker, other than to say that it is too bad that this government has not done something with respect to the public service pensioners. We know that these people have been fighting for a decent increase for the past ten or twelve years and have not received any increase worth talking about. These people are on a fixed income. They have not had an increase for years and years. We know that the cost of living has increased dramatically over the years and this government has done nothing to address the concerns of those individuals. I have supported it in the past, and members on this side of the House have supported an increase to these individuals, but for some reason this government has refused to address it. As a matter of fact, during the last election these people, the public service pensioners, were promised some action after the election. What happened? Typically, broken promises by the Liberal government.

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about the polities of this Administration. I am amused, every time I hear the Premier of the Province, every chance he gets, standing in the House of Assembly here, in the media, talking about this group, the Opposition, the PCs of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Official Opposition, having no policies. That is not quite true. I want to remind the Premier, it is not true at all, because in the last election we put out a policy manual that the people in the Province, the critics, even the CBC panel with Mr. Fenwick, who said that this policy manual has substance and that the Liberal policy manual had none.

I have to say this, and I do not remember the date, but this past spring the Premier of this Province stood in his place in this House of Assembly and actually made this statement. I could not believe it, Madam Speaker. He made this statement, and I am sure the people will not believe it either, and it was confirmed again today by the Deputy Premier, he said what he would do, before the next election, is have in place all of our policies and we would have none for the next election. That is their plan. They are void of ideas.

MR. TULK: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TULK: Madam Speaker, I just want to clarify, through a point of order, what the hon. gentleman has said: The Liberal Party has always been willing to take good ideas regardless of where they come from. Obviously, we implement all of the Blue Book. All of our own were twice as good as yourselves, and what is the need of electing it. The poll today shows that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The real Premier is not around, Madam Speaker. The real Premier is in Ottawa, Mr. Tobin. Now we have the Premier of the Province, the Member for Exploits - anyway, Madam Speaker, I want to talk about the policies. The former Premier of the Province, the Deputy Premier today, actually stood in his place and made an announcement that these people, the government members sitting in this House of Assembly today, are void of ideas to get the economy going in this Province, to revitalize Newfoundland and Labrador. They are void of any ideas. They had to take our policies, and they have the gall and the audacity to stand here and say that we have no policies. I will go through a few.

I would expect this Administration to continue reading our policies and continue to implement out policies, and this Province would be far better off.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Just to give you an example of a few of the policies -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Madam Speaker, the Deputy Premier and members on the other side of the House, I know, have a problem when they hear the truth. They have a problem with the truth and they are accepting our policies. When they asked for our policies and they adopted our policies and we are standing here to tell them about our policies, they have a problem with that, Madam Speaker. I will just go through a few and talk about the last election.

I remember during the last election when we recommended in our policy manual - listen now, right from the book - for the record, a PC government will immediately reduce the personal income tax rate by 5 percentage points. During the election the Premier of the Province at the time, and all the ministers over there and all the people that were running for them said: Where can we get the money? We cannot do it. It cannot be implemented. Within two or three months after the election, what did they do? Madam Speaker, they took the policy that they said could not be done. There you go, adopting ours, saying one thing and doing another. Just for a vote during the election. They were not upfront, Madam Speaker. They were not upfront with the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is one policy.

Also, for the record, in the policy manual, Madam Speaker, it says here: A PC government will eliminate the payroll tax. It is a regressive tax. This government introduced the payroll tax. They said that they could not reduce the payroll tax or get rid of the payroll tax during the last election; but, Madam Speaker, right after the election they decided to cut the payroll tax by a certain amount.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Are you talking about the pension bill?

MR. J. BYRNE: I will say to the Minister of Finance, she has been in this House of Assembly for some time now, she should know by now, I would think - although I hear her sometimes in the media, I am not quite sure she knows a lot about her department. She should know with a finance bill there is a lot of latitude given to the speaker to talk about government policies, to talk about the various expenses, Madam Speaker. She should know this. She is trying to interject and take up my time, but we will forgive her for today.

The personal income tax; I want to make a comment that our finance critic, the Member for Ferryland, I do believe, when they cut the payroll tax they took in some $75 million - is that correct? - in extra money when they cut the payroll tax. When they cut the income tax by five points they took in an extra $75 million?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well $65 million was taken in, but I mean -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, $65 million. Forgive me, but the intent in our policy was to cut the income tax and we would have more revenue coming into the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. During the election, members on the opposite said that could not happen. The Government House Leader just told her that I was correct; again, Madam Speaker. I noticed that when the Minister of Finance is on the other side of the House, when there are questions asked to her we have the former Minister of Finance -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I just want to say for clarification, that I conferred with the House Leader on the next order of business. I did not seek any concurrence to justify what the Member for Cape St. Francis was saying. Further, Madam Speaker, for the interest of the people of the Province listening, we are talking about a very important issue about uniform services pension plans and I was having difficulty finding relevancy. I was just asking, on behalf of the people of the Province, what the correlation was between his Blue Book and a new bill for the uniform services pension people of the Province?

MADAM SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: To the point of order raised by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

The relevancy of the member's comments are, in fact, real and extremely relevant. When it comes to the discussion or any discussion or amendments on pension plans, whether it is the Public Service Pension Plan or the uniform pension plan, our ability to continue to fund those plans, to look at the unfunded liability of those plans, directly depends upon the type of economic plan that a government puts forward. What the member is directly speaking about, Madam Speaker, is the type of economy that this government is developing that will, in fact, enable us to continue to fund those plans or to take care of the unfunded liability of those plans. In fact, Madam Speaker, when it comes to this issue, and the issue of finances in this Legislature, I submit to, Your Honour, that the Member for Cape St. Francis is not only relevant, but maybe, in fact, more correct than the minister is giving him credit for.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Again, the Minister of Finance, being on her feet is being incorrect in the statements that she makes, as she so often is incorrect in her statements.

As we all know, Madam Speaker, when we talk about the Uniformed Services Pension Plan, or any government pension plan, many of them are underfunded. We know that. The revenues that the government bring in directly relate to their policies, and that is what I am speaking on here today, and I will continue to do so.

Now, Madam Speaker, they talked about eliminating the payroll tax. Our policy again.

Madam Speaker, during the last election, in our manual, we talked about the minimum wage. We said that we would increase the minimum wage. The government members, all ministers, the Minister of Finance at the time, the Premier today, and the former Premier, said that we could not increase the minimum wage. Where would we get the money? What are they doing now? Adopting another one of our policies.

Madam Speaker, we also talked about establishing a child advocate. Again, in their policy manual, in which the critics said there was very little substance - we have the Premier of the Province today saying that he is adopting our policies, so we will have no policies in the next election. Now, how childish, immature and simple-minded is that, I say to you, Madam Speaker, that they want us to take all of our ideas and give them to them, and then stand in their places and say that we have no policies. Really, Madam Speaker! I have been looking forward to getting on my feet and talking about that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, I know.

Madam Speaker, we have another situation which was more recently. I think it was in September month. Again, this government talks about all they are going to do for the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Talk is cheap. Now we have maybe thousands of people whose properties were damaged by the recent flood in September; Gabrielle I think it was. We still have people in the Province trying to get straightened away, putting in their claims, Madam Speaker, and having them sent back for all kinds of minor details. The Minister of Municipal Affairs can stand in this House of Assembly and say it is not happening, but in reality many are only getting 70 per cent. The people who cannot afford to go out and get the work done are only going to get 70 per cent of the cost. That is unfair. And this Administration talks about fairness and balance.

This Administration was on a real movement, I suppose, to ship bulk water out of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Again, the Premier of the Province, the present Premier, contradicting what they said in the last election, that they would not ship bulk water out of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. All of the sudden that is on the agenda again, Madam Speaker. Finally, after all kinds of opposition from this side of the House, from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, from the Member for St. John's South presenting petitions, they are somewhere in between again, with respect to the shipment of bulk water. If we do something right for a change, which this Administration has a poor record of doing, we may be able to rejuvenate the economy in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Hopefully, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation gets the Public Tender Act on the table. Also, we talked about cutting taxes during the last election. It couldn't be done. They are doing it here. We talked about making health care a priority one. Finally, Madam Speaker, we saw the Premier today talking about health care being priority one in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

These are only some of the policies that we have had in our manual that have been adopted, Madam Speaker, and there are many, many more. I can go through many, many more here, but they have the book and hopefully they will continue to read our policy manual and adopt more and more policies. We don't mind on this side of the House, Madam Speaker, if they adopt all of the policies in our manual. We, on this side of the House, certainly can come up with ways to rejuvenate rural Newfoundland, to get the economy going in rural Newfoundland.

We have a piece of legislation that may be called today with respect to the EDGE program and Zone 19. Again they are looking to exclude Zone 19 from the EDGE program to a certain extent, but expand on it in rural Newfoundland. Madam Speaker, I really don't know where they are coming from half the time.

I want to make a few comments now because I may not get an opportunity to speak to the Public Tender Act, because I am not sure that it is going to be called. We only have a few days left.

MR. LUSH: It will be called.

MR. J. BYRNE: It will be called?

MR. LUSH: It will be called.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, I am glad to hear that the Government House Leader is saying that it will be called, because, again, we talk about the pensions in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not only the Uniformed Services Pensions Plan that we have problems with - there is the government services pension - and what we have seen over the past few years with this Administration, Madam Speaker, is the waste of millions of dollars by this Administration. Millions and millions of dollars.

Now, I can talk about $22 million but I will not. I will just talk about $11 million with respect to claims in the court system because of the abuses and the disrespect and the contempt that this Administration has for the Public Tender Act. We have the Trans City, which cost the people of this Province some $5 million. The Premier of this Province is a part of the Cabinet that cost the people of this Province $5 million. We talk about health care in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Premier was up today talking about it, and how it is underfunded. Well, I will say this to the Premier: When the federal government, the counterparts in Ottawa, changed the formula to a per capita basis rather than a needs basis, this government did nothing, said nothing. As a matter of fact, the former Premier, Mr. Tobin, was involved with that decision, and that is impacting upon us today in a very negative light. We heard the Minister of Finance talk about it in the news this morning. We heard her refer to it in the newspapers, how the CHST is negatively impacted upon in this Province.

We talk about the equalization payments, Madam Speaker. Again, a negative impact upon the funding for the pension programs in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is all connected. The whole economy is connected. The revenues, the expenditures, and the policies of this Administration are all connected.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Madam Speaker, the Government House Leader wants to know the interest of this Bill 40. Now, we have covered that. It is the Uniformed Services Pensions Plan that we have been talking about here and, to my mind, the money that we need to fund this program. Again, for the Government House Leader to understand what we are saying here, that the revenues taken in by this Province, the policies of this government and the expenditures of this Administration are all connected. If we do not have the revenues based on the policies of this Administration -

MR. LUSH: A point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Speaker, I am rather reluctant to rise on a point of order at this point. I did not want to interfere with the hon. gentleman, but he has been speaking now for fifteen minutes or so, and not once has he talked about the principle of this bill.

I want to say to hon. members that, when we are in second reading, we are to address the principle of the bill. Of course one doesn't mind too much a little meandering from time to time to make a point, but the hon. gentleman has not once made reference to the principle of this bill, and I would suggest, Your Honour, that is not following the rules of this House.

I think if we are to use the time wisely, to use our time economically, to use our time prudently, that we have to follow the rules of this House which suggest - not suggest, I am sorry - which demand, that on second reading we talk about the principle of the bill, and this is what we should be listening for. This is what the viewing public want to hear, what this particular bill is about, Madam Speaker, An Act To Amend The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991. I would suggest that nobody in this House, if they did not know what this bill is about, certainly are none the wiser by listening to the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, responding to the point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The Official Opposition can hardly be accused, by the Government House Leader, of not debating and using this House in this Session, using the time before us economically. This House has been open, or is scheduled to be open for sixteen days. Four of those are private member's days, twelve of those, in other words, are parliamentary days where we discuss government business. To date, this is the tenth parliamentary day where we are discussing parliamentary business or legislation before us.

Government has put forward an ambitious agenda on major public policy issues. In ten days, I say to the Government House Leader and to the Premier, we have concluded first, second, committee stage, and third reading on thirteen bills. We have concluded first and second reading -

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: To your point of order; I am getting to your point of order. I am dealing with your point of order, I say to the Government House Leader.

Eleven more bills have been debated and discussed in first and second reading, and committee stage. The point of order that the Government House Leader raises in terms of not using the House and the time before us economically and wisely we hardly could be criticized of doing that, of misusing or abusing the rules before us.

The issue before us today is an issue - the bill that the member is discussing, an Act To Amend The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, is a finance bill. There is a long-standing tradition in this House, and the Government House Leader knows this. He knows it. When he was in Opposition, like the Deputy Premier and others, they know it. On a finance bill it is not meandering - to use the member's term. In terms of latitude on a finance bill, Madam Speaker, any member in the House, whether it be a private member on the government backbench, whether it be a minister, whether it be a critic, whether it be the members with respect to the NDP, he knows that on this issue, on finance bills, that any and each member has the right to discuss any issue and relate it back to the issue before it is in this bill. That is the tradition. That is the practice and we will not stand here and let this government, or the House Leader, accuse us of not using or abusing, economically, the time of this House because the record clearly shows something else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis; and I remind the hon. member that his time is up now.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, just to clue up?

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to conclude?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am tempted to begin my comments this afternoon on this very important amendment to the bill by following in a comment that my uncle used to make when we worked on the farm. That is: You will go nowhere if you are going to follow a cow around the meadow. All I have heard for the last hour is someone following a cow around the meadow and nothing to do with the bill that we are trying to speak about.

Madam Speaker, it is very important that this amendment go through. This amendment is designed to take care of the workers in this Province, in particular those in the Uniformed Services Pension Plan. It is designed to help those who are part of the government money purchase plan to transfer their service time over to the Uniformed Services Pension Plan. That will allow a lot of individuals who come into government, as many people do, as part-time workers - many individuals have become part of the civil service by joining the civil service as a part-time employee.

We decided, as a government in 1989, that to be fair to those employees there must be some protection for them towards their pensions as well. We must do something to ensure that an individual who has come into a government program, and who has worked for some five, six, or seven years, that their term of service was worth something, because it is possible for an individual to join an organization, such as government, and work there five, ten, or fifteen years before they receive, what we would call, permanent status. Upon receiving that though, it is important that the time that they had spent or the time that they had worked for government was recognized. We did that back in 1989 by introducing the Government Money Purchase Pension Plan. That was designed to help those part-time employees. These are people who could very easily have worked anywhere within the government services or indeed with the teachers as well. The could have easily worked in schools. They could have worked there as teachers substituting for someone on - be it maternity leave or off on sickness. A teacher goes in, a student teacher goes in or a teacher begins their career that way. They start on a part-time basis.

So far this afternoon I have heard so many items discussed and I have heard so many things left out. I would be reluctant to stand here this afternoon if I were in Opposition. I would be reluctant to stand here, wave about and quote from a blue book that was used in the last election and that was resoundingly rejected by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: The people of Newfoundland and Labrador said: We don't like what you are putting forward. We disagree with what you are putting forward. We don't want what you are putting forward. They said to the Liberals go forward, we agree with your plan. However, there may be some things that you may wish to build on. As a good Liberal government we can build on those concepts and ideas.

I did not hear anything about the - I heard about things that we had left out. I heard nothing about the $50 million new dollars that have gone into health care; not heard that mentioned this afternoon. I have heard of other issues. I have not heard that we have increased Newfoundland and Labrador Housing's budget from $5 million to $7 million to take care of those individuals who are most in need of housing; not heard that this afternoon. I will not go into those things. I will stay with the bill. I will stay with the amendment.

What we have to do is ensure that those individuals who were lucky enough to gain employment within the civil service, are able now to take their pension dollars, to take the funds that they have paid into the Government Money Purchase Plan and allow them and afford them the opportunity to prepare for their retirement that may come within twenty-five years of service, permitting them to count all their service towards their pension. That, we believe as a government, is the right thing to do. We believe that it is only right, fair and proper for those individuals to look forward to a retirement as anyone would after twenty-five years. If you were an employee, for example, who worked in The Uniformed Services Pension or someone who worked with the penitentiaries, after twenty-five years of service you would want to be able to go out and have the maximum of pension.

So today, as opposed to moving this legislation forward, as opposed to moving this amendment so that we can get on and allow those people to plan for their futures, so that they know themselves that in twenty-five years they themselves - or maybe ten years or five years left of service - will have an opportunity to reap the benefits of the work that they have preformed for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The concept is so simple, you take the Government Money Purchase Plan that people have paid into for x number of years, and with this amendment we allow them to move those funds from there over to The Uniformed Services Pension Plan to allow those individuals to take advantage.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose there are a certain amount of liberties permitted when you are talking about a money bill. There are certain liberties permitted so that you can wander as if you were following a cow through a field, but I think this one is a little too important to be chewing up the time of this Legislature and to be pulling up the time of this Legislature. We are much better off moving forward and giving those individuals an opportunity to go into Christmas knowing that this amendment has been accepted by this House, has been passed by this House, and that they themselves can now plan for their retirement because they will now be able to transfer their pensions to the pension plan of their choice.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my comments. I think the issue is more important to have resolved here today than to wander for the rest of the afternoon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): A point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to be clear for the record. The Government House Leader knows this, and I am about to tell the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island. I do not want the impression left here today, on this particular Bill 40, that we are not supportive or are, in some way, shape or form, trying to delay the passage of it.

The critic has already said, and it was communicated to the Government House Leader before, that there will be two speakers on this. We have a role here. The role is to debate the merits and demerits of legislation. The Government House Leader knows already that we support this bill, and any suggestion otherwise by any member opposite is just not true.

At the same time, when legislation is brought before the House, as the Official Opposition, are members opposite trying to say that because they believe it is good unto itself then we should not debate it, and that we should not look at the merits and demerits of it? Is that what the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island is saying? If he is not, fair enough. I want to be clear, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, that we will not stand here and let any member opposite try to paint a picture of our position on a particular piece of legislation that is not true, particularly in view of the fact that we have already told the government that we will support the speedy passage of this bill.

MR. LUSH: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I am quite aware that the Official Opposition is supporting this bill, and that is not the point in question. The point in question is to expedite the bill, not to waste time, because that is what we were talking about. I am not suggesting that every person on the Opposition was wasting time. I got up on a point of order when the Member for Cape St. Francis was speaking, who, in my opinion, was not speaking to the bill. It is as simple as that.

I suggested that, so that in the future in second reading we all, as members, have a duty to try and follow the rules and procedures of this House, when on second reading we are supposed to talk about the principle of the bill. That is the only point I was making and will continue to make.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Not to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, on debate.

MR. SPEAKER: It seems to me that there is no point of order per se, but there is a difference of opinion between the two House Leaders. I would suggest perhaps that they might wish to confer and to come to a resolution, and perhaps not take up the time of this Assembly.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was listening avidly to the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island talking about cows. It seemed to me that he spent most of his time chewing the cud and not talking about the substance of the bill at all.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well, I was not being the Grinch, I suggest to the Minister of Finance. The Grinch yesterday was Paul Martin and the Liberal government in Ottawa, your first cousins, the ones who you folks across the way have delivered for twelve years, a Liberal government, and yet they could not care less. They have a tin ear when it comes to the concerns raised by the Minister of Finance and by the Premier, and by the former Premier who obviously is not in very good standing with the real Grinch in Ottawa, the Minister of Finance, who holds the purse strings. If things were a little different, we would have done better yesterday from the federal Minister of Finance and from the federal Liberal government.

I do want to talk about the bill itself. I think it is an important piece of legislation, and I hope that we do give it second reading today because the principles contained in the bill are important to those who are in receipt of pensionable service from the government. There are significant improvements to the circumstances of employees who are covered by this legislation, and we are talking here about the police force, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, the St. John's firefighters, which cover the St. John's regional firefighting system, and the Penitentiary warders who are covered by the Uniformed Services Pensions Act.

There are some provisions specific to the Uniformed Services Pensions Act, given the nature of their service and the pensionable age of forty-five years of age because of the conditions. There are some important changes here which will allow for the flexibility in dealing with employees who, prior to their full participation in the Uniformed Services Pensions Plan, were employed in the public service and paid into the Government Money Pension Plan, which is a very different kind of animal than the deferred benefits plan covered here. So, it is important that these changes be made to allow the portability of pensions service between the Government Money Purchase Plan and the Uniformed Services Pensions Plan.

Portability of pensions, Mr. Speaker, and I know within the government service there is an attempt to ensure that there is a portability of pensions within the government service, and this is one more brick in that House of trying to provide for the taking of a pension from one form of service to another, but within the public service we seem to be working toward that. But we do have in the private sector a high degree of lack of portability from one pension plan to another. I think, in the overall scheme of things, the importance of pensions is becoming more and more evident to the people in our population.

Many people, unfortunately, do not have work-related pensions or service-related pensions despite working many, many years for an employer. For those who do, portability of a pension plan, if they work for one employer for a period of four or five years, work for another employer for a period of four or five years, if they are fortunate enough to be working in a place where there is a pension plan in place or they are working in a collective bargaining circumstance where their union has negotiated pension rights as part of the benefits packet, then there really ought to be a greater degree of portability of pensions generally in the private sector as well as in the public sector.

We have made significant improvements in the Pensions Benefits Act in 1997, and this legislation here brings the Uniformed Services Pensions Act in line with the provisions of the Pensions Benefits Act, 1997, which is, I think, a very positive thing, particularly when we have benefits provided upon termination of employment, the Pensions Benefits Act should be the guiding principle because they are the ones that apply generally to everyone.

We also have certain real complexities in dealing with matters upon the termination or the breakdown of the marriage for someone who has a pension. Very tangly is the issue of survivor benefits and what happens to survivor benefits in the event of a death of the pensioner. This act here deals with that, bringing it in line again with the Pensions Benefits Act, to the extent that is possible.

We hope, Mr. Speaker, that we will move speedily to pass this bill, and to try and bring all of our pension benefits legislation to a sense of uniformity and conformity so that there is a true portability between one pension plan and another in the public sector. We really should start looking at the complete portability of pensions under the Pensions Benefits Act, 1997, because that would ensure that people who do have broken service, a service with one employer, then another, perhaps in the public service and then in the private sector, that by bringing one type of pension into the other a person can maintain their years of service and maintain a proper pension for them when they retire and take advantage of the pension benefits that they have accrued from their work. Pensions, after all, are deferred salary, deferred benefits from employment into retirement years, and with the increase in life expectancy and the options for early retirement in many cases our pension benefits are going to determine, to a very large extent, the style of life that we are going to be able to live in our retirement.

Those are my comments, Mr. Speaker, on Bill 40, The Uniformed Services Pensions Act amendment. In saying so, I move by saying that we support the amendments and support the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the minister speaks now, she will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just with respect to a couple of the questions that were raised, I am glad to hear that members on all sides of the House are supporting this very important amendment to The Uniformed Services Pensions Act.

With respect to the numbering, as was asked in the first commentary, the numbering is not generally changed unless the whole bill is consolidated. As you can imagine, with the hundreds and hundreds of pieces of legislation, it would be quite a task to rewrite all of those pieces of legislation. Generally, it is only upon consolidation that they are renumbered. In events where they are not consolidated, they just write repealed and move on to the next number. That is the first question.

With respect to the second point, about clause 24.(2), and the differences between this bill and another bill. I can say that if the member was to look at the deadline on Bill 59, or rather Royal Assent of that, it is coming into effect on January 1, 2002. That bill will then supercede this current bill which we have proposed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill 59.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Bill 59. Subsection 24.(2) will supercede, in Bill 59, subsection 24.(2) in Bill 40 because of the assent date. You can see that really what we have done is just changed again, to keep in line its consolidation with the Public Service Pension Plan. What it does is that it allows for CPP deductions not to occur now until age sixty-five. As members opposite would know, prior to this, members, pensioners, or deferred pensioners, or spouses of deceased pensioners would often have CPP deductions at age sixty. Now we are making it uniform so that those deductions will not occur now until age sixty-five, regardless of the age of the spouse or the deferred pensioner at the time of death. That is the amendment that we are doing.

The timing issue is important because Bill 40 was written before Bill 59. As a result of that, we consolidated both of them. I can address this again, because we are speaking to another bill. I just wanted to offer that as a point of clarification in second reading.

I now move second reading, but I would be happy to answer any other questions when we go to Committee.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 40)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Order 25, second reading of Bill 59.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991." (Bill 59)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to introduce amendments to both the Public Service Pensions Act and the Uniformed Services Pensions Act, which will modify the application in reductions in pensions under the Public Service and the Uniformed Services Pension Act for receipt of benefits under the Canada Pension Plan. I previously referred to this when speaking to Bill 40.

These amendments were requested by both the Public Service Pensioners Association as well as the public sector unions during their most recent round of collective bargaining. Government has committed to respond to the needs of the plan members under its various pension plans. Again, this is only with respect to government's publicly-funded pension plans.

Under the proposed amendments, pensioners who retire early, or are on disability pensions, will not have their pensions reduced for CPP until they reach age sixty-five, regardless of when they apply for benefits under the Canada Pension Plan. This is certainly seen as a benefit. It will be seen as a benefit for pensioners, and we are very pleased to put forward this amendment.

Similarly, survivors of employees or pensioners who die before reaching age sixty-five also will not have the survivor benefit reduced by CPP until such time as the deceased plan member would have reached age sixty-five. Concurrently, the benefits from both the Uniformed Services Pensions Plan and the Public Service Pensions Plan are reduced when the individual starts to draw the Canada Pension Plan. This process was really done on a voluntary basis as pensioners made it known to the department that they were in receipt of CPP. Obviously, there were some pensioners who did not make that information known, and therefore it was an inconsistent approach to applying the legislation. This amended legislation will make sure that the benefit reductions are not applied for anyone until they reach the age of sixty-five. This will provide pensioners who retire before age sixty-five with more income until they reach age sixty-five. Again, we see this as a very positive move, one that is made at the request of both the public sector pensioners, as well as the pubic sector unions. It would be seen as a direct improvement, and I would urge members in the House to support this amendment to both the Public Service Pensions Plan and the Uniformed Services Pensions Plan.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know I can get to this in Committee on another bill. I know we are on Bill 59, but I gather what the minister has indicated is that, on this particular bill, subsection 24.(2) is going to come into effect on January 1, 2002. Let's say both of them are proclaimed before Christmas. Bill 40, referring to subsection 24.(2) of the act, will come into effect until the end of December and on January 1, then, the Uniformed Services Pensions Act, the section 24.(2) as amended here, will follow that particular one and will render that, the same effect as repealing it. Basically, it would supercede that. I think that is what the minister is indicating there.

Because it has not given any particular effective date on the other bill, I assume Bill 40 is going to take effect when it is proclaimed, or when it gets Royal Assent. I gather Bill 40 is going to be proclaimed prior to January 1. If not, you will have a bill that comes into effect before another bill superceding it, when one is proclaimed after it, and that would not make sense. That would be the cart before the horse.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: We would never put the cart before the horse.

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister said they would never put the cart before the horse. I think that is a matter of opinion, I might add. The minister is used to backing up on a lot of issues so I would say she probably does put the cart before the horse.

A particular part of this bill is positive because the way it stands right now, my understanding is that if you do not notify our pensions division, our government, that you are drawing a pension, your Canada Pension that you are taking advantage of at the age of sixty, you still have your full pension and you did not get your clawback for a pension that is integrated. All pension plans now under government are integrated, to my knowledge. All are, I think. The MHAs plan was integrated; it was stacked before. The teachers was stacked and now it is integrated, I think. They are all integrated right now.

If someone did not, on the honour system, indicate they were getting Canada Pension, you found that you were getting clawback on your provincial pension because you were getting Canada Pension at age sixty. That was not fair. The reason that was not fair is because, if you wait until sixty-five you got a bigger pension; if you took it early, at age sixty, you got a smaller pension. Why should you have to be getting clawed back for five years on the amount of money just because someone did not report they were getting it? There were inconsistencies and I think this legislation will address those inconsistencies now and we will see that everybody will be treated equal under this particular act. When you are sixty-five, it will automatically happen.

What about, it just came to mind there and I am not sure - in which you would have reached sixty-five. So, if you decided to continue working after sixty-five, I guess, I am not sure what happens now. Would you still pay into Canada Pension if you were still working? I would assume. After sixty-five it would just stop then, and you are not eligible to receive Canada Pension if you are still working, basically.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: No, but I am just thinking that it does not make sense to say that you will receive. If somebody was still working at some other job after that and they had not even received it, would their other pension from the public service be reduced anyway?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I am not. I am talking about anybody in particular. It certainly does not apply to my colleague, I say to the minister. It defiantly does not apply. In fact, I do not think it applies to anybody here in this House of Assembly, to my knowledge, but what happened if you worked beyond, you took another job after sixty-five, went out and worked at another job and you do not draw Canada Pension but you are getting a public service pension. I say to the minister, would that clawback on your provincial pension then occur, if you were out working somewhere else and not getting Canada Pension?

How can you claw back some pension because they are getting Canada Pension when they are not getting Canada Pension, if they get it after sixty five, which is, I think, a logical question to ask. I say to the minister, I would assume that you would have to notify, and there are methods through the income tax system to know who is working and who is not, to which the Province has access because they are a recipient of this, to know if someone is working, and therefore it would not apply, I would assume. Why should you have to pay a clawback on your pension because of a Canada Pension you are not receiving? Maybe the minister might be able to just check that out, in answering it, or maybe in Committee would give her more time just to see what the situation is, because it is nice to know that just for general information. We all do not profess to know every single thing about how the systems operate. There are experts in each department that can certainly provide answers on that.

Also, it goes on to mention - and this is pretty fair, too, I must say - "Subsection 23(2) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted...", that it would apply, "...the reduction shall be applied to his or her pension entitlement on the first day of the month following the month in which he or she would have reached 65 years and the survivor benefit shall be adjusted accordingly."

If someone, for example, passed away at the age of fifty-five or fifty-two and at the age of sixty-five, if they would have reached that, if they passed away at the age of fifty-two, in thirteen years' time that adjustment would only kick in for the survivor or the recipient of that . That is logical there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: If the minister feels what I am saying is not accurate, I certainly do not mind -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I do have an hour but I do not mind. I do not intend to use it, to be honest with you, and I certainly do not mind giving leave in my time if someone has any statement to the contrary of what I am saying, that it may not be accurate. I would only be delighted to hear the truer version, if my interruption is not correct. I think the minister made reference to that too.

In the third clause of the bill - the last two clauses deal with the Uniformed Services Pensions Act; the first two clauses dealt with the Public Service Pensions Act - under that it just makes reference to.... The second one is the one that we talked about earlier when I asked a question in Bill 40. In Bill 40, we are repealing subsection 24 and in this act we are repealing subsection 24.(2). Technically, the first act repeals it all and puts in a new one, and that is going to be into effect, I am assuming, before this act; so this act then is going to repeal 24.(2), must be of the new act, the one that is going to come in first, if it is going to repeal that, and this is going to come in on January 1.

It does make it a little bit cumbersome legislation when we are repealing two sections of two different acts being dealt with in the Legislature on the one day. One is going to come into effect on January 1, assuming it is proclaimed before that, which we assume it will be. The other one we do not know when it is going to be proclaimed or when it is going to get Royal Assent. We would assume that it is going to happen before Christmas, if it is going to supersede it. Apart from the specifics of dealing with it administratively, we do support the changes here in this particular one. I think they are positive changes overall.

While we are on the topic of Canada Pension, I would like to add, we are finding that the Canada Pension Plan rates are going up at an alarming rate. We have seen where contributions are very heavily taxed - I use the word ‘taxed' in a general sense - while federally, when someone takes home a paycheque, they are finding that we are talking about a reduction in Employment Insurance, EI premiums, as we call it today. There is a reduction in EI premiums, but the federal government is tacking on and putting up Canada Pension premiums at a faster rate than EI is going down. So that is giving us less disposable income, less real income to take home, and it is equating into less dollars on our paycheque, and that certainly doesn't help.

At the same time, we have an EI fund - and I am equating this in terms of deductions and Canada Pension for its relevancy here in this act. It is a shame when we have such a huge surplus in one particular fund and we are only very marginally reducing EI premiums to employees and to employers, when we are jacking up our Canada Pension Plan at a faster rate. Our premium is there. So, I must say, it is kind of difficult to expect employees out there to be able to take home a reasonable cheque. It is really basically a tax. When you are paying more money in premiums, if it is in the case of EI, than is needed to sustain a program, to me that is a tax.

That is the same as a tax that was put on yesterday by the federal minister, that was announced yesterday, the same as a tax that is going to tax people who get on an airplane. It is very similar. You pay $12 if you want to go to Halifax, an extra tax. You get on an airplane in Halifax to come back to the Province, $12 more dollars. That is on top of airport taxes that we have just seen introduced. So to go to Halifax and come back now it is $50 extra just in taxes, new taxes, not counting almost a monopoly in airlines that has driven tickets through the roof, driven them through the ceiling. It is ridiculous, I might add, and we have got to start seeing this government stand up on those hidden taxes and indirect taxes. We are being suffocated, we are being choked to death, with taxes that they are not even calling taxes anymore. They are calling them fees.

MR. JOYCE: It is for security, boy.

MR. SULLIVAN: Eighty-two per cent of Canadians, I say to the Member for Bay of Islands, said in a poll, a very indepth poll, that they would place their health before security in this country. That is what the public said. That is 82 per cent.

MR. JOYCE: It is for security, boy. It is logical.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is a tax. Whatever it is, it is a tax.

What about the person out in rural Newfoundland who has hardly seen an airplane, who is wondering where they are going to get food to put on the table. What difference is that to them? We should deal with priorities. When we spend public dollars, we should spend it on priorities. Security is important, yes, but it is not more important than health care and it should not be more important than health care. The jobs that are stimulating the economy are important, and that is what we should be focused on. That is why we have been gypped in this budget announced yesterday, and that is why people are suffering and having less disposable income coming into their households here, because we have been ignored. We are 1.8 per cent of the Canadian population. Our population is going down, and it is projected to go down in the future. We just hope it doesn't happen, because transfers to us depend on population.

The Finance Minister stated on the news this morning, she stated yesterday in the media, and in The Telegram today, that they went along with the CHST, and the minister said: Signed an agreement. The Premier signed an agreement with the assurance that they are going to change the transfers coming into us on equalization. That was the agreement. That is what is in print. That is what is on tape. And the Premier stands up and says there is no agreement: I signed no agreement. Can somebody tell us basically - one day they are saying one thing. The minister stands up and tells the negotiating team -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It is a very sensible question.

The minister goes out one day and says to collective bargaining: What you get in collective bargaining is 3 per cent, (inaudible) that is it. There is nobody who gets any more. It all comes out of that package and the Premier goes out and does something different. They are on different wavelengths. You have to get to the Premier and the Finance Minister - Mr. Speaker, the two of them have to sit down some time and get on the one wavelength. Then the minister goes out again and tells the negotiating team now: 5 per cent if you want administrative bonuses; if you want indexing it comes out of the 5 per cent. The Premier said: I have always been a believer that contracts are negotiated under merit. If teachers and nurses can make a strong case for more than that, it will be based on the merits of their case.

So, how can you have the minister entrusted with the finances of this Province, and the Premier so diametrically opposed to each other on such fundamental basic issues as collective bargaining, on the economy, on income here in our Province? Mr. Speaker, it is crazy when you cannot get the Premier and the Finance Minister to agree. What is wrong? No wonder the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, almost half of them, do not have any confidence. Half of them do not have any confidence because they are so fundamentally opposed.

Would you believe, over 11 per cent more people in Newfoundland and Labrador said they would vote for a PC Government today than a Liberal Government. It is here. That is what is here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: It says: 43 per cent to 48 per cent. From 48 per cent to 43 per cent; that is 5 per cent over 43 per cent as an increase. Divide 5 by 43.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: It is 11.5 per cent. In fact, I might add, 11.5 per cent more people say they would vote PC then they would vote Liberal in this poll; 11.5 per cent more. That means if 100 people said they would vote Liberal, 112 people would vote PC. That is what -

MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the hon. gentleman in the last five or six years come up with some wonderful mathematics when he was the finance critic and the health critic, but I will tell you something, this poll that I am looking at here - I hope it the same one he is looking at - it says: If a provincial election were held today in Newfoundland, for which party would you vote? Liberal Party, 43 per cent - oh, that is up from 41.35 per cent in May; Progressive Conservative Party, 48 per cent; down 54 per cent. Now that seems to me to be a 5 per cent spread.

Mr. Speaker, he talks about confidence in the government, and it says: How satisfied are you with the overall performance of the provincial government led by Premier Roger Grimes? Sixty per cent said we are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied. Sixty per cent! Now that's not 40 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

While there is some latitude given on money bills or issues dealing with finance, I would suggest to all members the polls of today have no relevance to the finance bills.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Talking about math and figures, I taught math. I know that an increase when 43 per cent to 48 per cent, whether it is in the premiums we pay on Canada Pension, whether it is in jobs or whatever it is in, when you move from 43 per cent to 48 per cent, that is 5 per cent more based on 43 per cent. It is 11.6 per cent more. I said more; 11.5 per cent more. I did not say there is a high percent; 11.5 per cent more people said they would vote PC than they would vote Liberal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Five percent of the total people polled, more than ever, said they were PC, but there were 11.6 per cent more people. If you take the number that said they would vote PC, the number of Liberal, there was 11.6 per cent more people who would vote PC than Liberal. That is what corporate research says. You could ask anybody in statistics or anybody in mathematics, the Premier himself taught math, ask the Premier to calculate it there, and if he can find out that is not 11.6 per cent more, I would like to know what math he is doing. It may be the math the Finance Minister is using in predicting and calculating the deficits and the budget that we are using in our Province. That does not add up to very good math, I might add, Mr. Speaker. That adds up to terrible math.

The direction they are going to follow is: Wait until February and see where we are going to be. Then we will tell you what the deficit is for this year, when we find out in February. The year is over then. We know what it is going to be when the year is over and all accounts are in.

On this particular bill, I might add, there are some good points, legislation. We support it because there are inequities out there. Why should somebody who is getting Canada Pension walk into the Finance office at the age of sixty or sixty-one and say: Look, I am now getting Canada Pension, please clawback my public service pension plan.

Somebody else decides, that is not my problem to tell the Department of Finance. Let them find out for themselves. If they do not find out until you are sixty-five - the person at sixty-five does not lose the clawback for five years, but the person who walks in and tells them at the age of sixty loses the clawback. To me that was an inequity. It is now changed with this bill. We support that. I will make it loud and clear, we support those basis changes to it. We support it.

She came in with a bill last week - what was it? - because eleven years ago they were told they should do something. We still support it, even if it is ten years late. We will support it. If it is a good legislation we will support it. If it is a year late, we will support good legislation. I do not see a problem. In fact, people here on our side of this House supports over 90 per cent of almost all the clauses of every bill that has gone through since I came in here. We have supported the bulk of legislation by far on legislation that has come in here. We have moved amendments in legislation that government has supported as recently as yesterday, and rightly so. We are here to provide the best possible legislation to the people of our Province whether it comes from your side or whether it comes from our side. We should realize that and we should support it, not get tied up on it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Does that mean that 90 per cent of the time we are doing a good job?

MR. SULLIVAN: Ninety percent of the time you see things the way we see them, I say. That is why you are right 90 per cent of the time. The other 10 per cent of the time, you are not, and that is when you start robbing PC policies. We do not mind as long as you implement good policies. We do not have a problem if you implement good policies there. We will jump up and support it. We cannot give you all of them. If we give you all of those policies, you will want to get your hands on more. You will want to get your hands on all of our policies, good policies, for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I cannot blame you, to be honest with you, because the ones you have are so good. I cannot blame you for wanting more, I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. It is good politics to want good policies. Why isn't it? Why would somebody want bad policies? Why do we disagree on some legislation? Because we feel, and the people on government side - I do not doubt their sincerity in representing the people, the same as the people on this side of the House, but in certain pieces of legislation we see things differently. We will, in some cases, go to the wall to get good legislation here. Too many times in this House we have passed legislation here, had it rammed down our throats, and were back amending those bills next year and the year after, and amending bills forever.

I have seen it back in the early 1990s and mid-1990s, bill after bill got pushed through. The Opposition did not know what they were talking about. What they said did not make sense and they were back amending it, the same basis things. I have seen it myself, pieces in bills here that came back and got amended. I know colleagues of mine did the same basic thing. This House is an opportunity to pass legislation. The better the legislation and the better the debate and discussion on it, the more people who comment on it, the more likely we are to arrive at a conclusion of a better bill. That is why it is important that not only the critic, who is supposed to be an expert - I will look after my bills and other critics.

There are other people who have a lot of contributions to add on these bills here, that may not be in their critic area; the same as on the government side, there are people who stood and spoke on a lot of these bills who have things to add to these bills that are important to ensure that we get better legislation.

I will terminate my comments and conclude here by saying that we are not going to be obstructionists, but if people want to speak - and I do not know if other people want to speak on this bill, but it affects a lot of people and a lot of constituents out there, and they have a right to do it. In any event, however many speak on it or what they say, we, as a caucus, will support this piece of legislation, in this particular bill, and the people affected by it will be better as a result of having this gone through the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Member for Cape. St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say a few words on Bill 59, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991.

As the Member for Ferryland stated, this bill affects many people in my district as it does, I am sure, in most member's districts across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. As a matter of fact, I find it quite pleasing actually that this bill is coming to the House at this point in time. A little bit late, there is no doubt about that. I had a number of calls on this very legislation some two years ago. As a matter of fact, I had a call on this very legislation, or concern within this very legislation, one week ago.

MR. REID: Did you talk to anyone about it?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries asked me if I talked to anybody about it. For his pleasure, I would say, yes I did. I contacted the people in pensions and I asked them what was happening with respect to this very concern that is being addressed in this piece of legislation. They told me some two years ago that there were proposals going to be put forward to the House of Assembly to address this very concern.

The very concern, at that point in time, was from an individual who had retired and reported to Canada Pension and applied for Canada Pension. And, because he did so, took an early retirement and applied to Canada Pension, his actual monthly income was reduced because he was honest and upfront with both governments, Mr. Speaker. I made the contacts and they said it was coming. I was waiting for it.

Last week I got a call again from a man on Torbay Road who retired early and who ran into the same problem. He reported to Canada Pension, applied for it, and of course his income was reduced. He named people, to me, who were in the very same situation but had not reported to Canada Pension and were receiving a larger monthly income because they had not done that.

As the minister said, this legislation will address that. Now people who retire early, for whatever reason, will be put on a level playing field with those people who did not report before. The problem I had, of course, and I still really do not understand, is when you have two governments, the federal government and the provincial government, who are connected in such a way through the Department of Finance, who would be making applications - the process is the problem I have with it and the communications back and forth between both.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I say to you that the provincial government, I would imagine, should have had some process in place where once you apply for Canada Pension you get paid - I would say that both governments would be communicating back and forth, so there would be nobody who would be out. Everybody would be treated fairly and equally within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The way it happens in other provinces I am not quite sure, but I would assume that there would be some kind of a proper process in place.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Deputy Premier is making comments back and forth, and I would suggest that if he wants to make a few comments with respect to this piece of legislation that he get on his feet and do so.

We have seen, in this House of Assembly, this past month, since the House has been open - I have to say this quite forthrightly and honestly, that I have never seen so many members on the other side of the House speak on legislation in this House of Assembly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: It is for only one reason, and I will let you, Mr. Speaker, determine what that is. It is a fact, I say to the Minister of Finance. It is a fact and she knows it.

The minister made reference to people who are retiring early, the disability with respect to this piece of legislation. It is not a very long piece of legislation. It is only one or two pages, but again, it is very important to the people that this is impacting upon.

Again, when the Minister of Finance introduced the piece of legislation she talked about the survivors of people with pensions. Again, this would address some of their concerns also.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, we have the Deputy Premier trying to intercede here making comments across the House of Assembly. Again, I would encourage him to get on his feet and make his views known with respect to this specific piece of legislation.

As I said earlier, I had many calls, more than you would believe, Mr. Speaker, with respect to this legislation and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Finance is trying to be cute again, Mr. Speaker, and trying to say how many.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, you would know quite well that I would not have that in my hands; how many I have written down for the minister's information, but I could let her know. There are a number of people who called me. I could name names for her if she wants to but I don't think the people who called me would want me to name their names. I would assume that the Minister of Finance had calls on this also and the government members or they would not have had this piece of legislation put forward. She tells me that she had public service pensioners supporting it, she had the unions supporting it, and obviously she must have had some consultations with those people. To me she would have taken them very seriously, I say to you, Mr. Speaker.

With those few comments I wanted to just basically - and I will get back because I kept a record of the people who contacted me. I will get back to those individuals and tell them that this piece of legislation has gone through the House of Assembly. I expect it will go before the Christmas closure of the House of Assembly. As the Member for Ferryland said, the Opposition finance critic, we support this piece of legislation. It is a good piece of legislation. With that I will take my seat, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis who just spoke in the debate, the way that he should, very relevant and gave a good, what I thought, parliamentary speech; but I did not stand for that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: I stand, Mr. Speaker, to move that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is a motion before the House that we not adjourn at 5:30 p.m.

All those in favour ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against.

Carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is a notice of motion before the House given by the hon. Government House Leader from yesterday, and tradition has been in this House that a member could stand on a point of order and move that particular motion. I think that motion is in order at any point in time; it is my understanding of it.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the Government House Leader's comments with respect to my few words on this piece of legislation but I do not think the Government House Leader is saying anything different than we would normally say in this House of Assembly anyway.

What I wanted to comment on though is that what he said earlier with respect to my previous speech, when he knew full well, Mr. Speaker, that the finance bills and the history and tradition in this House of Assembly - there has been a lot of latitude allowed and permitted to individual speakers, and I was only following proper tradition in this House of Assembly when I spoke before.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

Just to clear up a point, the Chair recognized the hon. Government House Leader, I am not sure if the hon. Government House Leader was standing on a point of order but the Government House Leader can stand at any time or any member and once they are recognized by the Chair, of course, can continue with his -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: I apologize if I made a point of order. I did not mean to make a point of order. I meant to simply make a motion and just commented on the speech made by the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis. I suppose Hansard will show if I did say a point of order. I apologize for that, but the motion still stands, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair did put the motion, yes. The motion was carried.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say a few words on the amendments to Bill 59, as well, and say that this is a positive amendment because, for many years, people who were in receipt of Canada Pension throughout this Province had their regular pension benefits clawed back to a large degree. That is very unfair because Canada Pension premiums are paid by the employees during the course of their work life. It is two separate pensions that they are paying into and they should be able to collect both, simultaneously, without having to have one reduced as a result of receiving the other.

The Canada Pension itself, Mr. Speaker, qualifying for that has changed dramatically over the past ten or twelve years. I can recall people who were applying with disabilities for Canada Pension twelve or fifteen years ago. Once the beginning of the fourth month of illness or disability came in, then the Canada Pension would have been relatively easy to get. Lately that has changed, Mr. Speaker. The criteria now for people who are sick or disabled to receive Canada Pension benefits, the letters from their doctors have to be very explicit in the sense that most people do not see benefits unless it is clear from their doctors that they will probably never return to work again.

Mr. Speaker, I would like for the minister to - and this is simply because I know that this exists in other plans, and I ask the minister if she could clarify this. What we are talking about here is the regular earned benefit of Canada Pension. If a person retires and applies for early Canada Pension, then their pension benefits will not be decreased. I wonder if the minister could clarify, when she stands, whether or not this also applies to someone who may be sixty or sixty-one years of age on a disability pension and getting disability Canada Pension, whether or not the same rules apply to them as to someone on a regular pension and regular Canada Pension benefits as well.

I would also like to point out, Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about the pension reform and amendments to the pension plans of the Province, we have seen a lot of demonstrations here over the past number of years about the retired public service pensioners who have been clambering for increases to their pensions, Mr. Speaker. I suggest to the government that this would be a good time to do that as well, to recognize the past retirees and increase their pension benefits that they are in receipt of at the present time, Mr. Speaker.

I do not have much more to say on this, Mr. Speaker, other than the fact that we do support it. Bill 59 is a positive amendment that will take care of a problem that has been plaguing workers for a long number of years once they applied or became eligible to receive Canada Pension. This removes that, Mr. Speaker, and that is certainly a good move for workers in this Province.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance; if she speaks now she will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank hon. members for their support of the amendment to the Uniformed Services Pensions Plan as well as the Public Service Pensions Plan, as it relates to changing the reduction of the Public Service Pensions Plan from age sixty to sixty-five on receipt of CPP.

I say to the Member for Labrador West, to the best of my knowledge there are no decreases until age sixty-five with the respect to the Canada Pension Plan. Any other separate issues, I can certainly check into that for you, but that would be my understanding.

 

I would also say, in respect to the issue around increases to our retired public service pension plan holders right now, we have, as you know, recently negotiated an agreement with the public service pensions group, particularly with representatives from all of the union stakeholders, and one of the tasks that we have asked them to look into would be, in fact, the whole issue of an increase, and that would have to go to the joint trustee management committee. They would have to do it on the premise that it would not destroy the integrity of the fund and that it would have to be agreed upon. So that is certainly an issue they would want to look at. We have met with them on a number of occasions and said that would be our direction. We would be working to put the management team in place and then, of course, there would be legislative changes required. At that point in time, if the management committee and the joint trusteeship find that it is possible to do that, we would certainly entertain it, but we also said that we were more interested in putting forward changes that would address lower income pensioners as opposed to pensioners right across. Because, as you know, there are pensioners out there who might be in receipt of more than one pension. It might be a very small Public Service Pension or a Uniformed Services Pension, but they might be in receipt of another pension plan. So our expressed wish to the group as well is that we would want them to consider something that wouldn't destroy the integrity of the pension plans but, more importantly, would be deemed towards the lower income group, and I have to say that the group we have met with, the public service pensioners, concur with that as well.

That is the update on where we are with the joint trusteeship and we will be moving forward with that as we committed to do.

I now move second reading of the bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 59)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 29, Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 60.

Motion, second reading of a bill "An Act To Amend The Economic Diversification And Growth Enterprises Act." (Bill 60)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I was so anxious and so edgy to get on with this wonderful measure that we are about to bring in here, that I jumped the gun on Your Honour, and for that I apologize.

Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, to start off the debate on this bill, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to discuss this bill, the proposed amendments to the Economic Diversification and Growth Enterprises Act.

Mr. Speaker, this bill comes about as a result of the consultation process that we undertook some two years ago, and that we have been following through as a Jobs and Growth strategy to develop the economy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: If the Member for Bonavista South now can contain himself, I will get on with it.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we heard from the people around this Province was very clear. We know, and we knew when we started those consultations, that our people are an enterprising group and that the private sector in the Province has always been the engine of growth. Government's primary role in economic development has to be to provide, to establish and maintain, an environment that allows the private sector, private individuals, private entrepreneurs, private businesses, to be competitive and create lasting jobs. To develop, in other words, our economy.

It is the only way that has been proven in our system. It is the only way that I know, to be frank with you, that leads to sustainable jobs and sustainable growth in an economy. Governments are not very good at running businesses. I think that is fair to say. There have been a few experiences - don't shake your head down there in the corner, Jack. I mean, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. Mr. Speaker, he should not shake his head. We have just seen in British Columbia, for example, and I think in Ontario before Mike Harris came to power, the devastation of one of Canada's great economies. I think we all have to recognize -

AN HON. MEMBER: You are talking about Bob Rae, are you?

MR. TULK: Well, yes, Bob Rae was there before Harris, but the tendency was to go from one extreme to the other extreme; no middle of the road. I think we, on this side, believe that it is the middle of the road approach which is the best approach, not the socialist way, which is government runs everything, dips into everything, gets into everything, but rather to set an environment where private entrepreneurs can build our Province.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to you, that there have been a number of initiatives that have come out of the Jobs and Growth report, the consultations that we undertook. So today I am just going to briefly run through them for members of the House.

Since this government came to power, corporate income tax has been reduced significantly for general businesses, for manufacturing enterprises and for small businesses over the past decade. Today, in this Province, if you want to come here and establish a business you will find that we have the lowest corporate income tax in all of Canada.

The replacement of the provincial sales tax, retail sales tax, and the federal GST, at a combined rate of 20 per cent, with the harmonized sales tax at 15 per cent, has been a major benefit to all businesses in the Province, both in terms of stimulating consumer spending and the introduction of full input sales tax credit for businesses. In other words, Mr. Speaker, that initiative that we undertook, by combining the provincial sales tax and the federal GST, reduced the taxes from 20 per cent down to 15 per cent.

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Are you going to speak? I wonder, is the Member for Bonavista South going to speak in this debate? He should. Why not?

The tax-free threshold for the health and post-secondary tax, more commonly known as the payroll tax, has been increased from 100 per cent to 500 per cent, $100,000 to $500,000. This has removed 90 per cent of all businesses from the payroll tax roll and has put an estimated $8.6 million back into the hands of the business community each year. Government is committed to ensuring the further easing of the payroll tax burden on business, as the Province's fiscal structure permits, with the goal, Mr. Speaker, of eventually eliminating it altogether.

A new Venture Capital Tax Credit Program has been introduced for local businesses with an enhanced incentive for businesses that want to establish or expand in rural areas. A new $2 million Small Business Seed Capital Equity Program and a new $500,000 Small Business Market and Development Program have been implemented. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the hon. gentleman that those two programs are working so well that the $500,000 Small Business Market and Development Program has been oversubscribed already and it looks like we are going to have to try to find some money somewhere - I will have to talk to the Minister of Finance - to see that people are allowed -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: The hon. gentleman is starting to scare me over there. He knows that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). He is the finance critic.

MR. TULK: He is the finance critic, yes.

Mr. Speaker, it has worked so well that it looks like we are going to have to try to find, within the department or somewhere else, more money to put into that, to enable small businesses in the Province to carry out their business marketing and the development of their business.

Mr. Speaker, besides that, a Micro-Business Loan Program has been introduced in partnership with the Federation of Co-operatives, for very small micro businesses and self-employed entrepreneurs.

We also helped establish, helped organize, and helped operate the Newfoundland and Labrador Organization of Women Entrepreneurs, otherwise known as NLOWE. It has helped a number of women entrepreneurs in this Province, grown, expanded, and helped a number of women's organizations in this Province, women entrepreneurs, to become successful business people.

Mr. Speaker, besides that, a new $10 million Small Business Investment Program has been launched in co-operation with the federal government, if members will recall, under FRAM-ED.

Mr. Speaker, here is an interesting one for members who might not be aware of it. To stimulate private sector spending on research and development in the Province, a full refundable R and D tax credit, 15 per cent, all of what you invested, was put in place in 1996.

We have made reforms to the workers' compensation system, done it in partnership with labour and with business. We have made it more effective, more competitive and affordable for workers and employers throughout the Province.

Mr. Speaker, all of those movements that we have made have seen a growth in the Province in the economy. There has been a growth in the economy since 1995 to the point where today we are averaging 211,000 people working a month; the highest on record.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: People on the other side say: We have to condemn the government for economic development in the Province when, in actual fact, we are averaging, this year, 211,000 people employed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: The most ever in the history of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, so something is working.

For example, if you look at the St. John's economy today, it is very difficult to find tradesmen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I beg your pardon? Did you say they were not looking, that somebody was not looking?

I am told the same thing is true in Clarenville, Gander, Grand Falls, Corner Brook and to some extent, I believe, in Stephenville.

MR. FITZGERALD: That was all the rural areas that you moved people to (inaudible).

MR. TULK: You see, there shows the lack of understanding. Here comes the lack of understanding of what is happening in Newfoundland again. Here it comes again. The hon. gentleman does not realize that the people who work in Grand Falls and the EXCITE Centre in Grand Falls, the 450 people who have had jobs created for them in Grand Falls, drive from the hon. member's district, from Buchans.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Grand Falls-Windsor, I apologize. The people who work in the EXCITE Centre in Grand Falls-Windsor drive from as far away as Buchans.

AN HON. MEMBER: The same as Clarenville.

MR. TULK: The same as Clarenville. Does he have an understanding now, Mr. Speaker, of what we mean by regional economies? The people in Buchans can drive back home again in the evening. The people in Point Leamington can drive back home in the evening.

It is the kind of negative attitude that the Member for Bonavista South is exhibiting over there again that causes some of the real problems that we have in this Province. It is a down-in-the-mouth attitude.

I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the majority -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Pardon me? Do you have a question?

The majority of people in this Province obviously believe that the government of the day is doing a fair job. While we get the Member for The Straits & White Bay standing up and saying let's condemn the government, let's have a private member's resolution - he does not put forward anything, mind you, but let's condemn the government. We see today - where is that poll? We see again today a poll that comes out and says the level of satisfaction, of those people satisfied and somewhat satisfied with government, with government's performance, has risen from 40-something per cent in May to 60 per cent in October/November.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: While they are over there in the blues, down in the mouth, ready to roll over and play dead, the people of Newfoundland, while recognizing there are still certain problem areas in this Province - nobody can deny it. I have never stood in this House to deny it. The Northern Peninsula has a problem. We recognize it. The tip of the Bonavista Peninsula has a problem with development, and other areas of the Province; Burgeo, Ramea, a couple of places in Green Bay, but not many.

The member over there shakes his head and says: No, you are right, boy, not many. The Member for Windsor-Springdale has confirmed that what I am saying is right. At least there is one bright, shining light on the other side who looks over and says: There is some truth in what the minister is saying. He agrees with the 60 per cent in this Province who say: We are satisfied, and somewhat satisfied, with government's performance. He agrees.

This program that we are putting forward today further enhances incentives for businesses to establish, first of all in Newfoundland and Labrador. Come to this Province first, we say to them and then we say to them: If you establish off the Northeast Avalon - and that has nothing to do with being against Northeast Avalon because we want them first to come to Newfoundland; but the Northeast Avalon's economy is doing very well. I think everybody would admit to that. If you can add a little bit more incentive to get people to move outside, I think that just equalizes.

I say to the Member for The Strait & White Bay, if I could get his attention for a minute.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: Okay, you are listening, that's fine.

I say to him, that if you establish a bottling plant, for example, in St. Anthony, it would surely cost you more to get your product to market than if you established it in the City of St. John's. Therefore the margins in that and your business are likely to be less. If government can provide an incentive for somebody to establish in St. Anthony, let's say, then it seems to me that what you have done is equalize that with somebody trying to establish in St. John's. I think if we want to keep - here is the point of all of those things. It has nothing to do with being against St. John's. I love St. John's, it's a wonderful spot. It is a beautiful community; great people. Our capital city. I love it. But, if we want to keep the kind of demographics that have been part of this Province, that have made our culture, that have made our history, that have made us who we are, then I do not think we would all want to be together in one place. I think we would want people to try to make a living in other parts of this Province.

Here is what we said, and it is a great measure: for the establishment of businesses, I say to hon. members, that we have now said to existing businesses in this Province who want to expand their businesses, and for businesses that come in from outside to start new businesses that are not competitive with businesses that are already here - because that would be totally unfair. We have established a - this was done in 1995 - board that is independent of government, which makes a recommendation to Cabinet, that Cabinet examines, and I would say 95 per cent of the cases may send it back at times and say: Take another look at this. I do not know if anyone has ever been passed (inaudible) - I know it does, without first getting the approval of the EDGE board.

Here is what we said to them: For the first ten years, if you are establishing anywhere in the Province, in the City of St. John's, for example, on the Northeast Avalon, we will give you a tax holiday of all provincial income tax, no provincial income tax, but added to it, as a result of today's measure, we are saying to businesses, we will rebate 50 per cent of your federal corporate income tax. There is no other province in Canada that does that. We have also said that if you establish in St. John's you will get a ten year tax holiday; and the added incentive, if you move outside, is that you will get a fifteen year tax holiday.

Mr. Speaker, let me just give a few figures to the House for what this means for certain types of businesses. If you are what is known as a small business enterprise - in other words, you have less than a $200,000 taxable income annually - the effect of putting in the EDGE program that we now have in place, will reduce your income tax from 18.1 per cent down to 6.5 per cent. That is, Mr. Speaker, slightly below the Canadian average, certainly lower than any province in Atlantic Canada.

Manufacturing business enterprises; if they had to establish without EDGE their income tax would be 27.1 percent - with what we call double EDGE, the provincial income tax gone and the federal income tax at 50 per cent, it would be 11.05 per cent. A decrease of 16 per cent in income tax. For general business enterprise, Mr. Speaker, without EDGE their income - what is known as general enterprise which would be over the $300,000 mark in annual profits; 40.1 per cent reduced down to 13.05 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, this government has said we are open for business in the Province and we want to put those kinds of incentives in place. An added feature that we should point out here is that there is no up front money. We all know in this Province that for years governments have taken money and thrown it at companies and said: provide us with jobs. This government has changed that status. We no longer say: Here is $600,000, $1 million or whatever, go out and create an industry. We no longer say it, it is gone.

I say to the Member for Kilbride, my member, the old days of ENL are over, which he so desperately wanted to get rid of. They are over. What we do is provide -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: You were very vocal on it; not desperate but very vocal. I did not say why you did it. I said you were very vocal, and you were. You were very vocal in getting rid of ENL and ERC, both of them. You were very vocal on it.

Those days are gone, is the point I want to make. We now say to businesses if you invest in this Province and we say to investors once you have performed - in other words, once you have done the job we will then reward you with incentives. We do it with the call centre business, Mr. Speaker, and I think we have managed to create, in the last two years, about 3,000 jobs in the call centre industry. Here is what we say to them: after you have provided the labour we will give you a certain percentage of that labour. The EDGE program is the same way. We say: after you have met your targets of ten jobs -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Oh, it is now. It will be after this. It is now. It is this government's policy.

Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I cannot help that. But it is not now. This government has said it is performance based. Once you reach your targets, ten jobs, $300,000, then we will start paying the incentive that we are going to provide.

Mr. Speaker, those are some of the features, and I think that is proper because I think it gives a measure of security. Well it gives perfect security, I think it does. If you have a call centre and they are going to create $6,000 of labour, and you pay them 8 per cent of that $6,000 of labour, they cannot get it before they provide the labour. There is no danger at all and it has to be audited. There is no danger at all to the provincial taxpayer. Mr. Speaker, those are just some of the highlights that I wanted to point out about EDGE. I would like to, if I could - no, I will leave that for later, probably. In any case, Mr. Speaker, I would encourage members to debate this issue. I would encourage them to become very familiar with this program because I think it is great.

We will be introducing shortly too, I might say - probably not in this session, but we do not have to come back to the Legislature for this. We will be bringing in a new investment prospecting group that will be geared as much toward rural Newfoundland - and I do not believe it has been, to be frank with you - and probably made up somewhat differently. We have a study that has been completed on and evaluated the old investment prospecting method.

We will be bringing in, some time early within the new year, a new investment prospecting method which should tie in very, very well. This is the tool that you give out to somebody who goes out to prospect and look for people to come in and invest in your Province. You have to compete. Anybody who sits here and says you do not have to do this, people will come here naturally. Sorry, that is not the world we live in. You have to compete with other Atlantic Provinces. You have to compete with other US states. You have to be a place where people want to come because they can make money. Now, that does not say you do away with all your environmental concerns or anything like that. Keeping that in mind, you have to see that you are competitive with other parts of the world because we live in a global economy. That is where we live, like it or lump it. That is where we are.

Mr. Speaker, obviously there has been a concern raised by some people. I think, if I remember correctly, in the 1995 debates there was a concern raised about: What does this do to businesses that are already established? How about giving them a tax break too?

I think that is a very good point to make, but I think you also have to be somewhat fiscally responsible. I would love, and I will predict this in this House - I don't propose that I will be here; if I do, I will be seventy-five or maybe seventy by the time it happens - that we will see a time in this Legislature when some minister will stand on their feet and announce - I know the NDP would love to hear this - that there will be no more personal income tax, that there will be no more corporate tax, and that the only taxes people will pay will be consumption taxes. It will come. I believe that the quicker we are able to fiscally - you have to try to maintain a balance as you move along - the quicker we can move, because if you keep in mind one thing, the income tax was put in place for what? When did it come into existence?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Why?

AN HON. MEMBER: To fight a war.

MR. TULK: To fight a war. It was supposed to be - I don't know who the government of the day was - abolished immediately afterwards. It is still around. It is a regressive tax. Income tax is a regressive tax. Consumption taxes will be, sooner rather than later, I believe, the order of the day. You have to do it if you want to compete, if you want to compete on an international stage.

We have places in the world today - Ireland, for example, and I understand even in Nova Scotia - I just had to take an extraordinary measure which I am not going to lay out in this House but I am willing to defend anywhere in the Province, to keep a Newfoundland company in Newfoundland because they were being offered real estate in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick if they would move out of this Province. Here is the real estate, take it. I happen to know where there was a piece. They are staying, because there are 300 high-paying jobs in that company.

That is the kind of place that we find ourselves in and that is why I believe this piece of legislation is so necessary if we are going to build our economy and be competitive.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the comments by the Deputy Premier and I am going to use my time as critic - I have an hour, and we will see if we get to it, but - I am going to use my time as critic in the most positive way I can.

This is an opportunity, based upon the Deputy Premier's commentary, Mr. Speaker, to have a frank discussion and debate about what is working, what is not working, what we need to do in terms of providing incentives for in particular rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I will get to all of that in my comments shortly.

Let me say first of all, and the Deputy Premier knows full well, I asked questions in the House last week, for example, that when you look at the economic zones around the Province - and nobody has a licence or a monopoly on what is happening or what should be happening or how concerned we are with respect to particularly rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Last week, I asked questions about the economic zones and the Deputy Premier said today again that there are more people working in the Province today than in the last twelve years, I believe.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ever.

MR. E. BYRNE: Ever, sorry, and that the economy has never been so good, ever. That would be a correct -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, by that measurement. I am paraphrasing and I want to make sure that I paraphrase you properly and quote it properly.

What we have seen, what we see today, what his own staff are advising him, what the economic policy committee of Cabinet is looking at, what I suspect eats up more time than even the process of debating health care around the Cabinet table, is: How do we get the Province moving, particularly rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

I want to be clear, Mr. Speaker, that I am not going to try to be partisan in my remarks here this afternoon because this is an important issue and I believe that through the frank discussion that we can have here, that we already had on government policy or lack thereof, that we can reach some successful conclusions and maybe some successful approaches that can actually work, and in some people's eyes in the Province make this Legislature a little bit more meaningful in the everyday life of the people in the Province than it actually is today.

I think that is important, but if you look at what we talked about last week, I say to the Deputy Premier, what can be described today in the Province - I have been in many places in the Province in the last three to four years, probably close to 550 communities, actually. There was one district that I had not gotten into - just one in the last four years - and that is the District of Torngat Mountains, and time did not permit me. I wish I had. It is not that I had not been there before because I have, back in an earlier life and an earlier profession around 1987, so I know the coast and I know the area that represents the member's district. In the last three years I have been in forty-seven districts in this Province. That does not qualify me to speak from an expert point of view on what is happening or not happening, but it does qualify me to give some general impressions about this place, the place we call home.

I want to talk about the economic zonal process, because it is important. It is extremely important, and the picture that is painted, because in economic Zone 19, for example, under the capital coast zone, the official employment stats are 7.7 per cent. That is where most of the growth that the Deputy Premier talks about has taken place. A lot of it has. You have to admit that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sixty per cent (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Sixty per cent, but that is a low statistic. Also, at the same time that the EDGE legislation, or double-EDGE, which is a new program, you cannot compare what you have done here to what was done in the Legislature in 1995. They are completely two different programs with the same name, but they are creatures of a different kind. I will get to that in a moment.

The exemptions contained in Bill 60 coincide with those communities that exist in Zone 19, and that is not by accident. That is not by coincidence. That is by design, and for good reason. I do not take an exception to that, because the economy is working well in that zone, in the Northeast Avalon where it has been driven by oil and gas. It has been driven by huge construction projects such as what has taken place with the overhaul of the airport, Mile One Stadium, major building construction on Stavanger Drive and areas of Mount Pearl, and certainly government-led projects such as The Rooms, a $47 million project -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, the new Janeway Hospital. I was going to get to that in terms of construction.

All of that, I guess, indirectly, the indirect spinoffs of an emerging oil and gas industry on this part of the Province, has led to manufacturing, and others. All of that has created a sense of well-being in Economic Zone 19, the Capital Coast Zone. All of that has led to tremendous growth in the economy that has bolstered, generally, provincial employment numbers. That cannot be argued. The reality too - and it gets to the exemptions because I think it confirms and affirms the fact that if it was not happening so well here, in that zone, then there would be no need to provide those exemptions. Correct.

Now we move outside the northeast Avalon. There is no question that some businesses have moved into some areas and they are creating wealth and jobs. No one is going to argue that. Those facts speak for themselves. But, no one can argue either, if you look at this document called the Newfoundland and Labrador Zone Profiles, it is only up-to-date to 2000, but it does reflect the picture of what is happening in -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: It says 2000.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I do not have it. I have not received it, so I can only go by what information the department has sent me, or what is available at this point.

MR. TULK: Did the department send that to you lately?

MR. E. BYRNE: No, that was this summer. The Deputy Premier has asked: Did the department send it to me lately? I received this this summer, actually. It is a joint publication, I understand, is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, it is directly from ACOA. I believe part of the statistical analysis and agencies, you subscribe to it as well.

We cannot argue that the picture that this paints certainly leads to the types of measures that this bill on EDGE is putting forward in such double EDGE as they have called it.

I recall, just for backdrop's sake, before I get into the zones in a little more detail, in 1995, under the Clyde Wells government, this was first introduced. I was the critic for Industry, Trade and Technology at the time, and we supported the bill with some reservation, if I remember correctly. We did so because we felt strongly at the time - and the Deputy Premier has my comments there because he referred to them in a press conference today. We supported the bill at the time with some reservation. It was not a new program that was incubated in this Province and my comments in Hansard will demonstrate that and the comments of the Opposition, generally, at the time. There were other programs in the globe, particularly in the southeastern or southwestern United States that had similar programs.

One of the things we did say at the time in giving our conditional support, or support with some reservations, was that we ought to be always aware and continue to evaluate and monitor those companies, Mr. Speaker, that have existed in this place for ten, fifteen, twenty, twenty-five, thirty, forty, fifty years, and some even when we were a nation onto ourselves, that we must continue to evaluate to ensure, that while this program may attract business, that it does not provide or set up two classes of companies, those with the EDGE and those companies that are already here contributing to the economy that have stood the test of time that would be EDGE-less. That is still a valid concern today. It is a concern today.

Mr. Speaker, in the lead up to the last election we took a policy position to eliminate the EDGE Program, and I want to deal with that upfront today. We did it because we felt at the time, when you look at the program as it was - now, the program is completely different from what the minister is describing today. He even has to acknowledge that. When the EDGE Program was first introduced, for example, here were the incentives: One, that they provided a full ten-year holiday from provincial income tax, corporate income tax, still there; the provincial health and post-secondary education, payroll tax, still there; big one, the provincial retail sales tax which was, how much, at the time?

AN HON. MEMBER: Twelve per cent.

MR. E. BYRNE: Twelve per cent. Big! At the time, municipal, property and business taxes-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: One second.

A $2,000 start-up grant for each new job created; access to unserviced Crown land for $1, nominal fee; and access to government regulatory facilitator, still there. Obviously, that would be there. The RST exemption-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, there is more than that, because there has been a change in philosophy in your government's approach to the EDGE program, a fundamental change that reflects some of the things that we talked about. I agree with it, I am not trying to say that this was right or that was wrong, we were right, you were wrong. That does not belong in this debate today, I do not think.

What had changed significantly, when we evaluated the EDGE program going into the 1999 election, was that our tax structure had been amalgamated, so the 12 per cent Retail Sales Tax was gone generally. Even government's own documents at the time, Mr. Speaker, indicated clearly that they knew some of the teeth, or the edge, had come off the present EDGE program of the time because of that.

The other change in philosophy, as articulated by the Deputy Premier, has been this: That the first EDGE program was not necessarily performance based compared to what he has talked about and outlined in Bill 60. The first EDGE program did not set, necessarily, the types of standards. It was, get them in quick and get them out quick, eliminate the red tape for businesses coming in, get them out and get them creating wealth and jobs immediately, as soon as we can; an idea that had merit but has proven unsuccessful. What we were trying to do, and I think it could be argued successfully - and we have done it for fifty years, Mr. Speaker - that we tried to subsidize our way to success. What did we do in many instances? Eight out of ten times, we subsidized our way to failure. Very true! This is why there has been a change in the philosophy. This is why there has been a change in the root and the understanding of what this program in about.

The Deputy Premier is correct. We tried to subsidize our way to success, he said, without having the successes. He is exactly right. That was the view that we took in 1999, going into the provincial election, that for fifty years successive governments of every political stripe in this Province looked at economic development from the wrong end of the camera, from the wrong end of the lens, and that fifty years of trying to subsidize business directly did not work. There are a host of examples. We collect income tax, we began collecting payroll tax, corporate income taxes went up, to do what? To funnel into government's consolidated revenue account and then we started handing our cheques: $10 million for this company, $15 million for this company, $23 million for that company, so every other small- to medium-sized business owner in the entire Province that kept the place alive, that created wealth, that created jobs, that paid the taxes, say their money going after bad money to some promoter that happened to have a good line, that happened to support a local government of the time, that had access to the provincial Treasury. That charge is not leveled so much at this government; it is leveled at governments generally, so we took a view.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I am talking about pre-1999, I say to the Deputy Premier, in terms of why we took the position to eliminate the EDGE program.

Mr. Speaker, our view was not the only one. We were criticized heavily for it at the time. We were mocked for it at the time, during that twenty-one day campaign. The Deputy Premier has gone to lengths to talk about how this is one aspect of other things that they are doing. He has talked about how they have eliminated payroll tax

MR. TULK: No, I never said (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, but in the process of, that you have brought it down. He has talked about how corporate income tax now is the lowest in the country. That is what he has talked about.

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons that this overhaul of the EDGE program needs to be done, government's own committee in the fall of 1999, the Premier's Advisory Council on the Economy and Technology released its report. What did it find? It found a number of things in terms of improving the economy, creating an overall tax structure in the Province that was conducive to attracting business, that was conducive to creating wealth, that was conducive to people using their money and having the power to use more of their money. It recommended, for example, that there would be a 5 percentage point cut in personal income tax. Does that sound familiar to anybody here? It does to me; it does to members opposite.

It also said the council recommends that tax cuts not be financed through deficits. Absolutely, wrong approach. Their own committee on the economy, Mr. Speaker, went on to say that, "The Council recommends that Government undertake a comprehensive review of the health care system to ensure that the public's money is being spent in an efficient and effective manner."

I want to leave that for a moment because I want to talk about the role government has in the economy through the delivery of public services, just as essential. In many parts of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, if it was not for government services and jobs, there would be no rural Newfoundland and Labrador, but I want to talk about that in a few moments. It went on to say, Mr. Speaker, that, "The Council recommends that the Province establish its own tax rate, rather than impose its tax expressed as a percentage of the federal rate." - a solid recommendation, and - "The Council recommends that the Corporate Income Tax rate for manufacturing and processing activities be increased from 5% to 14%."

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I know. It did not happen, and it should not have happened because that would be a disincentive to creating the type of wealth that you are talking about.

Mr. Speaker, the Council went on to recommend many other things, but in peculiar and particular to our discussion today, the Council on the Economy did recommend this: "...that the Province should review the effectiveness of its economic initiatives such as EDGE with an emphasis on creating more capital investment in the Province." That is a big part of our problem, in terms of the amount of capital investment that is available.

I want to elaborate on that for a moment, if I could, Mr. Speaker, in terms of that recommendation, when I get to it here in just one second, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, it is important. It is just one view. I do not agree with all of it, but I do agree with some of what they have said, "The Council has heard the views of a large number of groups..."

They held public consultations, to my understanding, representing a broad range of residents in the Province. "The recommendations of the Council are largely guided by the consensus of opinion.", is what was indicated. "If implemented, these recommendations would make a fairer, more equitable tax system for taxpayers in Newfoundland and Labrador. The personal income tax reductions will make us more competitive and will greatly assist us in seizing all the economic opportunities which lie ahead of us in the near future. The proposed changes will result..." - and this is important because it talks about balancing - "The proposed changes will result in re-balancing..." - re-balancing now; interesting word used, to re-balance.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, I see.

"...in a re-balancing of the mix between individuals and businesses, resulting in a lesser proportion of burden on individuals."

Mr. Speaker, the report goes on to say that revenues from corporate income tax in the Province are relatively small. "The major tax initiative currently utilized by the Province is the EDGE program. However, now is an appropriate time to view the appropriateness of the program and to consider other tax based incentive programs which could foster investment and be drivers in the economy.

I guess, in some ways, that is what you have done right now. You have reinvented the EDGE program. While it is still under the same name, from branding purposes, which is important in marketing, very important in marketing, in terms of marketing the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Hence the phrase, double-EDGE, I guess, or EDGE-less, or the EDGE came out of EDGE.

The importance of marketing is important, but they have revamped it. The biggest fundamental change I see in the bill is that with the program it is performance based.

Mr. Speaker, it cannot be underestimated that there are parts of our Province in serious jeopardy, parts of our Province that are wondering today, and the people in it, who, while they see the Deputy Premier stand up and make the comment that the economy has never been so good, it is the best it has ever been -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: That is true, generally speaking, but there are many parts of the Province that are wondering: My God, what place is he talking about? They have told him this.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: You have qualified it in this regard, this respect. Correct me if I am wrong, and I will give you time to do it if you want, but you have qualified it in this respect, saying that: but there are places that we know are in trouble, like the Northern Peninsula, and you have highlighted that.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is a big area.

MR. E. BYRNE: A huge area.

Mr. Speaker, when you go through the zonal profiles, and I think it is important that we do it one by one in terms of the employment statistics, when we talk about who is in jeopardy, how much they are in jeopardy, and what areas are in jeopardy the most. Here is the unemployment rate. These are the annual averages, not the current ones because we do not have those yet, but the most current ones: Coastal Labrador, 30.8 per cent -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: This is the unemployment rate. The Province is 16.9 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: That is what it says here.

The point I am making is that one end of the Province is doing very well, no question about it. The whole Northeast Avalon is doing extremely well. One part of the Province is doing extremely well and it can described as a tale of two different places.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: It is doing better than any other partner.

Mr. Speaker, just want for clarification, the Deputy Premier said: That is not right, there are other places doing well. I acknowledge that, but there is no other place in the Province today doing as well as the Northeast Avalon.

AN HON. MEMBER: No other region.

MR. E. BYRNE: No other region even comes close to what they are doing.

When we talk about other parts of the Province - people in Harbour Breton, people in Belleoram, people in Ramea, people in Burgeo, people in Burnt Islands, people in Rose Blanche, people in Codroy Valley, people in Piccadilly, people in Lourdes, people in Port au Port, people in Kippens, people in Stephenville, people in Flat Bay - they are all expecting to hear something that is going to help them today. That is what we are talking about. How will EDGE in this double-EDGE help them?

They do not see today, in that region for example, the benefits of the offshore oil and gas industry. I am talking about offshore, I say to the member. They are wondering today, for example, are their trades people - stay tuned he says, fair enough - they are wondering today, why is it that they are not taking advantage or getting advantage of that? There are trades people along the entire northeast coast, from Bonavista to Hare Bay, from Round Cove to Pacquet, who are wondering: Why haven't they been able to take advantage of opportunities, supposedly, that should have been presented in our economy? Absolutely.

When you look at, for example, what is not happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador - people ask legitimate questions. Now, the Deputy Premier, may have big plans; some of them may already be in the can. I understand some of them are. The point is this, that people in this Province, particularly outside the Northeast Avalon, know that the economy in rural Newfoundland is not what it is here. They have some difficulty in listening to a statement by any member of the Legislature, but in particular, by a member of government who says: this is the best it has ever been. It has never been any better in our history. What I am saying - and I am disagreeing, I am disagreeing in this point. It is the best it has ever been here, but in many parts of the Province it is not the best it has ever been. Describe how this is the best it has ever been. In Zone 6, in St. Barbe, for example, thirty-six -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Where am I living? I am living right in Newfoundland and Labrador. People are wondering where you are living today, sir, when they hear that comment; not where I am living. Yes, guaranteed!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: In Zone 6, unemployment rate; 36.3 per cent. That is the official rate, not the unofficial rate. Factor in those who have stopped looking for work. They do not even show up in these statistics.

Economic Zone 7, up on the Northern Peninsula; 33. 2 per cent unemployment rate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The Coast of Labrador; 30.8 per cent..

Economic Zone 9, the Long Range Mountain area; 30.1 per cent. Economic Zone 10, the Mountain Zone; 29.1 per cent. Economic Zone 11; 29.9 per cent. Economic Zone 12; 18.6 per cent. Economic Zone 13, Coast of Bays, for example; 34.6 per cent unemployed. Economic Zone 14 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: My point is taken. The point is made, I am talking about in regional economic zones of the Province there are still tremendous challenges. These are -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The sky is not falling, I say to the Minister of Finance. The fact of the matter is, that there are serious structural problems in rural Newfoundland that is preventing them from taking advantage of the economic activity that is occurring in one part of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it seems that a lot of people are debating the bill right now.

The point is this, that government's own statistics and agencies clearly show that in one part of the Province things are very well, in another part of the Province things are not so well.

To the bill itself, because this is important. In recognition of that, the minister responsible has stood and put in place today, before the House for debate, a piece of legislation that recognizes that fact. How do we disagree with what could be described as a legitimate, bonafide attempt to correct some problems or to attract business to areas of the Province where they probably would not otherwise exist or go? So we say as we said in 1995, that we are not going to stand here - I am certainly not going to stand here and neither are any of my colleagues - and disagree with the spirit and intent of this legislation because it recognizes, first and foremost, that there is a problem and admits to such, that there is a problem.

Secondly, it is a measure, in a creative way, which tries to provide some incentive to develop and diversify the economy to such an extent that would attract other businesses. We do have to qualify, as we did in 1995. I am not going to be the type of critic that stands up in the Legislature and says: that won't work, this won't work; if there is merit in it. I do see merit in the legislation that you have before us.

Some of the numbers that you talked about in terms of what EDGE has produced over the past several years, I take exception with, simply because I believe some of the numbers exist; and we have gone through that, which we can debate at another time.

What are the other things that need to be done right now to simulate the economy in rural Newfoundland and Labrador? We have to ensure that when it comes to the natural wealth of our Province, particularly in the oil and gas industry, that we start taking more advantage of fabrication work. We have to start taking more advantage of the wealth and opportunities associated with our oil and gas industry. For example, fabrication work, White Rose - we have seen, for example, what did not occur when it comes to Marystown with respect to the topsides module. I recall being a new member in this place when a former minister stood up and said: We lost a huge contract. What we are going to have to do now is sharpen our pencils, cross our Ts and dot our Is a little bit better. Do you remember that? While those opportunities floated out the harbour.

We recall a time in this Legislature when a former Premier gave a company, associated with the Terra Nova agreement, huge concessions. Members of the Cabinet of the day know he did. Many of them - I should not say many because I do not know if there were many, but I do know that some of them disagreed vigorously and strongly with the concessions that were given on the Terra Nova project, because we did not reap the types of benefits we should have reaped.

Do you know how we knew engineers from Leatherhead, England? One example: an opportunity to transfer technology that did not take place. In terms of creating the type of wealth that we require, we have to not ensure but demand that work associated with the emerging oil and gas industry must happen here in keeping and in spirit with the Atlantic Accord, that all members in the House supported, by the way - my understanding - at the time. That is one area. The types of spinoffs that can be created as a result of that, no question it is significant.

One of the other things that we need to look at seriously in terms of developing the economy, is: What role does our transportation system play in economic development? It plays a huge one. I ask this question: How do you attract a business to a region of the Province where its infrastructure is crumbling? How do you attract it? The EDGE program is not going to put people in a small community where there is no basic infrastructure of water and sewer, where they are 200 miles away from the nearest services, or sixty miles away from the nearest school or hospital. That program, unto itself, is not going to put people there. It can be used as one lever, one sort of string in the bowl of Newfoundland's economy to try to attract, but economic development is more than just a double-EDGE program. That is one part of it.

A transportation system that is updated, that people can have ready access to, that can allow for the transportation of goods and services, that when people look at seriously, if businesses look at moving into Newfoundland and Labrador, and in particular rural Newfoundland and Labrador, they are going to ask themselves this question: Where is the nearest hospital? What type of services are offered there? Where is the nearest school system? What type of programs and services will that offer for my children? Where are the nearest recreational facilities? Are they located within the community I live in, or adjacently? Are there community or regional facilities?

PREMIER GRIMES: (Inaudible) more hospitals and schools.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, that is not what I am saying, Premier. The Premier says now we are going to open more hospitals and schools. We are trying to have a serious debate. If you want to be antagonistic, as is your nature, obviously, if you want to participate in the debate, participate in it generally, realistically.

What I am saying is: When people come to Newfoundland and Labrador, or if they see this program as being an incentive to do so, they are going to do it from a number of points of view. The double-EDGE program will not attract them unto itself.

Number one, the transportation system; two, what types of government services are there from health care to education to recreational facilities; three, the standard or quality of life. All of those things go into attracting business. Members know that. The Member for Carbonear- Harbour Grace knows that. In terms of assistance that he just received for a regional facility, like the swimming pool in Carbonear, that is the type of thing that people, when they move into Carbonear - when a new call centre, for example, went into to your district earlier this year, were they attracted to that? Where they attracted to Carbonear because there were no facilities, there were no hospital facilities, there were no educational facilities, there wasn't a decent bypass road or transportation system? No, there were attracted to that region of the Province because to a satisfactory extent all of the above existed, but you cannot say that in every part of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of supporting this program, we must support it in view of acknowledging this: that this program, while it contains some merit, will not unto itself -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: One second, let me finish my train of thought. If you would like to give me a question I will answer it. Just give me a moment.

This program, while it contains some merit, will not unto itself bring company A from country B to locate in company C because of this and only this. This will be only one part. How we develop our infrastructure in terms of schools, hospitals, government services, recreation facilities, and proper transportation in the Province in terms of upgrade, ensuring that infrastructure in regions is not crumbling so that can be used as incentives as well, all of that together is what will drive an economy, not one of them unto itself. That is the point I want to make.

Did you want to ask a question? Go ahead.

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TULK: This is a serious debate. I am not getting up trying to score political points at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I say to the hon. gentleman, there are times when I do that and there are times when I do not.

Let me just ask this question. Obviously it is important; transportation is important. I think I made the point when I spoke. If you are going to establish a water bottling plant in St. Anthony, for example, transportation is obviously important. That is the reason you should give some added incentive for establishing outside of St. John's. I was talking about distance. We all recognize that.

I will just ask the hon. gentleman: Would he entertain a notion of increasing the exemption for the federal corporate income tax to 100 per cent as opposed to 50 per cent?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, we would entertain all notions. You have asked the question. I allowed you to do it in my time and I can only expect that you would give me time to answer it, that any notion that has merit, that would involve creating a more positive climate for the people of the Province in attracting investment we would entertain.

I would also have to say this, and I think you would agree, that in asking that question, that before we could entertain the notion we would have to be in possession of all of the facts available to government. Wouldn't we?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Absolutely. That is why you have changed it from what it used to be to a performance-based program. It is completely different than what it was in 1995, completely different than what it was in 1997, 1998 and 1999, completely different. Now you have to have success before you get any benefit. Before, you were assuming that success was going to occur and you gave them the benefit up front. That is the essential difference.

In terms of the question you have asked, any notion would be ‘entertainable', I say to the Deputy Premier. In making a decision, would we decide? That would be based upon anybody, whether it be the Opposition or any member in the House, having complete and unfettered access to every bit of information in government. You could not make the decision otherwise. How do you make a decision in one respect when you are only possessed with half the information? I think I have answered the gentleman in terms of the question that he has asked.

Mr. Speaker, let me say this in conclusion. Let me make the following three or four points. Number one, there is no doubt that there are parts of this Province doing extremely well. As a result of that, that has added to the provincial employment force, and it is better than it has ever been.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: No question about that, that is acknowledged.

Number two, that the parts of the Province that are doing extremely well, in particular the Northeast Avalon, is what is driving some of those numbers up.

Number three, there are many parts in this Province that when they hear either the Deputy Premier, the Premier, or any other member of this Legislature say: Things have never been so good. They are wondering what world we are all living in if we say that. That is exactly true.

Number four, there are many areas - and I have used, to some extent, the economic zones as outlined by government. There are more economic zones in this Province that are in need of help and government's own statistics prove it. The unemployment rates, the labour force data, the age of people living in those communities, it all points to one thing: the lack of an economy in certain regions which has driven young people out and which has left an aging population in there. In terms of how this program is relevant, unless government gets a handle on that then no matter what double-EDGE program they bring in place, along with other economic incentives such as: transportation, good and sound public services in health, good infrastructure in terms of water and sewer, and solid recreational facilities, that no matter how good this program is, you will not attract people unless all of those other components are there.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say this, as we move along in the debate on the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador, my colleague from The Straits & White Bay North comes from an area where the stories are as sad as you will ever see them. I know that the Deputy Premier has seen them. We will talk about some of that in terms of the development tomorrow. If we are going to start to make this place, as I stated and said upfront, a little bit more relevant and meaningful in those areas of the Province in terms of the decisions that we make, then we have to recognize when it comes to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador, that if we do not have the basic components and foundations in place to attract business, then no matter what we do with programs like this, they will not come. That is what we have to zone in on, the fundamentals and recognize that government has a legitimate and bonafide role to play in the economy through the delivery of public service.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to support the proposed amendments to the Economic Diversification and Growth Enterprise Act. The hon. gentleman has made some valid points in his evaluation of EDGE. There is no doubt, Newfoundland and Labrador is a unique area of this country. To stimulate the economy in this Province is not an easy task. Many governments have tried before us. We have geography which is probably one of our biggest hindrances. We are not attached to the mainland. We have transportation difficulties. There is no problem - there is no argument about that, but what we do have is a great workforce here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: We have people with the desire to work. This act, EDGE -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) amongst the best in the world.

MR. SWEENEY: Absolutely, amongst the best, if not the best in the world, I would go far enough to say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: But this act, EDGE, or double-EDGE, as this revised act is should and will prove to be a stimulus.

I would like to take some of the numbers that you had there: In 1996, a call centre went to Carbonear because it enticed people to come out there, itself, the people. The member had nothing to do with it. No, not a thing. In 1996, the North Coast of Labrador, my colleague from Torngat Mountains, he tells me that the unemployment rate was in excess of 80 per cent. Today, five years later, the unemployment rate is over 30 per cent. Now, 30 per cent is still too high. It is still too high, but the fact we came from 80 per cent and down to 30 per cent means that something is happening in this Province. There is a reason there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The other 50 per cent are now working in Alberta, and Ontario.

MR. SWEENEY: That is not a fair statement to make, that the other 50 per cent are gone to Alberta or Ontario. That is not a fair statement to make. I want to say to the Member for Ferryland, that is not a fair assessment to make. People are not leaving. The out-migration is not as bad as it was a few years ago.

There are opportunities in this Province that people are finding work. The greatest indicator is walking around different parts of this Province and seeing help wanted signs in some of the regional centers. The Regional Economic Development Boards, the areas where development is taking place - and each community cannot be an economic center; that cannot be. There are a number of reasons why it cannot be. The resources are not there to begin with, but the people are there. In most cases, with the twenty-eight economic zones we have, people do have opportunities. I have to commend the economic boards for the work that they are doing. They are working closely with the minister here and his department, the Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development. There is a lot of activity, a lot of optimism. There are people looking.

One of the problems that we have, and one of the problems that we truly have to face everyday; when we get a major company coming in here to the city, and just come here to the city itself, they look at St. John's. We look at St. John's as the Capital City of this Province, but somebody from a company from California, or Florida, coming in here looking at employment initiatives, will say: We like small towns like St. John's. We like small towns. It is a great place to do business. That is the reality of it. We still have in excess of 500,000 people; just in excess of 500,000 people. The geographic nature of our Province, where we are spread out, we cannot have each town, we would love to have each town, as an economic hub. The reality of that is it is not. So we have to concentrate on centres where people can go to work in the morning, go home in the evening, an hour or two hours away. It is slow. In parts of this Province it is slow. In a lot of these areas we do have things happening.

I, myself, drove from Carbonear to St. John's, and from Carbonear to Seal Cove, long before I became involved in politics. There were jobs in my own community - as a matter of fact, I had one. Actually, the previous government saw fit to change the stature of the college system and I had to get transferred. So I ended up driving. It wasn't the end of the world. There are a lot of people.

The Conception Bay North Highway, I say to the member, is full of cars. Six o'clock in the morning you see a stream of headlights going, 6 o'clock in the evening you see them coming back again. It is a way of life for us. They are driving from Clarenville, they are driving from different parts of the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: I wish we had a road like it. (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: You have a pretty good one though, I must say.

I have to say that the government has a clear plan for economic growth and job development in this Province. There is a clear plan and it is called the Renewal Strategy for Jobs and Growth. It is a rural agenda. The agenda of that program is rural. We have to try. In St. John's here, there is no problem today if somebody wanted a job to go out to the mall or some of the stores and there is a job there. The jobs are there. You look at The Telegram this evening, and what used to be a very dismal classified section, job classified section, is now, especially on the weekends, five, six, seven, eight, ten or twelve pages of positions available. That is one of the biggest indicators that we have. That is what I go by. When I buy that paper and open up that paper, The Telegram, on Saturdays, I get a great delight in doing it.

MR. FITZGERALD: I will send you a copy of The Packet next week and you can look and see how many classified ads are there.

MR. SWEENEY: Again, I say to the Member from Bonavista South, you have a point. The Packet, yes, but speak to the Mayor of Clarenville and see what he will tell you. The Clarenville council are enthused about what is happening out there in their town. It is bursting at the seams out there. They are looking this morning for funding to help them with their industrial park. Why would they want an industrial park if people did not want to come in there and set up an industry? There is no room to expand out there, I say to the member.

One of the things today, and we talk about EDGE and the EDGE program, I say to the Member for Bonavista South, he brought in a sample today and I was delighted to see him bring it in. That came from a seal tannery in Catalina. It is one of the active EDGE companies in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: I say to the member, you may criticize and say look at the Cabinet, but when I looked at your piece of sealskin today, I thought: How wonderful that we saw such a fine quality product -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: - and we, this government, helped that development.

MR. FITZGERALD: I talked about a positive thing that was happening in my district. (Inaudible), it is not the salvation of all the problems we have.

MR. SWEENEY: I say to the member that I fully understand your role of being the Opposition. I fully understand it, and I commend you for the job you are doing. At the same token, let's be positive, let's not discourage what is happening around this Province.

Mr. Speaker, if I may, can I adjourn debate?

MR. ANDERSEN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, when the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace spoke of the North Coast, of how we have dropped the unemployment rate down, the Member for Ferryland referred to how many of these people have gone away to the mainland. There are none. Your leader and the critic for Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs traveled to the North Coast. They spent two hours on the ground and six hours in the air and made a whole lot of statements, and the only truth seemed to me, Mr. Speaker, was that the young people are coming back and taking the jobs. Once again, (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

I remind members that we will adjourn at 5:30 p.m.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was referring to Northern Newfoundland out-migration. If it is Northern Labrador he is referring to, I apologize. I was talking Northern Newfoundland and I do have out-migration figures that show from 1995-1996 there was an out-migration of 86,000. There were 86,924 people, actually, who went out of this Province in that period.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a final point of order, the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, when I was interrupted by the member's comments about them moving to Alberta and Ontario, I was speaking about, and the numbers I was using were clearly related to, Northern Labrador.

On that note, Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

This House is now recessed until 6:45 p.m.


The House resumed at 6:45 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Mr. Mercer): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now that we are all fed and refreshed, I would like to continue from where I left off.

AN HON. MEMBER: We were fed; I don't know about refreshed.

MR. SWEENEY: Let me see if I can refresh the hon. member then.

Mr. Speaker, over the past four years our economy has been growing. It has become much more diversified. Employment is increasing, unemployment is falling, and out-migration is slowing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) labour force is up.

MR. SWEENEY: Yes, I agree with the minister. Participation in the labour force is up tremendously.

The trend line for all economic indicators is moving in the right direction. It is clearly obvious. Over 24,000 new jobs have been created in the Province since 1996; 24,000 new jobs. Year over year employment gains have been posted in forty-three of the past fifty-four months. Newfoundland and Labrador is leading the country in jobs and growth right now, in the year 2001.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: What is the average wage?

MR. SWEENEY: The average wage?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SWEENEY: I do not have that information here with me, but I would say that it varies. We have jobs in all sectors: in the bio-technology sector, which is quite promising; in the engineering sector; we have the oil and gas industry. We have some high-paying jobs. As a matter of fact, I have a company right now interested in coming to the Province, whose average salary is $40,000 per year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: I know what the member is trying to get at, in saying some of these are low- paying jobs, but they are not. We have some very high-paying jobs in this Province.

In fact, every month of this year, so far, we have experienced growth in employment. Employment was up by 6,000 jobs in 2001, at the end of November, and is projected to average 211,000 for the entire year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: Sixty per cent, Minister, exactly, outside the Avalon. Minister, thank you very much.

This will exceed our previous all-time employment record of 207,400 set a decade ago, in 1990.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: These gains are being realized throughout the Province, across a number of sectors, and are not just confined to St. John's. In fact, as the minister mentioned, 60 per cent of the 24,000 new jobs created in the Province since 1996 have been outside the St. John's area. All regions of the Province are benefitting from our economic progress, although not at the same level; not yet.

Progress is being made in rebuilding the economy, in particular in rural Newfoundland, but we also recognize as a government that more needs to be done. That is why this EDGE modification, or this new EDGE, or double EDGE, is being brought forward today.

The creation of the new Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development is designed to move the agenda along in this regard. Not only us, but the twenty economic boards that are in the Province - and there are other items, other factors, in all of this too. We must be able to educate our municipalities. We have to make sure that the people out there in these communities are aware of the basic needs that they need to bring forward so that companies would be interested to coming to their community. We just cannot have a community sitting there waiting for prosperity to come upon it. It has to be promoted. I use, for example, a community like Harbour Breton. Harbour Breton, down there in a remote geographical location, is one of the more thriving communities on that part of the coast. I have to give a lot of credit to the mayor down there, Churence Rogers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Churence used his leadership and his initiative to bring that community forward, and I suspect he is going to use that same initiative to bring this Liberal Party forward as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: The proposed amendments to the EDGE legislation complement government's plan for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. One of the commitments set out in the Jobs and Growth renewal strategy is to enhanced the program in recognition of the particular challenge of encouraging new investment in rural areas of the Province.

Government is moving forward on this item in the proposal bill before the House by increasing the full tax holiday to fifteen years from ten years outside the Northeast Avalon area. This acknowledges the fact that the need for an economic stimulus is greater outside the Northeast Avalon area. Those municipalities located outside the Northeast Avalon that currently participate in the EDGE program and provide municipal tax relief will have the option of continuing with the existing tax holiday of ten years or, if they wish, they can bring it forward to fifteen years in accordance with the new legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this proposed amendment to the EDGE legislation will enhance our position with respect to encouraging new business investment to rural areas of the Province, resulting in more job creation. As a matter of fact, I am sorely tempted to make an amendment to this motion - sorely tempted to make an amendment - that we increase the 50 per cent to 100 per cent for outside the Northeast Avalon, that is if the hon. members opposite agree. I am sorely tempted.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought you would do that in Committee.

MR. SWEENEY: That is what I said. When we come to Committee, I will do that. I am very sorely tempted; that is, if the hon. members opposite will agree.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can we second an attempted motion?

MR. SWEENEY: You can attempt to second an attempted motion, but you cannot really do it.

Mr. Speaker, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is continuing its growth. Communities are getting better. It is being reflected daily, on a regular basis. You can go into any store in the Province and ask them how their business is doing, and they are saying they are having an excellent fall. Each quarter is getting better. Spending is up. Retail spending in this Province is at an all-time high. The prosperity in the economic climate that is around the communities - you look at the car lots, you look around - despite the September 11 problem we had in New York, things are still working well here in this Province, the economic part of it. People are working; the malls are full early in the morning. This morning at 10 o'clock I went to the bank at the Avalon Mall and you could not get a parking place so early in the morning. Something is happening. The economy is doing well. There are a lot of people from outside the city coming into the city, spending their dollars. It is not just St. John's; it is the rural areas of the Province as well that are starting to pick up.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is Christmastime too, you know.

MR. SWEENEY: It is Christmastime, of course. If the economy wasn't there - we have had Christmases, I say to the hon. member, where you would not see this much enthusiasm on a financial basis. I will say to the hon. member, this is probably one of the brightest Christmases than a lot of families in this Province have had in a long time.

I know in my own area right now there are 170 people who are - I will say that they are working from Harbour Main-Whitbourne. The hon. member has some people down there working. They are working from the Port de Grave district, Trinity-Bay de Verde. They are working from over there - a lot of people - at least 170 new jobs right now, and they are still hiring in that particular call centre in Carbonear. I have to say that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to close my remarks by saying that I fully endorse this new double-EDGE program.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand tonight to pass a few comments on Bill 60. I say to the minister that this is a step in the right direction, and there are some positive things happening. There is no doubt about that. When I looked at the list of companies that qualified for EDGE status, I noticed Atlantic Marine Products, which the member referred to, that I stood here earlier in the day and talked about a success story, and talked about a company that moved into Catalina and purchased a closed salt fish plant; moved in there. I would suggest to you and submit to you today that there are probably more people working in that particular plant now than there were when it was a salt fish plant. There are forty-five or forty-six people working there full time, fifty-two weeks of the year, with something like eighty-five people working there on an annual, part-time basis. It is a success story. I complimented the Barry Group of Companies for selecting a place like Catalina, and selecting that particular plant, if you would, for them to carry on -

AN HON. MEMBER: The same group (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: The same company that is doing good work in lots of other places in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

This is probably one of the reasons why, when we talk about the need to create employment, and we talk about the unhappy things, the sad things that are happening in rural areas, I cannot understand the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture not making up his mind to come out and say to the people like the Barry Group, and say to others who want to step up to the plate and do things in other communities that are suffering today - they are not asking for a monopoly on the 275,000 harp seals that can be killed off our coast. As I said earlier, that is a curse that has turned into an employment opportunity now in Catalina. This same gentleman, this same group of people, came forward and said: We have a proposal to make. We have a proposal to put forward that can help the people in Burgeo. What we will do is exactly the same as what we are doing in Catalina. All he is asking is for the minister, for this government, to step up to the plate and say that every seal that is harvested, and every seal that is landed here in this Province, will be duly processed here. He is still waiting for an answer from the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

I have not heard the minister come here and make an announcement, saying that he agrees with that. Until and unless we proceed in that direction, and until and unless we take that mindset out, I do not know how we are going to change what is happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I heard the minister talk about how the Mayor of Clarenville was here today, and talked about the place bursting at the seams, and how wonderful they are doing. He is right. I drive through Clarenville at least twice a week in order to get to my district. There is no doubt about it, that Clarenville is doing very well. Clarenville is a little beehive of activity, but in order for Clarenville to be a beehive of activity, you have to look at what has happened in some of the smaller rural communities.

Go down to Musgravetown, where I live, the district of the Member for Terra Nova, and ask the people there how many stores, how many convenience stores, and how many little restaurants, if you would, in some of those areas that once existed, are now closed. Go down to Lethbridge and ask the people there. In fact, you can go all the way down to Bonavista. What has happened since the moratorium back in 1992, Mr. Speaker, is that you have had a lot of people who have lost their jobs and, with so much time on their hands now, they travel to some of those centres in order to shop. Because of that, some of the communities are dying, and some of the businesses are dying, but places like Clarenville, Gander, and Grand Falls-Windsor, have been able to do very well. In fact, I have said in the House before, if there is one community that has prospered because of the moratorium, it is probably Clarenville.

I am going to speak about my district, Mr. Speaker, because that is the district that I know best. You go down to places like Catalina, Port Union, Melrose, Little Catalina, those areas, where back in 1992, 1,200 people went to work in the fish plant there. They worked 365 days a year - they had a job to get Christmas off, I say to people opposite - all making very good money. Everybody was making probably, even at that time, in 1992, in excess of $10 an hour, and would go home for dinner every day.

You would go on to Bonavista and see a shellfish plant there, Mr. Speaker. They were doing groundfish as well, but it was primarily a shellfish plant at that time. You saw another 350 to 400 people employed; employed as long as the season would allow.

Then you came up to Charleston, a seasonal operation, where you saw another 250 to 300 people employed - for the most part it was a seasonal plant - at least fifteen or sixteen weeks of the year. At least they qualified in order to get EI.

You drive by the plant in Port Union today, a new modern shrimp plant, and you might say: Well, what are you complaining about? You have a new modern plant in Port Union - and you are right - but how many people work there? How many people work in Port Union today? Very few right now. There are a few people in there right now, I would say, bagging shrimp, but there are approximately 125 people who work in Port Union today.

Then you go into Bonavista and you have approximately 225, I would suggest, who maybe qualify for EI. You come up to Charleston and you have nobody working.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I just gave you the numbers. Just a plant in Port Union would put in excess of $800,000 a week into the local economy. Ask the people - between 1,200 and 1,400 people, counting the dragger crew as well. Most of them change crews in Port Union. In Bonavista there were 350 to 400 people employed there. What is the minister asking?

AN HON. MEMBER: Was that fishermen and plant workers?

MR. FITZGERALD: No, that is plant workers, not counting fishermen at all.

When you see what is happening down there today on the tip of the peninsula - and the minister referred to it as a place where we have problems - we do not have the answer for it. We do not have the answer. I know this piece of legislation is not going to be the answer, but I know it may be a step in the right direction. At least it will encourage somebody to be able to do something outside of the Avalon Peninsula, here in St. John's.

I remember being up in Toronto one day, and I think the Minister of Fisheries might have been there as well. No, it was the forestry minister who was with me. We were sitting in a hotel room there, having a meeting, and I looked out through the window and just through your eye view, through this one window, I saw six stationary cranes. I see one here in St. John's today, which is the first one that I have seen for probably five years. There is one set up down here, it looks like it is down by the Basilica somewhere. I might be completely wrong in the direction.

AN HON. MEMBER: Down by The Rooms.

MR. FITZGERALD: Down by The Rooms. I figured he wasn't going to bait on it because I didn't think he would want it said.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: The minister is right, on a $47 million project which I suggest to people opposite maybe should have been in one of those rural areas where we may have been able to sustain some employment.

I talked about some of the bad things. Let me say to the minister that a couple of days ago the federal minister put forward $380,000 in Bonavista to help, through ACOA, with the employment problem. Of the $380,000, the council was fortunate enough to be able to employ seventy-four people to qualify them for EI. There were 350 applications at the town hall, looking for a job.

In the small amount of money that I have received from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, I had enough applications, in the amount that was applied for, to take more than the full amount that he had for Newfoundland and Labrador. Those were not people looking for 910 hours, not people who were the first time entering the labour force. Those were people who had an attachment to the workforce, Mr. Speaker. That is the need that is out there. These are the areas where we should be paying particular attention.

At the request of the mayor of the communities down there, the development officer some time ago looked at the possibility to maybe set up a call center in Bonavista. I think that is where those call centers should go, I say to the Member for Carbonear. That is where they should go. When I made my submission to the people who were there representing the particular call center, I talked about exactly what you referred to, the availability of the workforce in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not think those call centers pay $12 or $15 a hour. I would think most of the call centers are paying around - correct me if I am wrong - $8 or $9 a hour.

AN HON. MEMBER: And up.

MR. FITZGERALD: And up. Okay, but I think most of them are around the $8 or $9 mark, and this is where this particular gentleman had indicated those wages might fall.

I would submit to you that here in St. John's - and it is takes something like five, six, seven or eight weeks, depending on what the call center is, in order to train people. I think that is one of the positive things and one of the ways that we can promote our rural communities. If we had an employer in some of those areas and they were paying $8, $9 or $10 a hour, I do not think you would see a big turnover in staff. I think most of the people, once they went and got trained, it would not be a situation where they would have to continually have a training program. People living in those particular communities today have made up their mind, that is where they are going to stay.

We have gone through the mobility movement when we had the TAGS program on the go and the post-TAGS program and the mobility allowances on the go. The people who have trained and wanted to retrain have gone. They have retrained, and a lot of them have gone and accessed other employment. The people who wanted to make a move to live in Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta, have made the move. The people who are living in Bonavista, Catalina, Port Union, Sweet Bay and Duntara today are going to be staying there, I say to people opposite.

I know that we cannot have a fish plant or we cannot have a manufacturing plant in every little community, and we do not need to. People do not mind traveling. People do not mind getting aboard their car and traveling to go to work.

Mr. Speaker, what is happening here in St. John's is not what is happening in rural areas. It is certainly not what is happening on the Bonavista Peninsula. I think some things can happen. For instance, I do not think we are paying enough attention to agriculture in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I think there are great benefits to be gained in promoting the agricultural industry.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I am going to touch on that. I am going to get to that. I am not the type of member who would just get up, talk about doom and gloom, and not say something that is happening, I say to the member, of which he always accuses me.

Mr. Speaker, in Lethbridge a few weeks ago we opened up a farmers co-op. It wasn't opened up; there was an announcement made of funding, $1.4 million, I believe. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs was there, as well as Minister Tobin, myself, some people from ACOA, and some people from the Economic Development Zone. A positive thing. If farmers want that to work, it can work; because I am a great believer that we should let fishermen fish and we should let processors process. I am a great believer that farmers should farm and salesmen sell. Let the farmers do what they do best. Let them farm. If they want to take their product to this particular co-op, let the co-op buy it, let the co-op package it, let the co-op market it, let the co-op sell it, and it can work.

The dairy farming industry is another place where we have not reached full potential; the dairy farming industry in the Lethbridge, Musgravetown, Bloomfield area, I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: By the way, you know they are starting to get into industrial milk?

 

MR. FITZGERALD: I know that they are starting to get into industrial milk, and that is a positive thing, but a lot of the dairy farmers I talk to today are looking for - in order to increase their herd and get into industrial milk - more farmland.

At one time, caring governments allotted something like $125 or $150 an acre for farmers to clear land. At one time, caring governments would allow some incentive to allow farmers to clear land. Then they could go out and grow their own forage and feed their own animals. What did this government do, I ask you, Mr. Speaker? This is the government that is supposed to believe in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. This is the government that would like to create opportunities. What did they do? They did away with the small amount of money that was there to help farmers clear land.

MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TULK: I am enjoying the hon. gentleman's speech, but he cannot get up and.... We have met with the dairyman's association in the Province. We have had them into the Economic Policy Committee of Cabinet, and they were considering their proposal. We understand that they are going to increase, double, the production of milk in the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: It is industrial milk, I understand that, but they will still increase, double the amount of production of milk in the Province. It is industrial milk. The point that I want to make to the hon. gentleman is: do not accuse us. We are working with those groups, and you might be surprised what might come down the pipes at the end.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I am not talking about surprises that might happen. I am telling you the way it is today. If you pick up the phone today, I will give you five names right now of dairy farmers that I am aware of, who are living either in my district or close to my district, who will tell you that they cannot access government money or any funding at all to clear land. It is not there for them. This is a way that we can promote the agricultural industry. Surely goodness, we have learned enough about bringing people in with all those quick-fix solutions. I am sick and tired of somebody coming to me and saying: Sir, we know that your district has high unemployment numbers. We know that your district has good workers. Have I got a plan for you! Now, show me where I can get the money.

That is not the kind of approach we want to hear. That is not the kind of direction we should go in. We should deal with what is tried, proven and true. Farming is one way to do that, I say to people opposite. It creates an opportunity. Farmers have been in the area there for sixty-plus years, they have been doing very well, they have created some employment opportunities, and with a little bit of help they can continue to grow and continue to provide some opportunities there.

Mr. Speaker, this Province, at one time, exported more wild berries than probably any other province, at least in Atlantic Canada. They exported more wild berries, and I am referring to blueberries, partridgeberries and such. How many gallons of wild berries are exported from this Province today? There is a great demand for wild berries. We have one of the best climates, we have some of the best growing conditions, we have some of the best soil for wild berry production in Canada.

A group of people, Cabot Resources Inc., set up in the lower part of the Bonavista Peninsula a few years ago, created to try to bring some economic stimulus to the lower part of the Bonavista Peninsula. One of the things they identified was wild berry production and processing. In fact, I think that they almost had a deal made with a company down around Indian Bay, who is into the wild -

AN HON. MEMBER: Indian Bay Frozen Foods, located in Centreville.

MR. FITZGERALD: Indian Bay Frozen Foods, located in Centreville, which, I think, does very well, or at least they were at that time.

Mr. Speaker, there was a lot of debating back and forth and a lot of sharing of information with Indian Bay Frozen Foods. I believe it was something that could have worked. I think it could have worked had they been given a chance, and had they been given and led in the right direction to start small and move it along.

AN HON. MEMBER: Stay tuned.

MR. FITZGERALD: The member sings out: Stay tuned. I will stay tuned, but I do not know how long the people in Bonavista South can stay tuned waiting for good news. I do not know how much longer. People call and say: I don't know what I am going to do this winter because we do not have an income, we are behind on the light bill, we are behind on the heat bill. I do not know how much longer they can stayed tuned. I wish that they had the luxury to stay tuned.

We talk about the fishing industry, Mr. Speaker. There is still a great opportunity within the fishing industry. There are still many opportunities in the fishing industry. There is one small fish plant that opened up in my district this past year, where they did caplin production. I think they bought a licence and they set up in Plate Cove. This past year they employed something like eighty-five or ninety people. They did not all qualify for EI, but I think it will look after most of the people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Can I have leave to finish up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Now they are looking for some government help in order to put a waterline to the plant.

MR. TULK: It is done.

MR. FITZGERALD: Here again the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development indicates that it is done, that it is going to be done. I say to you, the waterline has not been done yet. All the promises -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: He is from the old school. He is obviously from the old school of promises, promises and promises.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I hope it is, because I know they have gone through all kinds of red tape in trying to make it happen. What they are asking for, Mr. Speaker, is some financial assistance in order to put a waterline to the plant.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture heard from the member, I say to the minister, and Mr. Tobin's office heard from the member, I can tell you that. Your department out in Clarenville heard from the member. What they are looking for is some financial help to put a waterline to the plant, because they have no satisfaction there. They are using saltwater and they are having problems there with the equipment fouling up and with the condensers, that provide the cooling to maintain the temperatures, clogging up and having a real problem in order to maintain the lower temperature that is needed. If that is approved, I say that is a step in the right direction.

Now this is what we have to concentrate on. If there are some good proposals come forward with some industries that we are familiar with that we know can work, and we know the expertise is there, the manpower and the skills and, I suppose, the work ethics - the word ethics are always there, I say to the member. That is always there, that is a given, and the most honest thing a person can do is when they pick up a phone or knock on somebody's door to look for a job. There is no shortage of people looking for a job. The shortage is (inaudible).

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say to members opposite, that this might be a beginning but we should make sure that whatever we can do to encourage people to set up and provide economic opportunities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, we should leave no stone unturned to make that happen.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased tonight to rise and say a few words on the bill that has been put forward. I have to say that the debate that has taken place on this piece of legislation is, no doubt, an interesting debate in terms of hearing about the progress that has been made, in terms of developing the world economy within the Province, and also hearing where we need to be going in terms of other directions, other initiatives. We realize, Mr. Speaker, that, as a government, there are still needs out there. There are still programs that we will come forward with and are implementing over time where you will see the results. We have seen tremendous results ourselves just in the last five to six years as we have moved forward with the Rural Strategy and the Jobs and Growth strategy in various communities around the Province.

I listened to the Member for Bonavista South when he got up, and I have to say that it was almost as interesting as the rabbit hunting trip that he told us about on one occasion, to which I listened with great joy as well. Certainly, I found his comments to be of great interest, especially those relative to the sealing industry, because I think it is an industry that we have fallen short on for some time. In the last few years we have seen tremendous growth and progress, and the member, himself, today made a statement in the House about the jobs that have been created within this industry right within his own district, in the community of Catalina. There are about sixty jobs that have been created there with this particular product. We have seen it, Mr. Speaker, in various communities around the Province. I think that is an industry that we have to continue to push, have to continue to diversify, and allow the communities in the Province to build an industry around that resource.

I think of the District of Burgeo & LaPoile, and I have heard the member for that area talk a number of times about the tannery that the community of Burgeo wants to move forward with. I am pleased to hear the members opposite, as well as the members on this side, support that type of initiative, because, Mr. Speaker, it is those initiatives that are actually reaching into the most rural, most remote communities in our Province where the potential for development of resources, in some cases, is limited; limited either to the fishery, to the forestry, or to the tourism industry. We have to continue to work diligently with these communities to be able to seek out and develop whatever resources they have available to them to create those jobs.

I know up in my own district this fall, for the first time we have started to do some work in the sealing industry. We tried it back a couple of years ago and we did not have a lot of success at that particular time, certainly, because of other obstacles and the climate within the Province at that time regarding that industry. I am pleased to see us being able to start to move that industry forward again this year. No doubt it will have its challenges as we do so.

Certainly, I wanted to talk about a number of businesses that have seen tremendous progress as a result of the EDGE status, and as a result of the legislation that we are bringing forward, I am sure that we will see many other successes. I think of Canadian Helicopters Corporation Composites in particular. I toured their operation in Gander about one year ago. I was very surprised at that time to know that a lot of the people that I talked to who work in that facility come from the outlying communities, Mr. Speaker. They come from the rural areas around the Central region.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: They drive, each and every day, to work in this particular facility. I remember one individual in particular who I spoke with who moved back to Newfoundland and Labrador to take a job in that particular facility, and was so happy to be able to come back home, to have a job that paid a meaningful wage and to be able to live in Newfoundland and Labrador again; and that is just one example.

I think of True North Springs down in South Brook, a dynamic, innovative -

AN HON. MEMBER: Grand Falls.

MS JONES: In Grand Falls, is it? That is right, in the IT centre - but other companies, what they have done.

The Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace talked about the call centre in his district and the jobs that that has created. They are not just jobs for the people in Carbonear, Mr. Speaker, they are jobs for people in the whole area, all the outlying region. Those are just a couple of examples.

I look in my own district, and I can tell you, the thing that moved me more than anything to get into political life was the declining economy, the communities that were experiencing such tremendous job loss with no economic base. Mr. Speaker, it was that devastation that moved me to be in the place that I am today. I can tell you, in 1996, walking, flying, traveling by snowmobile, because that was the only way to get through the district, traveling by boat, Mr. Speaker, I sailed in and out of communities in my district that were rock bottom. They had no employment, they had no industry, they had no roads, they had no way out, Mr. Speaker.

I am going to tell you, it took a lot of work, not just on the part of myself as a member or on the part of this government, but it took work on the part of the people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: It was the desire to stay in those communities. Mr. Speaker, it was the will to be able to survive and to move the economy in whatever way they could. I am going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I saw it happen. I am one member who stands in this House today who has a district that has come from the bottom and is moving its way up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, it did not happen overnight and it is not going to happen overnight. We bring in policies like the Economic Diversification And Growth Enterprises Act or the enterprise act, and they are one piece of rebuilding and diversifying an economy. Do we see results from it overnight? No, we don't. Do we see results over time? That is our objective. That is why this is one component of a number of initiatives that are part of the rural strategy.

Mr. Speaker, in 1996, there was a Marine Service Centre in my district that was subsidized by this government to the tune of $60,000 a year with one part-time employee. Today, this government turned that entire operation, for a fee, over to a private sector company. We should not be in the business of operating marine centres. Today, that is one of the most thriving, most successful companies in my district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: It employees twenty-three to twenty-five people on an annual basis. It costs government absolutely nothing, but they are contributing to the economy of this Province. They are one small company in one small community that is helping to provide a better living for the people in their particular area. Could we do it, as a government, being in business? No. But, what we were able to do and what we will continue to do is to create an environment that allows those businesses to develop, to diversify and to contribute to the people in their particular areas. That is what this legislation does, Mr. Speaker. That is what these policies do. They create the environment. They allow the business sector to grow and prosper around these particular initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you about another community in my district, the community of Charlottetown, which, by the way, yesterday was connected by road for the first time in their lives.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: But, let me tell you this, Mr. Speaker, this small community of 350 people were totally dependent upon the inshore fishery. In 1992, this community, like a lot of other communities in this Province, had their entire economy torn out from under them. They had absolutely nothing left. There was nothing left. They were devastated. They were heartbroken. They were on their doorsteps. I saw it. I was there. Where were they going to go? Well, let me tell you this: they stood there, they fought and they started to build their community.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: This summer, Mr. Speaker, we opened the first ever shrimp processing plant in Labrador, in the community of Charlottetown; 120 jobs in that community, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: It did not happen with governments alone. It did not happen with the community alone. It took a company that was willing to invest. It took a company that was willing to build a partnership with government, build a partnership with people, and that is what we foster. We foster the public-private partnership. We foster an environment, as a government, that is conducive to this type of business development. That is what we were able to do in that community. Did it involve some investment on our part? Of course, but it involved a lot of investment from the private sector. That is the kind of relationship that we want to foster and we want to build, that contributes to small communities like this.

A community of 350 people that creates 120 jobs overnight does not just find all those people in that community to go to work. They take people from all the communities around them and they provide employment to the entire region, not just to their own communities.

Mr. Speaker, those are just a couple of examples of some of the things that we have been able to do. Does this mean that we have fixed all of our problems? Of course it doesn't. Does it mean that every person in this Province is now taken care of and is satisfied? Of course not, Mr. Speaker. That is why this government will not rest until we are able to provide full rural revitalization to every community in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: That is our objective.

Why do you think so many times we make reference to the Northern Peninsula? Why do you think we went out of our way to provide these benefits and these programs to companies in the St. Anthony area and other regions in the last couple of years? To entice, to invite, to encourage investment so that the people in that region as well would have the opportunity to be able to see some jobs come to their particular region. We will not give up. We will continue to work with these communities, with these regions. We will continue to bring in policies and legislation that will encourage and foster growth and diversification of the economy.

Mr. Speaker, my heart goes out to people in this Province who are experiencing the terrible difficulties that I, myself, and the people of my district have gone through and, in some cases, are still going through. Not every community in my district has reached that level of comfort in terms of economic development and diversification. I still have communities that are struggling, that are dealing with the challenges: in Black Tickle. We have made some progress, but are we there yet? Of course we are not there yet. In the community of Port Hope Simpson, have we made some progress? Yes, we have. Are we there yet? Not yet, but we are going to get there, because we are not giving up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: That is what I would say to the other communities in this Province that are still out there grasping for that level of economic comfort that they want to have in their communities, that are praying each and every day that they will be able to have the jobs they need to provide for their family, and be able to work in their own community and live in their own community. That is what this government is about. It is about building regions for all communities. It is not building every community, but building regions for all communities so that every person has a place to go, a place to work, a job to bring home a salary and provide for their families.

We hope that legislation we are bringing in, like this program, like many other programs that we have implemented as a government, and will continue to implement, will allow us to do that. We have conviction in our responsibilities; we have conviction to do what is right and what is appropriate for these particular communities.

We are not doing this by the seat of our pants either, Mr. Speaker. We have consulted with these people. We have listened to these people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: We have been in and out of their communities, as a government, as a Cabinet, as members, as economic policy, as Jobs and Growth committees. We have listened to them, and we have heard what they have said. We have traveled by boat, ski-doo, car, helicopter, by whatever it has taken to reach the people of this Province. We have gone there, we have reached them, we have heard them, we are seeking our direction from them, and we will continue to do that. We will continue to work to make sure that places like Burgeo will see some diversification in its industry, whether it is in the seal tannery or whether it is in something else. We will continue to work to do that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: We will continue to work with the people of St. Anthony. I will tell you something. I know St. Anthony very well; I have spent a lot of time there. In 1996 and 1997, St. Anthony was a very depressed community. When we opened the shrimp plant there, (inaudible) came online, you saw the spirits of this community uplifted because they had something to look forward to. They started to have something to look forward to, a reason to get out of bed every day and a job to go to. We will continue to try and ensure that those kinds of economic opportunities are provided, are created, and that people in this Province will have all the reason they need to stay here and to work here, because this is where their heart and soul is.

We know that, as a government. We know this is the place where they want to belong. We know that we have an obligation to create those jobs in those regions for those communities. We take that responsibility very seriously and we will continue to work towards doing those types of initiatives, initiatives that will create jobs, will create diversity, and will allow people to develop, grow and prosper within their own communities.

I am a believer. I saw it happen in my own district. I will continue to work to see it happen in other regions around this Province, in many more regions in addition to what we have already seen; but we will do it, Mr. Speaker, consulting with people, acting on what people want, and working with the people, not in isolation of them, because we believe in Newfoundland and Labrador. We believe we have a future here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: We know it is what the desires and the wishes of the people of this Province are, Mr. Speaker.

All I can say this evening is that what we are doing is working. It has been working since 1996. You heard the Member for Torngat Mountains. The member speaks so passionately for the district he represents. When he walked into this House in 1996, he had over an 80 per cent social assistance rate on the North Coast of Labrador. Today, Mr. Speaker, it is down to 30 per cent. It is still too high, but it is progress. It is an indication of the progress that had been made over that period of time. That is what we will continue to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: We do not expect to bring legislation into this House and wake up tomorrow morning and all the problems in this Province are solved. That is not our intention. We do not live in that type of world. We live in the real world, and we know that when you implement policies and make changes, and put programs in, and create incentives, that it takes time. It is part of a plan to diversify, to progress, to allow opportunity for the people of this Province. We intend, Mr. Speaker, to see this through to the very end, and we intend to remain committed to the rural communities of Newfoundland and Labrador and to the people who live there. We have demonstrated it many times in the past. We will demonstrate it many more times in the future.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to stand and pass a few comments on Bill 60.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say, before I get started, that I cannot believe what I have just heard, to some extent. I cannot believe what I have just heard and there are two comments that I have to make, I guess. The first one is, I cannot wait for The Straits to freeze over this winter so that some of that prosperity can roll over onto the Northern Peninsula.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: The second thing I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, is that I wish, in 1999, when Premier Tobin ran in The Straits & White Bay North at the time, that instead of him, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair had run there and I would not have to be here today; we would be so much better off.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, no doubt there are some bright spots in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Northeast Avalon has already been mentioned numerous times here this evening and this afternoon. I must say that in some places - I have said it before, here in this House and outside of this House, in many meetings on the Northern Peninsula actually - that Southern Labrador is vastly different than the tip of the Northern Peninsula.

I must say, with all sincerity, that I cannot believe, after having two powerful Cabinet ministers and a Premier on the Northern Peninsula, that we could be as bad off and have to listen to what I have listened to here tonight about the prosperity in rural Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace spoke about people in his area. I am quite familiar with his area because I have been on dock there a number of times over the years. I have seen the people. I have friends in that area. I know that people from there commute in and out of St. John's every day. As he said, at 6:00 a.m., a stream of lights heading to town; at 6:00 p.m., a stream of lights heading back from town. It is great. There is nothing wrong with it. If people can commute to work and get back home every night, there is nothing wrong with it.

I can tell you, and every member in this House knows - I speak to the Member for Port au Port, and I speak to the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile - I will talk about Burgeo, the plant workers in Burgeo and Ramea, and the people on the Southwest Coast, and the people on the Port au Port Peninsula, who get up in April month and leave, just like the people in Ship Cove in my district who left this summer and went to P.E.I. to work in the fish plants to get enough money to qualify for EI, and come back home in November. That is the story out in rural Newfoundland. It is not all rosy. It is a long way from it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: I will tell you what happened in Southern Labrador, and it goes right back to what the Member for Bonavista South spoke about earlier, and it goes back to what the Member for Kilbride spoke about earlier. While this may be a start and it may be a help - and I say may - I can tell you that in Southern Labrador there are not a lot of people who benefitted from that. However, I will say that there are two things that made a difference in Southern Labrador: A fisheries policy that put Labrador first - I will give credit where credit is due; I am not somebody to get up and condemn for the sake of condemning - and resulted in six operational fish plants in that little piece of coast. It is also in money that is being spent on the Trans-Labrador Highway; in water and sewer; in Smart Labrador - investments by government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I cannot believe, after having powerful Cabinet ministers, or supposedly powerful Cabinet ministers, and a Premier, representing the Northern Peninsula, that we got nothing.

AN HON. MEMBER: What have you done?

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, members opposite are asking, what have I done? I will tell the members opposite that it is going to take a little longer than ten months to correct fifty-one years of Liberal mismanagement on the Northern Peninsula.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what I, and others from the tip of the Northern Peninsula, have done. I will tell you what I did, what we did, before I came into politics. The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair speaks about how we/they opened a shrimp plant in St. Anthony. I am going to tell you who opened the shrimp plant in St. Anthony. It wasn't the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. It wasn't the former Minister of Fisheries, and it wasn't the former Premier. It was myself, Dave Decker, and Mac Short. I will give credit to a good Liberal, if there is such a thing as a good Liberal. Mac Short, Dave Decker and myself got the 3,000 tonnes of shrimp that resulted in the St. Anthony plant being reopened.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: No Sir, I did not put that there. George Baker announced that, as I recall.

Anyway, that is what the picture is on the Northern Peninsula. While members opposite might like to go around, wave the flag and wrap themselves up in garments and the king's new clothes, and all that kind of stuff, and talk about how great things are and how much they have improved the lot of people in rural Newfoundland, while they want to talk about what I have done - and they talk about slowing out-migration.

Mr. Speaker, I will just give you a few statistics now from the 2000 Newfoundland and Labrador zone profiles. I will talk about Zone 6. They talk about slowing out-migration. Let me tell you, it has not improved. From 1986 to 1996, the net out-migration from Zone 6, on the tip of the Northern Peninsula, was 13.7 per cent, from 1986, in a ten-year period. That is an average of 1.2 per cent per year. My mathematics might not be like the Minister of Finance's, but I think that is fairly accurate. The population change from 1991 to 1996 was 10.7 net out-migration. As I see it, that is a net out-migration of roughly 2.2 per cent per year. But, from 1996 to 1998, the net out-migration was 3.2 per cent per year. I can tell you that it has not improved. If it has, it is because everybody who was able to leave has left. That is a fact. That is the story on the Northern Peninsula.

I was in Roddickton for a speaking engagement two weeks ago, and spoke to the business community over there. While I was sitting there, a businessman pulled out the same type of statistics and showed how the population in just about every community, except for Roddickton and St. Anthony - those are the only two communities in that region that have maintained stable populations over the past thirty years. Every other one of them has seen declines.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, in Southern Labrador there are things that can be done. Yes, there are things that can be done. The members opposite asked what have I done. Well, I can only ask, because they are government, for things to be done. We can only submit to them what we believe is in the best interest to the area. There are some things that can be done when it comes to infrastructure, for example. There is roadwork that can be done. You cannot expect anything to happen in Conche and Croque, and I will go more basic than that, more fundamental than that in what we need. We need Route 430, the Viking Trail resurfaced. Resurfaced, now that is not a lot to ask for but it is a twenty-five year old highway now that is in a sad state of repair.

We talk about jobs: the Minister of Education is well aware of my requests, my insistence, that a distance education centre when it is established will show up on the Northern Peninsula. That does not require any sort of controversy like we saw last year when they moved people from St. John's to other parts of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, there are things that can be done. I said last winter what could be done on the distance education centre, and I will say again what can be done on other facilities like that. When we are talking about moving things out of urban centres and moving them to rural Newfoundland, where I come from and where the people in Conche live, rural is a little more rural than what that government over there defined it as when they did their relocations.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago - I do not know if it was last week or the week before now - there was a debate here about research and development funding which we tried to support until the government tried to manipulate the Private Member's resolution. We talk about research and development, and we would like research and development money spent in this Province. We look at aquaculture: I was at an aquaculture conference last month in the Harbour Breton area. We see mussels farms basically stalled at around 2,000 tons of production. We have been about ten years now between 1,000 and 2,000 tons of production; not going anywhere, tremendous potential. What do we need? Research and development money.

Cod aquaculture: we are on the leading edge in this Province on cod aquaculture development. We were there some years ago in Canada, if not in Newfoundland, on salmon, but Norway ran away from us because of a lack of research and development money at that time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: I do not care who was around, I am just pointing out what happened. I am saying right now that what we have here is a desperate need for research and development money in fisheries.

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture - I do not know what I have done with the paper now, but anyway, there are papers I have read where he has spoken about his district, about the community of Twillingate. We have had some disagreement on what is happening there. I do not mind saying that I disagree with what was done there. The reason I say that, Mr. Speaker, is because it was done in the absence of any other action. It is just characteristic of what this government has been doing over the years in rural Newfoundland; sharing poverty.

Take a quota: we know that we have a fixed amount of fish to catch and process, and we have a fixed amount of work that can be generated from that. You can put it all into a small number of locations or you can put it all into a large number of locations. What this government has chosen to do is put it into more locations. Now that defies logic as far as I am concerned. Now when the minister did his deal in Twillingate, if he, at the same time, got the federal government to sign on somehow - it is not somehow because it is not hard to do (inaudible) here anyway - to ensure that, as a condition of having the licence to fish inside Canadian waters, that they land all industrial shrimp and have it processed in this country, well, Mr. Speaker, that would have given enough shrimp so that it would not have affected anybody else in the industry and he would have gotten his plant in Twillingate. That is what is a progressive policy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to belabor this discussion any great deal, but I will say this: Some very frightening statistics, as far as I am concerned. Now, we talk about the situation in places - as I said earlier, the members opposite have spoken about what I am doing. Mr. Speaker, we talk about relevant statistics that are closer to today. We talk about these old statistics. I will give you statistics out of this book. For the first six months of 2000, 6 per cent of the labour force in Zone 6 - and the late great Premier Tobin was down in my district - was involved in job creation. That is almost three times the provincial level. That is what is happening on the Northern Peninsula, when we have to be crying for job creation funding this time of the year.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that is not the answer. That is why we are crying out for infrastructure investments. That is why we are asking, if the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is going to be making special rules for some parts of the Province - because there are various areas of the Province that have different types of rules associated with the fish that is landed in that area - then, if you are going to do it in one, do not make chalk of one and cheese of the other. That is what we are saying, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: We are asking for consistency, because if we had consistency, instead of having one shrimp plant in The Straits & White Bay North district that runs about 8 million to 9 million pounds of shrimp through it, locally bought the year, and the rest of it comes from outside the Province, instead of having just that, and instead of having just one crab plant that ran 700,000 pounds of crab through it in Englee this year, maybe we would have something like the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair has over in that district. I am not suggesting that she has it, but it is over in that district; six plants. Maybe we would have something like the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has in his district, because the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, while he cries out about how his area is not getting fairer access to a resource, I will remind him that in his district, compared to my district, there are four with this Twillingate one coming back on stream.

AN HON. MEMBER: Four what?

MR. TAYLOR: Plants.

AN HON. MEMBER: For what?

MR. TAYLOR: Crab and shrimp.

AN HON. MEMBER: Four crab plants?

MR. TAYLOR: Four crab and shrimp. Two crab and two shrimp. Fogo has two -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: No, that is right.

Mr. Speaker, that is what we are talking about. That is not the answer, adding more plants in these areas. What we are asking for is to stop sharing poverty, stop trying to making the primary processing sector of the fishery carry more than it can afford to carry. If you want to do something in the fishing industry - if the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture wants to insist on putting more plants in the industry, then why doesn't he go to his federal counterparts, and instead of screeching and bawling for $100 million to give to Voisey's Bay Nickel or Inco, instead of doing that every time he runs off up to Ottawa, or the Premier goes to Ottawa, why doesn't he go to the Atlantic Innovation Fund and try to get them to shove some more research and development money into the fishing industry. Then maybe we could get a couple of more secondary processing plants than the two that we have right now in this Province. Maybe we could do something like that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Stop trying to reinvent the wheel. If you want to do something in rural Newfoundland, stop taking the job from point A and moving into point B, start creating new jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I will just show another statistic here now that came across my desk this evening. The government members opposite are always waving the GDP flag. I will not show it, but anybody who wants it can have it, certainly. They show the GDP flag and the graph is going like that. Mr. Speaker, since 1989, while the Gross Domestic Product of this Province has been climbing, pretty much steadily, the personal disposable income in 1997 dollars has pretty much stood still. That tells a story of what is going on in this Province from an economic perspective.

Yes, it is great to talk about offshore oil, it is great talk about an oil tanker that you see out in Conception Bay with the lights on, running into Whiffin Head and doing a transhipment every couple of weeks or every week or whatever it is, but there is a lot less happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador than that, especially when you get away from those few tankers and a bit of construction that is happening here in St. John's.

Now, I say to the members, in conclusion: Get out of St. John's once in a while. You spent your time last winter on the Northern Peninsula trying to buy an election, and I would invite you to come back anytime and go into Conche, Croque and Englee and tell the people of those communities that this Province is in great shape, because it is far from it.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say, at the beginning, that we do not have any tankers in the area that I represent. We do not have any oil tankers, we do not have any oil industry. I want to tell you that from the area I represent, there is a lot of leadership from within the communities that will help to make things happen.

MR. FITZGERALD: I live in part of your district, sir, and I know what is happening.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has recognized the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are forty-eight of us here, forty-eight people who have been sent from different districts across this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to represent people in the riding from - in my case, it happens to be from Ramea Island in the west to Rencontre East at the end of Fortune Bay. In that particular area that I represent, I guess I am fortunate to be able to represent an area where some economic activity is taking place. Not only is it happening in the community of Harbour Breton, but it is also happening at Hermitage, it is also happening at Gaultois, and there is some economic activity in Ramea, and I will talk about that very, very shortly.

What I want to talk about for a few moments is to say this: The MHA, himself or herself, government by itself, cannot go into an area and create a utopia, an industry where everybody is going to be working. It cannot happen. There has to be leadership from within.

Let me give you an example: In the area of Harbour Breton, an organization called CESO - I don't know if anybody knows what that particular acronym stands for, but it stands for this; Canadian Executive Services Organization. In 1998 they were in one community in Atlantic Canada. Where were they? They were in Harbour Breton. These are retired executives from across the country who have worked in federal bureaucracies, who have worked in provincial bureaucracies and have worked in private industries. There is a file of 6,000 of these people across the country to call on.

The people in Harbour Breton, under the leadership of the mayor, Churence Rogers, and other people in the community, called on CESO to come into their particular community and help them to develop a strategic, economic plan for the region. They did that. At the time when this particular organization was in place, there was a guy by the name of Andrew Salkeld, who was the Canadian President at the time. Today the President is Mr. Charles Beer, a former minister in the Ontario Legislature who heads up this organization. That particular organization has spent, since 1998, it is now 2001 - they signed onto a five-year contract to come into the community to help them with economic development. Mr. Gillespie from Ottawa has spent considerable time in Harbour Breton helping the council, helping the different organizations, as a part of the community capacity building forum that we held in there earlier, to help to develop economic activity from within the town. These people can bring expertise. What is has cost the town is minimal in the amount of benefits that have been accrued from it. What they have been able to say to the community is: These are economic activities, these are economic avenues, that you can avail of to make things work; and it is working. The community is a thriving community.

We talk about a community there. When the groundfish industry collapsed back in the 1990's it had a population of about 2,300. Today, the community still has a population of about 2,300. There are people who are working in Harbour Breton today. They have worked about thirty weeks so far this year, not fifty-two like they used to, in Ramea, in Gaultois, in Grand Bank and Fortune, fifty-two weeks of the year where people could not find time to get off from work, but it has built from fourteen back up to thirty. We are hoping to see, in a very short time, when it will be back to fifty-two again. There is economic activity happening there. Here is an opportunity where the community showed leadership, built on expertise, that a small community of this size could not have, did not have, but it was the leadership within that made it happen.

When we talk about the community of Harbour Breton, or any other community in the Province, you have to have leadership which is proactive. You have to have leadership that has some insight into the future. What is it that you want? In the area that I represent, on the Connaigre Peninsula, there is great leadership in all of the communities. Every one of them shows great leadership because they are determined, they want to make sure that their area survives, and I believe that it will.

Talking about agriculture: It is interesting that the Member for The Straits & White Bay North was talking about how they attended a forum in Harbour Breton some time ago. I was there too. The Economic Policy of Cabinet was there, eight or nine of us. Do you know what they told us in Bay d'Espoir with the fin fish industry: We don't want any more research and development in the fin fish industry. We want to develop it. Do you know what? For a long, long time the people in Bay d'Espoir did have to work with research and development. They found it difficult to make the fin fish industry grow, but with the Dobbins involved and the Taiwanese we are hoping that it will grow. We are hoping that instead of 200 people who work part-time that it can expand, double and triple. That is what we are hoping for. It is not an easy task, but when it comes to mussels it is a different situation. He is right when he says that it is somewhat stagnant. I will tell you why it is stagnant in our area: because we live in a rural part of the Province that is so far from the main drag. It is 200 kilometers from the Trans-Canada down to Harbour Breton. What the people who are involved in the mussel industry have said down there is: If we are going to grow - and we believe they will because the capacity is there to grow - we can grow millions of pounds of mussels, probably as many as 30 million pounds, all conditions being right. Now we are doing about 2,000 tonnes for the Province as a whole, but we will never be able to grow the industry until we have a plant that is in the area that can produce on a regional basis.

Sure, there are mussel plants around the Province that produce, but if you are going to bring mussels from down in the bottom of Fortune Bay into areas on the Avalon to produce, the quality of the mussels will decrease. The weight of the mussels, because of the water and so on - it is just not economical for the growers to do. The grower gets paid, not for what he takes out of the water but for what the plant processes. With that type of distance, they cannot make it work.

What I can say to you is: We are looking forward to Bantry Bay Mussels. I mentioned that a couple of nights ago in the House of Assembly, where they are looking to enter into a partnership with a local company to build a secondary processing plant in Harbour Breton. Now, what will that do? It will bring people from Hermitage, it will bring people from Seal Cove, it will bring people from Wreck Cove and Pool's Cove, to work in the area. What I said in the area that I represent is: If it is good for Bay d'Espoir, if it is a job for Bay d'Espoir, it is good for Harbour Breton. If it is good for Gaultois, it is good for any other community.

I must say, the leadership there - they have gotten over pettiness, in a sense, saying everything has to go in one area and then the other. We want to work together as a team, and it has happened through the zonal board and through all the different organizations. We are seeing real improvement happening in the area.

I talked about Gaultois. It is one of the communities that is on an island that was dead. People thought the people would have to move out. Only recently, because of a co-operative headed by Max Taylor, who is one of the residents of Fortune Bay North, who took the leadership, along with the people in Gaultois, went in there, invited the Japanese to come into the plant, do you know what they are doing today that they have never done before? They are selling fish oil from the rainbow trout and salmon in Bay d'Espoir, almost enough to pay for a large portion of their expenses, done in Gaultois, and the people are working there.

I can honestly say that not only there but also in other communities along the coast as well: in Hermitage, a small community, a small plant of about 100 people. It is not enough to employ every person in Hermitage or in Sandyville or in Seal Cove, in the area, but it is a good economic activity for the region.

When you go down and see the people who have worked for twenty, twenty-five, or thirty weeks, it is not fifty-two, but it is a lot better than fourteen and it is a lot better than make-work. Even though in some instances, like in Ramea, we talked about the devastation that happened there in that particular plant, let me tell you something that is happening there in Ramea. There is a group in Ramea called the Newfoundland Aqua Products Inc., and they started in 1996 in Newfoundland. It is a kelp product that they are doing there. One of the products that they are making is good for psoriasis. There is a lot of psoriasis in this Province. In fact, there are 50,000 cases of psoriasis here, and there are a large number of psoriasis cases in Prince Edward Island. Even though they have not done the medical trials yet - they are in the process of doing that very shortly, with the funding - for seven of ten people who took the sea kelp capsules, the psoriasis was completely cured. Seven of the ten. Now, it is not a cure; it is a regulator. They will have to take the sea kelp probably for the rest of their lives.

I know a guy in Grand Bank, in Minister Foote's district., who, for the first time ever this past summer, was able to wear shorts. Psoriasis. We believe that, in the clinical trials that will be done very, very shortly, it can become a million-dollar industry for Ramea. It is people like Wilf Cutler and Ian Stewart, and the people in that community who have persevered and said: We will not give up.

The floor fell in on a section of their plant some time ago and, as I said here a couple of nights ago, before the floor fell in, everybody wanted the plant. When the floor collapsed, nobody wanted it. They in the process now of being able to find a solution to that, and I believe that for the rest of the buildings that are there, they will find a solution that will be able to make the community a growing community again with small industries, and be able to diversify.

Talking about Bay d'Espoir, and the injustice that was done to that community some time ago, it happened in 1987. Bay d'Espoir should have been the centre for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. This is where the power is generated, in Bay d'Espoir, and the bulk of the high-paying jobs that should have been in Bay d'Espoir, do you know where they are?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: They are on the crossroad arterial, in a building there. I do not know how much it cost - millions of dollars - to build. These people where taken out of Bay d'Espoir, when they should have been left in Bay d'Espoir in the first instance. That would have created much more stability for that particular area of the Province than we see now. It did not happen, so we have to find other ways to be able to compensate for that. The people are not living in the past. They said, this has happened. We want to be able to build some things as well.

I have four other communities in the area that are isolated. I can say it is very, very difficult for some of those communities to survive. There is no two ways about that. In the communities of McCallum, Francois, Grey River, Rencontre East, the only way that you can get in is by boat or chopper. There is no fixed wing. It is very rough terrain in those communities, and there are times when these people are cut off from being able to use transportation other than boat and, when that does not happen, it is by chopper. It is very, very difficult to be able to get in. That, Mr. Speaker, puts them in a very, very difficult situation, but they are persevering as a result of that.

I would not be able to stand here and say that we do not have a problem with an aging population in the area that I represent, too. That is a fact of life. That has happened. It will continue to happen. I think that we have to, as a government, and as a group of people who are here, set our mindset as to some of the things that have caused it to happen. I talked about that the other night. When many of the young people in the community where I grew up, and in the neighbouring communities, went to university, it was primarily to be trained as teachers, doctors, engineers and so on, so we took all of our people out of the small communities.

Today, the Marine Institute has one of the best programs. It is probably a well-kept secret about what is happening, and the partnership that they formed with Maersk. They have more than 200 graduates a year from that particular program, and many of these people who are in that program are young rural Newfoundlanders who, when they find jobs - not if they find jobs; they do when they graduate - they will gravitate back to the rural part of the Province again. It has happened in the area that I represent. It is a way of life that they want. They want to be able to go back to rural Newfoundland. They want to be able to use their all-terrain vehicles, to be able to have their boats, to live a way of life, and they make good money doing it.

That, in itself, is a need for us to rethink and reshape some of the things that we have done. If we think that we are going to be able to stop the flow of people from many of the small rural places to large urban areas, not only in this Province but all across the country and all across the world, it is not going to happen. So, we have to maximize on the potential that is there within the area and keep as many of these people in the areas that we represent, not to be on make-work projects. The guy from The Straits & White Bay was right. These people will only go back to the rural parts of the Province if they can earn a good living, if they can make good money, if they can apply the standards to their families that they would want. If that happens, then I am sure we will be able to keep more of them there.

I could talk more and more about it, but I think I have made my point. The thing for us to do is to remain positive. I can be negative any minute of the day, because there are obstacles that we see. I have used the expression before: Obstacles are what you see when you take your eye off the goal.

Any one of us can see problems. There is not a utopia out there, it is a long way from it, and it will take every ounce of vigor, every ounce of determination, work and ethics that not only Oliver Langdon would have, but everybody in this House, to be able to change and improve the environment, and to make the community in which we live, and the Province as a whole, a better place to live and a better place to work. That is what we are doing here. That is what we are trying to do. I believe that we have made some major successes in doing it. We do not have fifty-two weeks of employment for every community that is in rural Newfoundland, but we have a goal to work toward. How far we strive, how far we can get, will be determined by the effort that we put in, the policies that we bring in as government to be able to achieve that goal.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER (Ms Hodder): The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

With reference to this bill, I must say that we support any positive initiatives that are going to get activity moving in rural Newfoundland. We all know today that rural Newfoundland certainly could use some economic activity. There is tremendous potential out there, and there is room for growth. The economy has been devastated since the downturn of the fishery, and the closing of it with the moratorium back in 1992. We have seen the devastation. I got elected a week before the moratorium was announced. I went through it, and I know the progression since 1992. I dealt with over 100 telephone calls a day for over three months, and an average of sixty-some a day after that for the first year. I have a little knowledge of growing up in rural Newfoundland. I lived there and saw people try to carve a livelihood around the fishery, and then to see the fishery taken away from them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Operated a business there.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I spent over twenty years in business in rural Newfoundland. I know some of the problems in starting businesses, some of the things you have to deal with in operating businesses, and the employment levels over the years. I might add that we want to see a shifting emphasis seen in rural Newfoundland. If EDGE legislation is going to do it - eliminate the greater Northeast Avalon area - and give incentives to companies to move outside, that is positive, I would say. We have to target areas that need the growth and development, ones that are dying around this Province, and try to resurrect some life back in these areas, maintain sensible population levels there, be able to maintain infrastructure, allow councils, and get people to run for councils that can have some pride and feel there is hope in rural Newfoundland. We need to see that.

My district is not too far from St. John's on one end. Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove takes in the Goulds area, Bay Bulls right to Trepassey, and there are areas in this Province as rural as any you are going to see in the entire Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, they are. In fact, all my area is, except the Goulds and Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove. I am not sure, under the initial act, if Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove is even in that. I cannot say for sure. In the amendments, it is not referenced here as being added. It is separate from the City of St. John's. I think it could be excluded. It could be in with the rest, because of the rural nature of it there. I would hope that would be the case.

I have seen this year, and over the past number of years in the district, young people who have called me - and I have dealt with a lot of calls from Alberta and other parts of my district - young people and people with skills who are leaving here in the fall of the year and going to Alberta, working in oil fields, and at the thaw in the spring they are coming back home again. I have seen that year after year. It has been going on for a number of years. The numbers are increasing. Many are fortunate enough to get some basic skills and experience and land jobs out here. That has happened in a certain number of cases.

I have seen this year, under the Job Creation Program, that there is not one single person in my district who got a job under the Job Creation Program, who needed 420 hours, not a single one. I spoke with a person in Trepassey today who needs 112 hours, who did not get on this Job Creation Program, and that is all they needed to qualify for EI. I balanced it through the whole district; there are none out there. Anybody who got on this project in my district needed 100 hours or 200 hours or 300 hours, in most areas, and in some areas did not even get on under the Job Creation. That is the situation there. In fact, I have standardized it. I have looked and tried to do a fair job to represent. Some people came in late, whom we could not accommodate, obviously. One reference that I mentioned, I think if you needed 110 hours or 108 hours or 112 hours, but everybody else - if you needed 100 hours to get your EI and you lived in Witless Bay, or you needed 100 hours and you lived in Renews, or 100 hours and you lived in Trepassey, I standardized it so that everybody in every part of my district was treated the same. That is the way I worked it, and nobody, I say, not one - I know people who needed 200 hours to qualify for EI this year. Even though they have not been in the workforce, they have been out of a job for awhile, they managed to scrape up 700 to 750 hours but could not get on it because they do not have the workforce attachment on that.

One fish plant in my district, in Calvert, one of which I was part owner, for the first time in twenty-seven years never opened this year. There was a year-round operation in Fermeuse, an offshore plant this year, and the people who got their EI you can count on my two hands. The rest of them did not qualify for employment insurance this year from work. That is a plant that is practically non-functional in terms of employment.

I know another plant in my district where the majority of people barely made it. Some are getting as low as $58 a week on employment insurance, $80 a week, $106 a week. Can you imagine a person in their mid-fifties who missed the target for retirement under the fishery, living in a house by themselves, an old house, getting $106 a week on employment insurance? They are being topped up on social services, basically. That is what is happening to people under the program, and there are a lot of them.

Closer to St. John's, it is not as severe. In the Goulds area, there is Bay Bulls and Witless Bay, not as great, because there are businesses in the area. One plant there employs over 300, and they come across Witless Bay Line, members of a unionized plant who come from Port de Grave district and work in Witless Bay. They have been there for a number of years, and there is nothing wrong with that. They are entitled, and they follow the same basics as anyone living there.

The further south you go, the worse it gets. You go into Cape Royal, there are people within commuting distance, forty-five minutes. It is reasonable to commute that distance, even though winter time it is difficult. The road is winding, probably the most winding road I have seen on a major highway in this Province, if you drive up from Bay Bulls area and drive up to Cape Royal. It is a snake-like road we see there. It was just resurfaced and it is still snake-like, but it is a better road to drive on, I might add. As you go on into Calvert and Ferryland, while there are no empty houses in Ferryland, as I have indicated before, there are people out there who try to fight and get a few hours to qualify for EI. Right on, as you go further up into Trepassey - last year there were 160 names of people who wanted to get, I think, 420 hours, who cannot get back into the workforce there, who need to qualify for employment insurance. Some are now dropping out of the system; they are two and three years out and they just cannot get these hours.

Now, what do you tell a person who is in their fifties, who is fifty-five years of age? Go to Alberta? They cannot get work there; it is as simple as that. They are not going to hire you to go out on a shift in the oil fields in Alberta at fifty-some years of age. You cannot do it. They have kids here going to university. They have a house which they own. If you look around in Trepassey, houses sold for $100, $300, a few thousand dollars, over the past number of years, and they are being bought by people from the U.S. and elsewhere, because they cannot afford to pay the rent in Alberta and pay the bit of property tax they owe on a very devalued property back here in this Province. That is the stark reality of life in parts of my district that is very much in contrast with some other parts of rural Newfoundland, and particularly the Northern Peninsula, as I referenced earlier today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It wasn't Labrador. That is right, in other parts of the Province. I want to add, it wasn't Northern Labrador. I sat back and saw Northern Newfoundland, and the Northern Peninsula, how the people are moving out of here and going across the Gulf in search of jobs. I have seen young people, who have skills and want to work, who just cannot get the jobs here in our Province. Even companies that are in the IT fields want people who have experience. Young, smart people have come out and had to go away, I guess, to cut their teeth and get experience to get back here. We need to encourage companies to take a chance on young, bright Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, people who have these skills and develop these skills here. We need incentives. There is a role that businesses have to play in this, too; not only a role for government to play, but a role that businesses have to play to ensure it.

When you look at some of the statistics here - my colleague from The Straits & White Bay North made reference to a statistic here. He mentioned how GDP has grown. This is based on 1997 prices. When we look at real GDP, we have to eliminate the effects of inflation. We have had a problem here because our GDP growth in this Province is growth that is generated in terms of a lot of the jobs going out. It is called, the rent from employment goes outside the Province from economic growth and does not create jobs back here.

In 1990, about $10.2 billion was the GDP here in our Province; $10.2 billion. Today, and up to 2000, it was almost $13 billion. So, it has gone from $10.2 billion to about $12.9 billion in GDP growth. When you look at the person disposable income in that period, over that ten year period, the total person disposable income in this Province was about $8.5 billion in 1990, today it is about $8.6 billion. We have seen a growth of $2.5 billion in GDP and we have only seen $0.1 billion in growth in disposable income. That tells us something. That tells us that people in this Province are getting by with less. We have seen a number of jobs increase and we have seen statistics spewed out saying, there are more people working here in our Province, the unemployment rate is better in parts of our Province.

The employment rate gets better depending on a couple of factors. Number one, the number of people who are is in the workforce - the number of jobs that are there is a factor - and the number of people who are seeking work in the workforce. When you have a lot of people go out of this Province seeking work, believe it or not a lot of them are going out because they cannot get a job. However, there are a lot of other people going out of this Province, not because they cannot get a job, but they do not want a job that occupies and pays them for two or three months just to qualify for EI, and have to live on $100, $200, $300 or, even if you have maximum EI, $413 gross a week for the next six, eight or nine months until the EI runs out, and then you are in between jobs again, trying to get work. That is the problem we have here in this Province.

I have not seen policies that would encourage us to be able to move away from that original "ten forty-two" trend, as we call it, between employment and unemployment. We have to get policies that are going to employ people for longer periods of time. Who, in their right mind, at twenty or thirty years old, is going to stay in this Province to go to work in a fish plant or any plant or at any job to get twelve weeks, to get 420 hours and then try to live on employment insurance. It will not happen. We need jobs of a longer duration, we need jobs with better pay, and we can only do that when we allow companies, not policies, to be able to spread their costs of overheads and operations over longer periods of time. You cannot operate facilities for two and three months unless you have huge margins and be able to survive. It is coming down now to being very competitive.

I spent time in different businesses. I will not get into all of them, but I spent time in different business where -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is one of the businesses.

- there was competitiveness, and where there was a degree of competitiveness out there. The margins are getting smaller and smaller in many areas, because when you spread a resource over a bigger area you are only getting the same throughput in operations. Margins are squeezed, and where companies could do it on volume, they cannot do it on volume anymore.

My colleague from The Straits & White Bay North mentioned extra plants. When you spread a resource out - and I understand they are looking at, or have announced, or there are other possible licences for, what we call, snap and eat crab. I think, roughly probably a half dozen more at a million pounds each again. We are going to take the resource and we are going to spread it out thinner all over the place.

Again, we are creating a monstrosity, and not just this minister but the previous to this one sitting today, will probably go down as the one who did the most to turn back the clock on development of the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. Yes, the former Member for Port de Grave. In terms of creating a sensible, sane industry that can employ people for longer periods, give people a better wage and get some rational basis into it, he has turned the clock back. How do you go out and tell ten, fifteen and twenty plants and all types of operations: I am sorry now, we are going to take all your licences, we only want this many here? How do you do that?

When the minister stood up on the policies of that government and said every single one of the sixty-five core plants were going to give a licence for all species, multi-species basically - that is what they have indicated. Look, we have to have a plan on the fishery, and not just the fishery. That is one vital area, because rural Newfoundland and Labrador wants direction on the fishery in this Province. They are crying out for direction in this Province. They are crying out for leadership on this issue, and we haven't seen leadership on this issue, and we have to have it. If we do not get it, we are all going to die on the vine. We are going to die a very slow death in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are going to be dealing with job creation on other projects to keep people in this Province alive. It is essential. I think there has to be a policy in the short-term where people in their fifties and so on, where we could a least give them a certain amount of dignity to carry them until at least they can retire, because there are not many twenty-year-olds or thirty-year-olds in the fishery.

I know people who have retired from jobs today who have gone to work in fish plants doing certain things, because in certain areas, in certain sectors, they do not have the people to carry out that skill. That is happening, Madam Speaker. That is happening in certain areas. We are going to see more in the future. Where are the people going to come from in the future for fish plant technology in our Province? Do we want to see them come from people who retire in their forties and fifties, and have to get a second job to survive? Do we want to see them come from young, intelligent, skillful people who want to use their skills in industry today and get a job that could be fifty weeks work, or fifty-two weeks, and be able to bring home a decent income for their family? Where do we want to see it?

MR. REID: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries.

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to correct some of the statements that the Member for Ferryland has made. Earlier tonight the Member for The Straits & White Bay got up and accused me of giving a licence to Twillingate and I should not have issued any more licences. Yet, in the same voice, again tonight, he asked for a crab licence for St. Anthony.

Madam Speaker, back in 1996, the hon. Member for Ferryland campaigned with the government -

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I only have twenty minutes and I would like to be able to use my time to speak on this particular issue here. It was not a point of order, the statement that was made, as the Speaker has ruled.

In Newfoundland and Labrador today -

MR. REID: (Inaudible) in 1996 for opening seventy-five more fish plants (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Madam Speaker, I ask for protection from the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. He is continuously interrupting and preventing me from using my allotment and my right to speak on this particular legislation. I ask for that protection.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: If he wants me to debate any issue outside this time with him, I will do it.

During the period, 1995-1996 up to 2001, there was an out-migration of 86,924 people from this Province, and they all did not go out on vacation and decide to retire elsewhere, I can tell you. Many of these people went out because they could not get a job in the Province and many of them went out of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Granted there was some migration back in again, because there was a shifting in and out across the border. People go out at a certain time and some of them come back in again. Granted there was a net loss of 38,559 people. There has to be a reason why in 1989 we had 583,000 people and today we are down to 530,000 people. There has to be a reason why we are losing 50,000 people. We are losing 50,000 people because the jobs are not here for the people, number one.

In 1992 the groundfish happened in this area here, 2J+3KL, and subsequently in 3PS, and in other areas.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and Labrador. In fact, the signs of moratorium were evident for quite some time. I spoke to people who fished on trawlers who told me it was lit up out there in the night time, who told me they saw liners with nets that took little flounder that were that size. Almost every little opening in the nets were filled with flounder out there. Foreign boats raided; that was one of the problems. I am not getting into the basic problems. We allowed, and the federal government allowed, our fishery to be destroyed; and it is happening today.

I spoke with a fishing skipper just last week who told me that they are out now with liners and nets, next to them, down on the South Coast area, raping the young fish from the ocean that we are going to depend on for a livelihood in the future. That should not be allowed. We have to fish to preserve a future, every single time we do that and allow that to happen.

The federal government talked about research and development. We had a moratorium. When the moratorium came, they figured we did not need research. We do have a fishery, why do we need research? We need research more than ever before when times are tough. When times are good the stocks increase. The number of fish plants, people said, here in this Province, increased dramatically in the 1970s, because of the 200-mile limit. There was hope, there was increase and the metric tonne went up enormously in the 1970s. It increased in the hundreds of thousands of tonnes, I might add. Then it dropped back into the five figures again in metric tonnes. That is why the numbers increased so dramatically initially, and that has had an effect. People in rural Newfoundland had some good times, I might add. There has been certain prosperous areas around our Province during the fishery. I have seen it.

I was down in the member's district, Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. It is a beautiful area, some beautiful homes. People thrived in the fishery in the past. I was really impressed when I visited that area there back a few years ago. A lot of areas in Newfoundland and Labrador had that. Trepassey area had that, beautiful homes, a growing population, 1,500 people. Today there are just over half of that amount. They have been fighting to get other industries and diversification, and they have been having a degree of success there, I might add. But it has not stopped the outflow because everybody cannot wait for jobs to develop, they have to do what is best for families and put food on the table and get employment.

These are the things that are happening in rural Newfoundland. We think things are hunky-dory and fantastic in rural Newfoundland. I heard a story here tonight, and I thought I was in Alberta for a while, Madam Speaker. Yes, I thought I was in Alberta. I thought I was getting run over with a prosperous economy. You do not have to go too far outside St. John's to see hardship. You can see a certain amount of that within the City of St. John's. You can see a certain amount of poverty. You do not have to go too far. Lets not kid ourselves -.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Just time to finish up, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you.

You do not have to go very far from this building, in the City of St. John's and other parts, to see poverty and see hardship in our Province, and right across the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have to have a recipe, we have to have a plan, we have to have something that is going to address this. We have seen, in the last twelve years - a lot of it could be blamed on the fishery, and that is not the fault of the people who were employed in fish plants. Maybe to a degree it might be; some in the harvesting sector. Who knows? Our people cannot accept all of the blame for that. They might participate in part of the blame. We have foreigners, we have the lack of a federal government's ability to enforce it. How well have we been served by this federal government in protecting the livelihood of jobs in our Province? We have not been served very well at all.

It is the responsibility of this Province to develop a policy for processing, production and jobs within our Province, outside federal jurisdiction. To be honest with you I have not seen since I came in here, a sensible, responsible direction that would give us hope in a government plan to bring rural Newfoundland and Labrador back. I have seen some nitpicking here and there. I have seen some efforts made that were fruitless. We did not expect them to work in the beginning. I have some that were successful. I know if you never try anything you may never end up with anything, but if you do try something that is well thought out, that is a good plan, that makes sense, that looks at things in a business sense, in how it is going to best serve the people, not what best serves you politically in the next election, we might start to get some results; because we have been too long making political decisions in this Province and not long enough making right decisions in our Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak about this legislation tonight, which is very positive, that is being brought forward by our Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development; legislation that is going to help us see attract business to the Province. Investment prospecting, Madam Speaker, is what we have to get into, which we have been getting into as a government, trying to attract new business to the Province.

When we look at the rural population in our Province, Madam Speaker, what is happening in some of the rural areas is just not happening in Newfoundland and Labrador. I saw a program the other night on Saskatchewan and Manitoba, where in rural Manitoba and rural Saskatchewan younger people are moving to some larger centres. There were some demographic shifts occurring, Madam Speaker, and that is not just happening in this Province. So, as we look towards building an economy, we also have to face the fact that there are demographic shifts occurring. There are younger people moving to get education more than they did fifteen or twenty years ago. A lot of young people now, more and more young people, want to get there education. That is a good thing. Madam Speaker, with our college system, we have been able to get a lot more people educated, and our university and the expansion of the college system; a lot more young people.

Look at the social policy that we have brought forward, as a government, in the last three or four years. It is the best social policy in Canada of any provincial government. We have integrated education. We have dealt with the whole idea of trying to get people to look at bettering themselves, to give them the opportunity to get out of programs that do not take them too far. We have restructured our whole social policy, and we have other provinces now looking at that social policy that we brought forward. You know, that takes time. That is not like short-term objectives here. We have long-term objectives. We are refocusing our education system. That took a lot of guts to do, by this government, to refocus the education system, to make it focus on education. We have done that.

We are rebuilding our schools out there. We are providing a better education system for our children all over the Province, way better than it used to be many years ago. We have seen improvements there. We have seen improvements, as I said, in the education system, post-secondary. We have seen improvements in the whole social policy about training people, getting people trained, looking at and working with HRDC, the federal government, to try to get programs that fit people, not people trying to fit into a program. That has been part of the problem.

So, when we are facing the challenges in rural Newfoundland and Labrador - and actually most of us are from rural Newfoundland and Labrador in this House. We have either lived there or we are from there, and we all have the experiences. We all have experiences of people who go away but a lot of them come back, and they have experiences. They get education, and they get work experience. That is not a new phenomena. That has been happening for decades, but you cannot argue with one number: 211,000, the most people employed in this Province, ever. That is a number you cannot argue with, so some things are going right. Some policies are working. In the locations where things are not that good, where we need to see and we would like to see more business activity, the new boards, the RED Boards, are working really hard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: The leadership in these communities is shining. When you go and visit these communities, these RED Boards, and you see what they are doing, they are doing tremendous work. They are organizing themselves. We do not have six or seven development associations in one area, all lobbying for different projects now. They have all prioritized what they want to do. Everybody is getting together, trying to face the situation.

What we have seen, and what I have noticed about economic development in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, is that these RED Boards are organized. What they have done is, and what we have seen is, they have looked at what it is that they believe can help their economy grow in an area. I know some areas where there used to be three fish plants and now there is one, but that fish plant is working longer, people are trained better, they have longer jobs, longer year-round jobs, and there are three or four other businesses that have sprung up, Madam Speaker.

There is a lot of homework being done and we are working now to improve the policies to attract more business to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. This new program is very innovative, this new EDGE program that our minister has brought forward. Our Minister of Industry has been very active in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. He has been out leading the charge in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Rural Expo, that I was talking about a few weeks ago, was tremendous. We had young people there. We had the RED Boards there. We had community leaders there talking about the future. They were not in to a depression round table, let me tell you. They were talking about the future. We are not over here with rose colored glasses on, Madam Speaker. We are not. We are over here trying to figure out solutions.

MR. TULK: Over 135 initiatives (inaudible) we are doing.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, over 135 initiatives underway. There was a lot of examination of ideas that we did not even look at years ago about alternate species of fish, about how to value add on the wood supply, to look at cogeneration of electricity with Kruger, that nobody looked at ten years ago. There is a whole range of different things.

Tourism development is going through the roof in this Province. We have all kinds of tourism associations. We have tourism groups, we have heritage associations, and we have people wanting to come to the Province, being attracted to the Province's history. We have local communities now that are looking into their history, looking into their archaeology, that they never bothered with ten or fifteen years ago. We have all kinds of examples of it going on, and a tremendous amount of homework being done to set up a new economy in their areas. Up on the South Coast of Labrador, on the Northern Peninsula, Placentia Bay, all of our great history of the Province is now being looked at and examined.

This week we accepted a new cultural heritage strategy from the Association of Cultural Industries and the Association of Heritage Industries. They got together and put together a strategy themselves. They presented it to our department this past week, and they are very optimistic about the future, and there are jobs.

The cultural trade mission to Boston that we just had: twenty-five people from our Province, in the cultural industries, went to Boston. They had a tremendous show down there. As a matter of fact, they have been invited back to a major trade show in Boston, coming up in April, and we are going to see people in our music industry in Boston, and our marketing with exports. Our people were a hit there, big time.

We have a great product to offer. What is happening, industry by industry by industry, by new archeology site by new historical site, we are expanding our economy in different ways. We are opening up different parts of a new economy. That is what has been happening. That is why there are 211,000 people, on average.

The new oil and gas industry that is occurring here, it is happening around us. We notice it a little bit, but it is having a big impact. It is a good thing the transshipment point is where it is, because it wasn't almost there; but it is there. That is also a help.

We also have to plan now for industrial benefits for the future. We need to have industrial benefits for the future, from our oil and gas policy, and we are concerned about that on this side of the House. Our Minister of Industry, the Cabinet and the caucus, are hoping to deal with that issue when it comes to industrial benefits for the future. We want to see industrial benefits. We all want to see value-added, because that is what gives us jobs.

We are also going to press the federal government for a better deal on our royalties for our offshore, and we are going to continue to press that agenda aggressively. We are going to continue to press, so that the federal government recognizes that we want to have our economy work and we need them to take the shackles off. We need a better deal, as has been talked about, and these are issues that we have raised. Our Premier is raising them. We are going to continue to raise them in a more aggressive fashion in the future. What we want to see is the ability for our economy and our people to develop themselves. We do not want to be restrained in doing it. We are saying to Ottawa - and sometimes you will see the editorials from mainland Canada, when you hear about the proposed changes in equalization, and it is almost like this Province or Atlantic Canada has a hand out when it does not. It certainly does not. It is an adjustment that needs to be made, that would see the royalties for our resources stay in this Province until we have an economy that is thriving as it should be. That is what we have been asking for, and that is what we need to see happen.

When you look at what we are doing in rural Newfoundland and Labrador on the fishery policy that has been worked out in the last few years, that our new Minister of Fisheries is working on, we see an expansion there of opportunities, Madam Speaker, but, again, we need the federal government to cooperate with us on that front. We need to see them free up some resources to help us do that, but there are major opportunities in rural economies, in rural areas of our Province, to see new jobs created, new science and development, research and development opportunities. We need more of that money spent. The federal government just announced some new funds for research and development, and we are aggressively going to go after those research and development dollars and get them in some of our rural areas of the Province. We should have more of that money in this Province, but that is up to us to go after it, and we are going to continue to do that.

When you look at the manufacturing industry in this Province, no wonder we are at 211,000 people. They have been expanding in this Province. We have seen call centres attracted -

MR. TULK: We provided (inaudible) the lowest income tax rate in the country and they refuse to follow.

MR. K. AYLWARD: The lowest income rates for business in the country and now this new EDGE legislation is going to give us another edge, Madam Speaker, but it is all about organizing your economic policy so that it works for your people. Nobody said that it was going to solve everything overnight. Nobody said that. Nobody is saying it today. I will tell you, in rural Ontario, or rural New Brunswick and rural Manitoba, they are having the same struggle as we are. They are having the same struggle. I seen it on a program the other night. Farmers in rural Saskatchewan are struggling, Madam Speaker. They are struggling with demographics. They are struggling with the change in the global economy. We have to face up to the rural economy, to the global economy, and we also, though, have to not be afraid of it. We have to go with it and we have to challenge it.

With our people getting better educated, with new labour policy - which our Minister of Labour is bringing in now, excellent changes to the Labour Standards Act which are being brought in to help with our workforce, to help give better benefits to our workforce. With those types of changes we will see our economy start to get better, but it is also about looking at different opportunities that are around us that we did not look at years ago. That is what is happening out there.

When I look out at Bay St. George, we are looking at trying to attract companies to look at oil and gas now in starting the work. The Member for Port au Port is working on that. We have seen two oil wells getting drilled out there in the last few months. We see oil development starting to occur. We have silt deposits out there that we have companies looking at, at this point, that they were not looking at ten years ago. We have done an inventory of our minerals with Mines and Energy, and now we have a document that we are sending out to mining companies to come look at the minerals of the region. We did not do that ten years ago. We are doing it now. Also, a number of other regions in the Province are starting to do that. That is why our people are leading out there to rebuild that economy. We are in here facilitating and we have to facilitate with good policy, Madam Speaker.

What this government is doing is bringing good policy. That is what it is doing, and is doing it well. As we go forward and see different improvements occur in a number of our rural areas we have to work together, and if there are certain areas that are not doing as well, we have to all pitch in and look at those opportunities. We have to get our bureaucrats working harder and we have to work harder to identify those opportunities. We have to get the federal government on side, and they have to come with us in our partnership.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: We are not going to be shy about saying that, Madam Speaker. We are not going to be shy about it at all. I have no intentions about being shy about it.

We are going to see new opportunities created. We are going to want them to pay more attention to what we are trying to do here because we have seen improvements - the 211,000 speaks for itself - for the people that are working. When you look at the improvements that we have seen in our post-secondary education and our trading programs, the future is what we want to make it, as far as I am concerned. We have to encourage our business people and give them every bit of policy help that we can to help make it easier for them to do business, and that is what this government is about.

I support this legislation. As a matter of fact, I think this legislation is going to go a long way to seeing new businesses look at Newfoundland and Labrador in a different way.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Maybe some of the speakers on that side are right and maybe some of the speakers on this side are right, but not all regions are the same. Not all regions are equally as fortunate, not all regions are equally as prosperous, and not all regions, and districts, are the same. Even within a district there is a difference from community to community with respect to economic development and prosperity in the districts. Having said that, Madam Speaker, I have to let the people of this Province know, and the hon. members on that side know, that we are not against prosperity. We are not against forty-eight districts being prosperous, all districts being prosperous and creating jobs so that we can have a meaningful life in our communities and in all of our districts. We need that type of development throughout this Province.

This party, on this side of the House, is not against prosperity. We are not against communities, districts, and regions prospering because there are a lot of districts on this side of the House that are prosperous; a lot are surviving, a lot are doing a good job. Madam Speaker, my district is one of them. I have to say, not only to the people of this Province but to hon. members on the other side, that the thanks goes mostly to the people, to the towns and communities that are doing everything possible to make their towns and communities prosperous. Madam Speaker, that can only be done through long-term planning and economic development based on what a region, a district, or what a community has to offer to anybody who is willing to come into a community or a district to do business. This party is certainly not against that. We are not against tax cuts. We are not against creating a lot of jobs in our communities, which I have seen in the past three years. I have seen many jobs created. I have to commend the people in the district, in the communities, who work very hard to make sure that these jobs are created. Sometimes the government, ministers, and the Premier do have an input in the creating of these jobs; and it has to be done. The government's responsibility is to help all forty-eight districts. They cannot just narrow down a few districts on their own side and say we will help our own and neglect and ignore the districts on this side. That is not the way to do it.

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, the people in our communities are the ones to be commended and congratulated. Over the years I have seen, in my district particularly - and even serving on these committees and boards through the Chamber of Commerce, development associations and all types of interest groups - people who spend free hours out there to come up with ideas and work hard to make sure that these ideas go somewhere, but the only way that these ideas can flourish, grow and become something is with the help of good policy, good legislation, and a commitment by government that is going to let it happen. Yes, we recognize in some of the communities that there are job postings but we have to recognize that these job postings are a result of our bright, young people and young families having to leave this Province because they cannot afford to work for the low wages that a lot of these jobs offer. By our brightest youth leaving then it creates a void in communities that are prosperous; some communities that are doing very good.

In my district I seen job postings this past year which I have not seen for a long time, but when I ask the question: Why? The answer that I get is: Well, a lot of our young married couples with young families had to move in order to make a means for a living. They cannot survive on these low wage jobs. They cannot provide for their families in communities like Grand Falls-Windsor and bigger areas where it probably does cost a little more to live than it would in other rural areas.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak on this bill, but I still have to let the people of this Province know that my district - yes, it is a prosperous district. I do have communities that are doing very well but in my district I still have people leaving. When I look at towns like Triton, Madam Speaker, we see a flourishing community because of the people in that community, because of the businesses that are there. Congratulations go out to the owners of the businesses, the operators - like the marine center - and the mussel producers. I have a fish plant in my district. I have steel fabrication shops and all types of construction companies. They create a lot of jobs but in order to survive the way they have been surviving they need to have the initiative to carry on; have a reason to carry on in their businesses. A lot of times today in rural Newfoundland we see a lot of good ideas go to the wayside. A lot of good ideas and opportunities are missed because we do not have the necessary funding to put into economic development, research and development, where small companies can take a good idea and develop it, market it and hire a lot of people in doing that.

My district has diversified a lot. I have farming, the fishery, forestry, boat building and all types of small contractors. That is what keeps a community vibrant. That is what keeps the community successful and prosperous. We cannot do anything to jeopardize these small communities. That is why we need to depend on good legislation, good policies, and a government that is willing to implement them, a government that is willing to go out into the rural parts of the Province and make sure that companies are given these opportunities; that these companies are given the breaks they need to do that.

The fundamental requirements to stimulate economic development in rural Newfoundland are things such as good roads, a good supply of supplies, a good workforce, and cooperation of all the stakeholders, no matter what type of business it is or whatever industry it is. We have to recognize that without cooperation we are not going to survive in rural Newfoundland. We cannot always depend on make-work projects. We cannot always depend on people struggling to get a few hours just to survive on EI. We must make sure, in the long term, that we do the right planning and we do it through economic development and the cooperation of the councils.

In Grand Falls-Windsor we have one of the best examples of a community coming together with all other stakeholders - whether it be the Chamber of Commerce, development associations or whatever - to lay out a long-term plan so that their goals can be achieved at a time when they need to be achieved. I remember back twenty years ago when we first started coming up with the idea of having an economic development officer. It was not very easy back then to get money to pay for that officer but we recognized that this had to be done in order for the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor to survive and diversify in case something happened to our paper mill or any other industry in the town where jobs would be lost. We had to do that. I congratulate the council of the day for doing that and the council, even today, for recognizing that tourism associations, economic development officers, and the like - having the resources and funding to make sure that they can do their jobs. That was the only way that our town could survive.

I congratulate the people working within the departments for stimulating the economy of Grand Falls-Windsor; for bringing in new industries, new technologies, with some help from the government. I congratulate the government for doing that. That is the job and role of a government, to help communities that have good ideas, communities that need help to get through the red tape, and some funding. That is the role of the government in communities like Grand Falls-Windsor. We have done that and we have been very successful. I am proud to be representing half of that town because it is so important to see that people in my district can have a job. They can go to a business, apply for a job, stay in their community and work and raise their families.

Madam Speaker, outside the Grand Falls-Windsor area, in my district too, we have other things that we could be doing with respect to forestry. We could be doing secondary processing, value added, when it comes to some of the hardwood supplies that we have. A lot of research and development needs to be done in that area. It could create thousands of jobs but we need policies in place where any company could come in and look at that resource and say: This is what we want to do. They need a little boost from different departments in government to get through the red tape; probably some funding, not major funding, some small funding to get it up and running. Then it would be successful from there on in.

Also, we have other industries in my district; the farming industry. The farming industry in Green Bay does create many jobs and can create a lot more if we do the necessary research and economic development required in that industry, to take a product that comes out of the ground and do the secondary processing and value added processing with that product. Products such as root crops can be secondary processed; bagged, processed and probably shipped halfway around the world. These initiatives come from people. These initiatives are taken by people who are willing to take the risk. These initiatives need to be cultured, stimulated, enhanced and supported by governments. As I said, it is government's responsibility to do that, to take the ideas of our brightest young people who are willing to work, put in the hours and come up with good ideas, whether it be in forestry, farming, boat building, or any type of industry in any of our districts, and make sure that they get all the help they can get to enhance these industries, to build on them, to start them up and create many jobs that we need in rural Newfoundland.

If we only cut through some of the red tape that is in our policies - that is why we have amendments to legislation. That is why we come to this Legislature and debate these bills. That is why we come here and look at all this legislation that we think can be better. It is our job, on this side, to debate this legislation. It is our job to make sure that it is the best we can do for the people of this Province, and we are pretty successful in doing that. We are pretty co-operative when it comes to doing what is right, and I do not think any member on the government side can say that we do not co-operate, because we do. We put forward amendments that we feel are necessary, amendments that gives us the ability, that give the people of this Province the ability, to sustain living in their communities, to grow their businesses, to develop new businesses. That is very important.

We can have prosperity in forty-eight districts, if we do it right and if we have time to do it; because it does not happen overnight. Like the hon. member said a few minutes ago, it takes time. We must have a long-term plan so that the time it takes is going to be time that is well spent in developing things that we need in our Province.

One of the areas in this Province that affects almost every district, in which every district can prosper and every district can create thousands of jobs, is the tourism district. In my district, we have one of the most beautiful and pristine areas of the Province, the Green Bay South area, around Triton, Brighton, Long Island, and all that area. It is such a beautiful area, that a lot of tourists come every year to see the same things and to avail of the different services and walking trails. We have one walking trail in Robert's Arm. It is a beautiful walking trail, and hundreds of people come to walk that trail. They love it in Green Bay South. They love coming to that area, and they leave a lot of dollars in my district.

The same thing in the Grand Falls-Windsor area. We have a lot of people who visit our area every summer. They leave thousands of dollars. They visit our salmon ladder. They visit our RV Park. They visit the mall. They spend thousands of dollars stimulating the economy of Grand Falls-Windsor and the surrounding areas, because what is good for Grand Falls-Windsor is good for Botwood, it is good for Bishop Falls, and it is good for all the Central Newfoundland area. If we take advantage of this industry, we enhance it. If we put the necessary dollars and research into doing that, then we can do this all over the Island, in every district. The hon. members on the other side can enhance their districts, employ thousands of people in their districts. I know some of the members on that side do have trouble with job creation in their own districts, so they are not immune to hard times. We are not immune to hard times. We have it on our side, and they have it on their side. We must work together. We must co-operate through providing the people of this Province with good policies, good legislation, implementing good policies, cutting through the red tape, and making sure that through every job that we can create in this Province another family, another young person, does not have to move to the mainland to find work. The work is here in this Province if we do it right. If we develop our industries, whether it be mining, whether it be forestry, whether it be fisheries - it does not matter where we develop and what we develop - if we do it right and we get the best results from long-term planning, if we get the best results from economic development, then I can see this Province prospering in the next few years. It is going to take the co-operation of this side and that side, and the people of this Province, to co-operate with government. All the stakeholders and the ministers will have to work together, because we all are elected to serve the people of this Province. We are all elected to make sure we have the best health care we can provide, the best job opportunities we can provide, and the best education programs we can provide.

Mr. Speaker, nobody in this Province is immune to hard times, but we all are responsible for doing the best that we can do. I can only say to the members on that side, when you do the things that are necessary and good, congratulations. I do not mind giving congratulations when the right thing is done, and I do not mind criticizing when the wrong thing is done. If the minister comes to my district and announces a good program, and announces some type of development in my district, I will certainly shake his hand and say, congratulations. Having said that, I do criticize when we know we could be doing better in rural Newfoundland, when we know we could be doing more for the districts of my colleagues here on this side. When I know that we are not doing the best, then I will criticize. I would say to any minister over there, I am not afraid to stand and criticize if they do something wrong, but I am willing to co-operate with this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: I am willing to co-operate with the people of this Province. I am willing co-operate with the people in my district, regardless what colour they represent, what party they represent, or what religion. It does not matter to me. My goal is to co-operate so that

my district will stay a prosperous district, so that my district will be vibrant, so that my district will create jobs, and so that the people who have left my district in the past three years will return and hopefully there will be a job waiting for the people of my District of Windsor-Springdale.

I hope that the forty-eight members in this House have the same goal in mind, will take the same initiative, and will do the right thing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the few minutes to speak on Bill 60.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am proud to speak briefly in this debate, to say why I am supporting this aggressive and very practical bill, and to say why I am supporting this bill, a bill that is designed to do something for rural Newfoundland. That is what is so important about this particular bill: it is designed to do something for rural Newfoundland.

AN HON. MEMBER: And Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I have heard at least two hon. members opposite say that this bill was not the salvation, that it was not the solution to all of our problems. Nobody ever advanced that bill under that connotation, that it was to be the be-all and end-all. What it is, Mr. Speaker, is a major effort on behalf of this government, in combination with so many other initiatives, to help the rural areas of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: One of the things that I have noticed, while I have sat and observed the debate, is why this crowd over here is the government and why that crowd over there is where they are.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: That is one of the things that I have noticed. Leaders are known by their attitude, they are known by their positive approach, and they are known by their enthusiasm -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: - not by their despair, not by their despondency, and not by being prophets of gloom and doom.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Just about everybody over there who stood to support this bill did it haltingly, did it hesitatingly. I support this bill, Mr. Speaker, but it is not the salvation. I support this bill, Mr. Speaker, but it is not the total solution to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, we know that. As I have said, it wasn't put forward on the basis of solving the total problems of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, but it was part of an integrated approach, part of a holistic approach by government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: - to develop this Province economically and socially. Mr. Speaker, hon. members on this side have, all evening, indicated the numbers, the numerous projects that have been going on in their areas.

Mr. Speaker, again, people observing and listening must have thought that we came from two provinces: over there the negative side of the Province, and on this side the positive side of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Over here on this side, Mr. Speaker, the people with ideas, the people advancing initiatives, the people advancing ideas to the benefit of this Province, and on that side, nothing but whining; whining, Mr. Speaker. That demonstrated, Mr. Speaker, why the people on this side of the House are here where they belong, with government; the people who demonstrate leadership, the people who put their compassion into action.

Now, Mr. Speaker, people talked about out-migration. There is nobody more concerned about out-migration than members on this side of the House. We have been consumed with a passion to try and stop the hemorrhaging of people away from this Province. Yes, and we are succeeding. Mr. Speaker, it is not a quick thing. There is no quick fix. Again, referring to hon. members opposite talking about, not an absolute solution, not the salvation. No, Mr. Speaker, we are not miracle workers. It is not a quick fix but the out-migration is shrinking. It is shrinking and for that we are very proud.

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Premier hands me a note which says: Since 1997 out-migration has declined steady, employment expected to reach a record high this year which is one initiative bringing people to the Province. Population declines in 2000 and 2001 were the smallest since our population losses started in 1993.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, that is the sign of success. That is the sign that the government's programs, the government's policies, are working.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: What did I hear? It is a sign of what? Was that another voice of negativity I heard?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Prophets of gloom and doom. That is the name that is going to be put on them, the prophets of gloom and doom, the people who preach negativity. I have not heard one positive idea from -

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, we have.

MR. LUSH: There was one?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. LUSH: Okay, I congratulate the member. He is the exception and the exclusion.

That is the name tag, Mr. Speake5r, that is the designation that is going to be put on hon. members opposite; the prophets of gloom and doom, the people who propagate negativity. That is going to be their connotation. That is going to be their hallmark in the future weeks and months here in Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that this bill, this initiative, is just part of the total approach of this Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to develop our forestry, our agriculture, our fisheries and aquaculture, mining and manufacturing. The whole bit is the approach of this government. Mr. Speaker, the signs in the economy are showing that we are being successful.

I invite hon. members opposite to join with this government in our enthusiasm, in our excitement, as we bring Newfoundland to economic development levels unheard of before in this Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thought for a moment, after listening to the hon. Government House Leader, that I was in the House of Assembly twenty-five or thirty years ago when the member first started and the former, former, former, former Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador was here with grandiose speeches such as that given by the hon. member. Joey Smallwood was a man who was given to the kind of speeches that the last speaker gave about the grandiose changes and development in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think that the previous speaker learned a little bit about speaking methods from him.

I want to talk about the legislation, Mr. Speaker, because the legislation we have before us is very particular legislation about a particular program called the EDGE program. What do these amendments seek to do? One of the things that they seek to do is to be supportive, to recognize that there is a difference and a distinction between the economic activity that can go on, and does go on, in the northeast Avalon and in the capital region. I think that those of us who represent urban districts have to recognize and realize, that there is a distinction that has to be made, and also to recognize that people who represent rural districts have an enormous challenge. There is an enormous challenge in this Province to overcome the trends of economy that have been going on in this Province for fifty years, but throughout the western world and eastern world for centuries.

The urbanization of society is something that is going on regardless of government policy. If you go out west, in western Canada, there is ghost town after ghost town in western Canada because of changes that have taken place in the farming communities in the last twenty, thirty, forty, fifty and sixty years. We see that going on because people do want to live in larger places. They want to live in urban areas, they want the services that are provided. This is a trend that is going on. It is enormously difficult for government policy to fight back, but we do have to give people a choice. We have to ensure that when people are moving they are moving because it is their choice to move, and that they have opportunities to stay in the communities, live there, have a prosperous life and have alternatives there.

We do have to have policies and programs that are supportive of rural living. We have to do that. We have to have programs that ensure that when people live in rural communities in Newfoundland and Labrador they are able to earn a decent wage. We have to reject policies like changes to the employment insurance act which have caused many, many hundreds of millions of dollars to be lost to people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador over the past five years. Five hundred million dollars is one estimate for a period of three years lost to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, people who otherwise would have been entitled to employment insurance.

We need to ensure that people who are working in rural Newfoundland are paid a decent wage. So we have to ensure that our minimum wages are significant, are appropriate, are living wages and not the kind of wages that people cannot survive on. We have to ensure that services that are provided to people, such as home care services, attract a wage that is a decent and living wage and not something, as it is today, where people who are working in the home care service industry are paid an abysmal, paltry wage, and have little opportunity to organize because this government has passed legislation making it very difficult, if not impossible, for them to organize. People have to go out and try to find ways of organizing workers to overcome what has happened to them as a result of this government's policy.

We have to recognize that there is - we heard a number of speeches tonight talking about significant initiatives that take place in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and have taken place. The Member for The Straits & White Bay North and the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair talked abut things that are happening in Southern Labrador. We know of the great success stories like the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company, which have access to a resource and have used that and turned that into an engine and generator of jobs and economic activity in Southern Labrador. It is a terrific example of a community building its own economic resource and base with the support of government programs. We have tremendous examples of people staking out their way in rural areas, in rural parts of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We do need to recognize that it is an enormous challenge, and programs like the EDGE program can have an influence, but I do have to say that we have to be very careful when we are talking about programs that may be of general application when it comes to taxes. In this case, I think there is a particular portion of this that I find that we have to seriously consider. We are suggesting in this legislation that not only are we going to collect no provincial tax, but the federal tax, the tax that the Government of Canada collects from these EDGE employers, is going to be rebated by the Province. The federal corporate income tax payable by a company is to be rebated 50 per cent by this government. So, the taxes that are otherwise payable to the Government of Canada, and paid to the Government of Canada, the Newfoundland Government is going to turn around from its tax dollars and give that money back to the company. We have to be very careful about that. We have to be very careful when we start talking about issues such as this, because we are talking about probable issues that will go on for ten, fifteen, twenty years. Twenty years we are talking about here.

I remember in this House of Assembly, and some hon members remember, going back to December, 1994, when we had a piece of legislation brought in as amendments to the Mineral Tax Act. Amendments to the Mineral Tax Act were going to give a ten-year tax holiday for all new development in Newfoundland and Labrador, all new mineral development in Newfoundland and Labrador. Similar speeches were given that day, as were given here this evening and today, on both sides of the House, by members in the Liberal caucus and the Conservative caucus, all singing the praises of this great measure that was going to eliminate taxes on mining companies. The then Minister of Mines and Energy, who was a recently defeated candidate for the leadership of the Liberal Party, stood up in this House and said that this was a special measure to bring about economic development in marginal geological formations, marginal mineral activities, marginal economic activities in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, all the same, at the same time, within the matter of thirty days after the discovery of the Voisey's Bay mineral find in Labrador. Only one person - and it was this member - in this House, said: Be careful. We have to be very careful. We could have a bonanza on our hands and we are putting together a tax holiday for ten years for perhaps one of the biggest bonanzas of discovery in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are still debating that discovery in Newfoundland and Labrador today.

MR. TULK: What is your concern?

MR. HARRIS: The minister asks what we are concerned with. The concern we have about this is that we are setting up a situation where companies may end up being extremely profitable corporations. We hope they are, because if they are extremely profitable then they make lots of profit and they can pay lots of taxes; but if they do not make profits they will probably go out of business.

MR. TULK: What is the concern?

MR. HARRIS: The concern - I don't understand the member. Are we going to say that Newfoundland and Labrador should be a place where only people pay taxes, and not companies? That corporations do not pay taxes from the profits that they make? Are we going to give a tax holiday to Inco and say: No, you do not have to pay any taxes to this Province. You can just come and take away our minerals, with a promise for returns down the road.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) tax break.

MR. HARRIS: I hope that Inco is not getting a tax break.

The previous speaker talked about the development of mines, minerals, and everything else, and I hope that this is not part of the plan. I hope that any company that operates in Newfoundland and Labrador makes a profit because then they will be able to contribute to our economy. They will be able to pay taxes. They will be able to pay their fair share of the taxes that are supporting the economy and the enterprise in which they are flourishing. The concern is: Not only are we not collecting our own taxes, but we are going to give them back taxes that Ottawa is collecting. We are going to give them back taxes, saying: Don't worry about it. Never mind. Come to Newfoundland and Labrador. We won't collect any taxes, and if anybody else collects taxes from you we will give it back to you. That is the policy of the hon. member opposite, in this legislation. That is the policy there. We will help you avoid taxes for fifteen or twenty years, if you last that long, and if you are prosperous.

There are some good aspects. I do not know how effective it has been, really. I think the minister made some very strong statements today about 1,600 jobs being created as a result of the EDGE program; 900 of them came from Friede Goldman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I am only looking at the list.

MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the figures that were given to the hon. member, 1,600, are jobs at the end of 2001. If he looks under Friede Goldman, he will see that. I think it is 120 in 2001. That is the figure that is added up to give the 1,638 jobs.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: I don't think I agree with that, Mr. Speaker, at all, because when I add up these figures for 2001 it does not come anywhere near 1,600 jobs. It does not come anywhere near 1,600 jobs in 2001 that are existing today as a result of this program.

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but if you look at the report that was issued on December 4, the so-called Status Report, it seems that half the companies are active and the other half are either people who never took up their status, or were one time active and are now no longer active, or had their status revoked, or never even commenced operation. I wonder how effective this program is. I would also like to know whether or not there has been any objective, independent review of this program to see whether this program has actually been the tool that actually brought about the jobs, or whether some of these jobs were going to be created anyway and it only acts as a subsidy, a subsidy to industry, that would otherwise occur. That is important, that we not just have the minister saying: Here is a list of companies and here are how many jobs exist here.

The minister seems to thinks there is some sort of special truth in the fact that governments cannot run businesses; cannot run anything, I think he said, sometimes. Last week he said government cannot run anything. I do not know if he was talking about his own government. Today he said governments cannot run businesses. I suppose there may be some businesses that governments cannot run as well as other people, but there are lots of circumstances, I say to the minister, where there are some industries and some businesses that should be run by government. Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is one of them, I say to the minister, because it is a matter of important provincial policy that, that type of business be owned by and run by government policy directives, such as Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is run by.

There are other strategic industries and companies in other provinces that were run by governments, and run very well by governments. I will give you an example in Saskatchewan. The Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan was run enormously well, enormously profitably, by the Government of Saskatchewan. There was a Tory government in place there for six or seven years and they sold off that company and left the province bankrupt at the end of their nine years in power. They sold off the family jewels. They had been running it profitably and running it well until it was sold off by the Tories, just as this government tried to sell off Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro a number of years ago. Mr. Speaker, we have to be very careful.

I think there are some aspects of this program that I think are good. If it is run properly, it does allow the companies themselves to make the decisions. The company can say: Okay, we will set up. We think we have a profitable operation. We think we can make money here, and we will choose to set up in one particular place as opposed to another because of the incentives that are here. What we have to be very careful of, Mr. Speaker, is that we are setting the bar too low and that we are, in fact, providing a subsidy to industry that would otherwise be here and otherwise be profitable.

We do recognize, as every Newfoundlander and Labradorian has to recognize, that the survival of rural Newfoundland and Labrador is dependent upon policies of government, whether it be this government or the government in Ottawa. What we saw in the federal Budget yesterday, for example, was a government and a policy that ignores the needs of provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador, that ignores the realities of Canada, that ignores the realities of people who are trying to make a living in rural economies such as Newfoundland and Labrador, and have a budget that is designed for Central Canada needs and for a Central Canada economy. That is what we had yesterday in the federal Budget. That is what we had. They have a tin ear. They cannot hear the voices from members opposite when they write letters to the editor and when they -

MR. TULK: They are not listening to you either.

MR. HARRIS: Well, they are not listening to their cousins here in Newfoundland and Labrador, with the former Premier sitting around the Cabinet table, obviously without any influence over the policies of the Government of Canada.

Despite all the cheerleading opposite, we have a very serious situation on our hands with respect to our place in this country, with respect to the fact that our natural resources, whether they be mineral or oil or fisheries, have been badly handled by provincial governments and by federal government policy to the point where we have little control over what goes on in our own offshore, Mr. Speaker. The C-NOPB seems to be calling the shots. The royalty regimes are inadequate to make sure that we have a proper return on our own resources, and we are reduced to programs such as the EDGE program, which is essentially saying: Come and set up a business, and we will make sure that it is cheap for you to do that because we will not charge you any tax.

We have to resort to these kinds of subsidies, Mr. Speaker, because we do not have sufficient control over our own resources, over our own policy, over our own future. I think that, while we have to undertake measures like this, we go a bit far when we are starting to give back taxes that are being collected by other levels of government as an incentive to people, when we cannot convince our own federal government to engage in a policy that would do the same sort of thing.

If the federal government was serious about the development of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, it would be them that would be reducing their own taxes, or implementing programs to provide assistance to allow these things to happen, not the provincial government, with its own meager resources, having to give back to companies money that is collected by the Government of Canada. It is at the same time that we are trying to stop them from clawing back the revenues that we ourselves get from the offshore, being clawed back by Ottawa, and now we are saying to companies: Come here, and the money that they collect from you we will give back to you.

We do not have the financial resources to be able to pass back to people taxes collected by the Government of Canada. It is a policy that is misguided, Mr. Speaker. It is totally misguided to say to a company, that if Ottawa collects a tax from you, we are going to give half of it back to you. We are going to pay you back what they collect.

Meanwhile, on our offshore, if we collect royalties we lose 70 cents on a dollar. If we go ahead with the Voisey's Bay development, Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is going to make ten times as much as the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. We stand to make $411 million in revenue, and the Government of Canada stands to make $4.9 billion. Here we are saying to other employers: If they collect money from you we will give you back half of it. It is crazy. It is a crazy policy to undertake to pay back to employers -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think I heard, recently, famous world leaders say: Give me the tools and I will do the job. I think that might have been Abraham Lincoln. I am not sure, but I remember reading it somewhere before. I remember hearing it before.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: I have read it or I have heard it. It doesn't make any difference, the saying is true.

What my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development is bringing to this House tonight is a tool, one of the tools required for economic development in our Province.

I am delighted to stand here tonight and support Bill 60, because this is one member amongst many on this side of the House who are excited about what is happening in their district; really excited. I think the only encouragement we heard from across the floor tonight came from the Member for Windsor-Springdale, and I know -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: - the Member for Windsor-Springdale voted for me the past two elections because he is my member.

I want to say, in support of this bill tonight: You know, government can only create the atmosphere to build economic development in our Province, and many have said that government should not be into running businesses. One of things that I have brought to this House in this session is the Labour Standards Act, a change in labour relations in this Province. Our Premier did a bold thing in February. He created a new Department of Labour. There hasn't been a separate stand-alone Department of Labour for ten years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: I will tell you, in speaking to people in business and in labour around this Province, this was entirely necessary, because if we are going to compete against world markets we need to improve labour relations in this Province. This is one of the steps that will improve labour relations in this Province. I am proud to say here tonight that we have been working with business and labour, government combined, on four major projects that will enhance labour relations in our Province. If you do not have good labour relations in your province, you do not have a good workplace, you do not have good moral, you do not have good productivity. All of this is very important to creating good economical development.

Now people have been putting a strong focus on rural Newfoundland. I grew up in rural Newfoundland in a family of twelve, and I know what it is like to come from rural Newfoundland. Part of my district is urban and the other part is rural. I understand the complexities of rural Newfoundland, and any one of us who sits here in this House and has the privilege to represent a district, understands that not everybody in their district has the benefits of economic development or the benefits of wealth. There are people in every district that require attention. All of us saw the interview that was done on CBC television, Mr. Speaker, and all of us saw the concern that is presently being portrayed in the media for the Northern Peninsula, and none of us are opposed to what has to be done and what needs to be done in rural Newfoundland.

I want to tell you about my district a little bit, because I think this has been a valuable debate here tonight. I think the whole Province that is tuned into the parliamentary channel tonight are seeing, maybe for the first time, their representatives, and they are seeing and learning about other parts of the Province, and that is important.

When you look at the extreme part of my district, which is Buchans, Buchans by all accounts should not exist today. The mine closed down in 1984, and people refused to leave Buchans because they had an ownership of Buchans. They liked Buchans. They went there from all parts of Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, many of them came from Carbonear where I grew up.

When I walked into the union hall in Buchans, when I was running for election, the union hall was crowed. People were there who belonged to every trade imaginable working at ASARCO mines. They wanted to stay in Buchans at all costs. Many of them were aging and a lot of them had returned from the Mainland to come to Buchans to resettle because they had been finished their employment. They had a strong desire to stay in Buchans.

As a government, we heard requests from people in Buchans about poor air quality in their schools. Even though there were only 200 students there, we did not close a deaf ear to the people in Buchans. This government said: Yes, we will invest money in Buchans. There are children there who need proper attention. They need a good school. So this government stepped up to the plate and put a new school in Buchans for $3 million; $3 million dollars for the people of Buchans.

We realize, too, that the people from Buchans live a hour-and-a-half from the highway, so they have to have recreation. There is a club there called the James Hornell Boys and Girls Club. This government provided funding to build a new Boys and Girls Club, renovate the library in Buchans and build a new club so the children would have a place to go and have a decent place for recreation. We have not turned our back on Buchans. What you need in places like that is to improve, keep up and maintain the infrastructure,so in the event of business coming into that area things will be in place.

Look at the community of Millertown. There are just under 100 people in the community and most of them are senior citizens. They had a big industry with logging for a number of years. In fact, a couple of years ago they celebrated their 100th anniversary. A little community of less than 100 people catered to over 4,000 people for Come Home Year.

You talk about attitude in this Province. We need to stop our whining, we need to stop our complaining, we need to roll up our sleeves and say: We are here. We have been here for over 500 years. We do not have to leave this Province. We have to tell our young people seated around our kitchen table every night, at the supper table: You do not have to leave this Province. We are going to find a life here for you. We are going to keep you here in this Province. Don't feel like telling your children: You have to leave when you finish school. Keep your attitude positive and that is what keeps people in jobs.

When you come down to Badger there is a Central Training Academy there that is training people all over this Province in heavy construction. We all know what is going on in Grand Falls-Windsor. The biggest change that I have seen in Grand Falls-Windsor, over the past eleven years, has been cooperation. At one point the people in Botwood were against something that would happen in Grand Falls-Windsor. The people in Badger were against something that would happen in Buchans. That has changed. Over the past ten years there is a regional cooperation amongst all communities that come under the Exploits region.

I have to compliment the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development. Zone 12: I do not know if I am biased here or not, but I have to say that Economic Zone 12 is a model. I am sure there are people here who would say that their particular economic zone board is a model, but I have to say that economic zone board 12 is definitely a model, in my opinion.

AN HON. MEMBER: What communities (inaudible)?

MS THISTLE: In those communities, right from Buchans to Leading Tickles.

That economic zone board is trying to do as much in Buchans as they are in Grand Falls-Windsor, Leading Tickles and Botwood, and they will succeed; because whatever is important to any one of those outlying communities, outside of Grand Falls, affects Grand Falls-Windsor.

Grand Falls-Windsor is a service centre for 75,000 people. We depend on the people from the member's District of Windsor-Springdale, Lewisporte, Exploits, Fortune, Cape la Hune, all over, Baie Verte even. People come into Grand Falls-Windsor to do their business and we depend on them there.

I have to say that in Grand Falls-Windsor we are in an economic boom, but it is not by accident; it is by plan. It is a combination of all players coming together and business seeing that this is happening, and the infrastructure being there and wanting to bring business there.

This government has come on board through economic development to create the EXCITE Centre. That was a three-way partnership between municipal, provincial and federal governments.

What I am saying is, government creates the atmosphere. When that idea first came to government, I remember sitting around the Cabinet table and trying to sell that idea; but I did not have to work too hard because my colleagues knew, and they accepted, that was a very important project. They could see the benefits of it, and agreed to come on board with it.

EXCITE has done a lot of exciting things for Grand Falls-Windsor. We are into a housing boom. We are into retail that we have not seen before. My previous life, before being a politician, was in the banking industry. Our biggest year in Grand Falls-Windsor was 1989. What we are seeing in 2001 is a duplication of 1989. We had to learn, in Grand Falls-Windsor, how to hustle. We depended solely on the pulp and paper mill, but we had to learn to diversify, to go out and look for new ways to create and develop our economy. That is taking form now, and what is different is that all players are on board and that is why it is happening.

We, as a government, have seen the need to regionalize. I am going to say something now that some other members across the other side of the House did not agree with. As a government, we decided to relocate and regionalize some of the centres around Newfoundland and Labrador. One of them was Grand Falls-Windsor, and this government decided to set up MCP in Grand Falls-Windsor.

MR. HUNTER: You cannot even get a doctor there.

MS THISTLE: Grand Falls-Windsor, forty-three jobs for MCP.

Now, I want to respond to the Member for Windsor-Springdale who is saying you cannot get a doctor in Grand Falls-Windsor. That is absolutely false. That is absolutely false, and I am glad you brought it up so I would have an opportunity to respond. The Central West Health Care Board has an excellent record of recruiting new doctors and specialists - an excellent record.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: I would like say to the member opposite, if he has problems with one of his constituents looking for a physician, would you please refer them to me or to the CEO of the Central West Health Care Board. I know that is not the case.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: That is not the case. There will be nobody without a doctor. I think that is false, what you are saying here tonight. I had one telephone call from a person who was having difficulty finding a family physician, and that person now has a physician.

I want to tell you about dialysis in Grand Falls-Windsor. Dialysis was brought to Grand Falls-Windsor about three years ago. We listened to a young man who was having to go to St. John's all the time for dialysis. This government saw a need and, in fact, with the dialysis, went and established the dialysis unit in the Grand Falls-Windsor hospital. Do you know something? That unit is now operating to the maximum capacity.

We also saw a need for a seniors' home in Grand Falls-Windsor. This government came on board and now has provided funding. A new seniors' home was built, Carmelite House, with a price tag of $10 million.

Mr. Speaker, things are happening in this Province. Just the other day I heard from my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, how the blueberry industry right in our backyard, right in my backyard, and the cranberry industry are taking flight in this Province. We have lots of natural things that we can do, all we have to do is think about it. We have a blueberry industry right in Grand Falls-Windsor.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: In your district, and the owner of that lived in my district.

As I said, there are all kinds of things going on in this Province. The EXCITE has a new workforce of 500 people in there. The population of Grand Falls-Windsor has expanded by 1,000 people in the past 18 months.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: I went through the EXCITE building and it would do you good to stop at every work station and say: Hello, where are you from? Oh, I was up in Toronto working. Oh, I was down in the U.S. working, or I was out in BC, or I was in Ottawa, and the IT industry shut down. I am glad to be back home. I brought my spouse with me and she is working in such-and-such a place or he is working in such-and-such a place. This is unreal! When you go into that centre and see all the people who worked outside of Grand Falls-Windsor, outside of Newfoundland and Labrador, they are working there.

This member opposite was against relocation, by the way, and I don't know why. We now have, in Grand Falls-Windsor, the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture; and why not? All the aquaculture, or most of it that is going on, is down in the minister's area from Fortune-Cape la Hune. It makes good sense to bring that office to Grand Falls-Windsor, which is in the central part of the Province.

I want to say, attitude; we need to develop here in this Province a can-do attitude.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: They do. Everybody here on this side are excited. They are excited about what is happening in this Province. They are excited about: the most people working since Confederation. They are excited about all the activity that is happening in St. John's and in the Northeast Avalon. They are excited about the activity that is happening all over this Province.

As the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair spoke, she talked about all the excitement that is happening up in Labrador. Various members from this side talked about the excitement that is happening all over the Province. We need for this excitement to be contagious. We need for this excitement to spread across so you can put the message out as well. You cannot work on your own. You need to get excited about it and tell people in your district that things are happening.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to stand here tonight and support Bill 60. It is one more tool that is going to help this Province on the road to prosperity. I commend the minister for bringing it forward and I support it.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to have an opportunity to speak on Bill 60 but I am conscious of the time.

Mr. Speaker, I move that we adjourn debate for today.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday at 2:00 p.m.