The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before I call routine proceedings, the Chair would like to take this opportunity to introduce the second Page who has joined us for the spring sitting, Tracey O'Reilly. Tracy is a graduate student in political science at Memorial University.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise today on a point of privilege and I do so reluctantly. I refer Your Honour to section 97 of Beauchesne which states the following: "§97. The Speaker has stated: "While it is correct to say that the government is not required by our rules to answer written or oral questions, it would be bold to suggest that no circumstances could ever exist for a prima facie question of privilege to be made where there was a deliberate attempt to deny answers to an Hon. Member, if it could be shown that such action amounted to improper interference with the Hon. Member's parliamentary work." That is contained in Debates, December 16, 1980, page 5797.

On two occasions on the last sitting day of the House, the Premier provided information to me, as Leader of the Opposition, and in my capacity as Leader of the Official Opposition, and to all Members of the House that I contend to Your Honour constituted deliberate attempts to deny answers to me and that have interfered improperly with my parliamentary work, not only as a member but as Leader of the Opposition.

With respect to the equalization clawbacks the Province suffers, the Premier gave the following information in his Ministerial Statement: "The Prime Minister and I discussed a number of other important matters, including the divestiture of Ports and Harbours from federal to provincial jurisdiction; the equalization program; "clawbacks" on resource revenues; and the disposition of the federal government's 8.5 per cent share of the Canadian Hibernia Holding Corporation. We have agreed to work toward a realignment that would be advantageous for both our governments."

Mr. Speaker, journalists have reported that the Premier - when interviewed outside the House of Assembly Thursday - said the Prime Minister had agreed to change the equalization formula. He is quoted as saying: "The prime minister is clearly committed to the notion that... provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador could keep more of their source revenues." Further, he said, which is in direct contradiction of what was said in this House: "My understanding and my impression from my meeting with the prime minister is that he is of the view that that's the right thing to do... as soon as they can do it, and there's no reason to wait." But a spokesman for the Prime Minister's office told the journalists on Friday there were no commitments made in that meeting. Clearly then, Mr. Speaker, the information the Premier provided to the House, that he and the Prime Minister had agreed to work toward a realignment, information he repeated and expanded on outside the House, was not correct.

Since the Premier was one of the participants in a meeting, and therefore must have known, I repeat, must have know the difference, it is reasonable for any hon. member to conclude that the Premier provided incorrect information deliberately. The incorrect information interfered with my ability to do my parliamentary work as Leader of the Opposition, as a member, by asking oral questions on the basis of incorrect information.

The second issue, or instance, which also occurred Thursday, regards the issue of whether the government's position on Voisey's Bay has changed from that of the former Premier and of the Administration that he led. When I asked the Premier if his position has changed he responded as follows: "I appreciate the opportunity to give an answer in the Legislature because I have answered that question probably 10,000 times elsewhere in Newfoundland and Labrador. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition has chosen not to listen to the answer. I believe the people of the Province have listened to the answer. The short answer is this, because I will try to give short answers: There is no change in the position from the mandate sought in 1999 to today. None."

Mr. Speaker, as I spelled out in the Legislature Thursday, the mandate Premier Tobin received in 1999 was based on a commitment he repeated on numerous times - which we will investigate again later today - that all of the nickel/ore, 100 per cent of that ore at Voisey's Bay, would be processed in this Province.

Premier Tobin made the following statement to a KIXX-Country radio reporter during the 1999 election campaign in Gander. This comment was broadcast on the news provincially. Premier Tobin said: "It is our policy to have all of the ore processed in the province. But beyond that, we're not even prepared to discuss any alternatives or any options with Inco or with anybody else ‘til first of all Inco formally moves away from the position that they took earlier on this year - last year, in fact - when they said that their position was for a project that would see a mine and mine-mill in Labrador and the ore shipped entirely out of the Province."

That is the basis for the Tobin government's mandate, and the Liberal Party's mandate in 1999, and it is from this position that Premier Grimes said on Thursday he has not strayed; but that was not the correct answer. The Premier knew it was not a correct answer, yet he chose to deliberately give it to me and all members of this House during Question Period.

Interviewed outside the scrum area, outside this Legislature, here is what he said, in complete contradiction to what was said in this House during Question Period: "We believe full processing - the people of Newfoundland and Labrador expect that the equivalent of the total volume that comes out of the mine in Labrador will be changed into nickel in this Province. And whether or not the business that they're in suggests that every single rock that comes out of Labrador goes into the processing plant in Newfoundland and Labrador, that's a different issue. They might actually be bringing some of the ore that's mined in Sudbury to Newfoundland. And we'll have an equivalent in terms of tonnage, volume. That's the whole notion we're talking about with full processing. And over the life of the project, we expect to be able to accomplish that."

I draw the exact same conclusion that the reporters on The Morning Show and other media drew, that this is a wholesale change in the position from that on which the Liberal Party and former Premier Tobin won its mandate. This Premier's position has changed, he knows it, yet he chose to tell the House something different. His decision to deliberately provide incorrect information has once again interfered, in my view, with my duties as Leader of the Opposition, as a member and all members of this House, by preventing me from asking questions based upon absolute and truthful information.

I put to Your Honour that we have seen recently, even as of today, a Speaker's ruling in Ottawa where the federal Minister of Justice took the opportunity to inform the media on an issue dealing with legislation and changes in government position before she took the time to inform the House, and she was brought and questioned today by the Speaker of the House of Commons. Therefore, I put to Your Honour, that I have established a case of breach of privilege as defined in section 97 of Beauchesne. I move a motion, if Your Honour so concurs, that this House direct the Premier in future to provide information in this House that is correct, and refrain from deliberating providing information to members that he knows to be incorrect.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I fear to speculate as to what would happen if such points, or if such activities in the House of Assembly were ever declared to be a point of privilege.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader is speaking to the point of privilege, as I understand it.

MR. LUSH: That is permitted, isn't it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh yes, absolutely.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, if we allowed such actions to be a point of privilege I fear to say or speculate what would happen to the House of Assembly. It would become an absolute circus.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: The Leader of the Opposition mentions that the hon. the Premier misled the House. If that were correct, that does not make a point of privilege. It does not make a point of order. If it could be proven that the hon. the Premier deliberately misled the House, it might be a point of order but certainly not a point of privilege. That is as far as it would go. I would suggest what we have here is simply a difference of opinion. That is the very worst that we have, a difference of opinion.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that the Leader of the Opposition and all members on the side opposite are afraid that the hon. Premier is going to come through with a deal for Voisey's Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: That is what they are afraid of, Mr. Speaker, and they are putting every obstacle in the way. They are doing everything they can to prevent that.

I suggest that there is absolutely no point of privilege, and ask the members to let the House carry on with its activity and let the Premier develop a plan for Voisey's Bay that is going to be acceptable by all of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will hear the hon. member and then the Chair will take the point of privilege that was raised under advisement.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, of course, will wait with interest your ruling on the point of privilege that has been raised by the Leader of the Opposition. What he has done is suggest that the Premier has told one story outside the House and another story in, and I think that can be supported by the facts.

What he has done, at the very least, is shown contempt for the members of this House who are elected by the people of this Province to serve in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: If the Premier has something to say with respect to government policy or government programs, it is this House of Assembly that deserves to hear that and answer truthfully, honestly and fully, questions from members on this side of the House, and not wait to go outside for the members of the press.

This is a government that is showing contempt for the members of this House, for the House of Assembly. Your ruling on the issue of privilege will determine whether or not the Premier's actions show contempt for the members of this House, and show contempt for the electorate who have put us here to hold this government to account, not the press who have their jobs to do. We have our jobs to do, and we have to be able to do them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to pay tribute to a young twelve-year-old Catalina girl who has been recently selected as the Janeway Hospital's Miracle Children's Network Champion: Kayla Prince. Kayla is a Grade 7 student at Catalina Elementary and, as a result of a medical problem known as capillary haemangioma, has been hospitalized at the Janeway Hospital twenty-one times in the last twelve years of her life. Her first admission to that particular health institution was when she was five weeks old. She was admitted for one year at that particular time.

I think we can all take a lesson from the book of Kayla Prince, when we look at her inspiration and her positive approach to life, with this medical problem that she has. As I said, she has undergone twenty-one surgeries, with more surgeries in the future.

Ken Corbett, managing director of the Janeway Foundation, says this: Kayla was selected because of the great physical hardship she has gone through since birth. She has come through it and is a very happy and pleasant young lady.

The champion is someone who has persevered through hardships -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: - and it is not because of the medical treatments she received that Kayla was chosen. It is her own perseverance, her good nature, and her will. I think she was a very popular choice.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to recognize her parents, Howard and Rita Prince, who have been a tower of support for this young lady as well. Being recognized as the Janeway champion, this young lady and her family leave on April 3 and travel to Ottawa to meet with the Governor-General, and spend three days in Ottawa to meet with ten other champions across this country. Then it is off to Florida to meet with fifty other champions across the United States, where she will visit Disneyland and other attractions, and attend a concert hosted by Marie Osmond.

I wish this young lady well, and I congratulate her for her positive attitude and her approach to this illness.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Over this past weekend, I had the honor of addressing a special meeting of the International Grenfell Association in Boston. This association is comprised of individuals from the United States, Great Britain and Canada, who have worked in our Province either with the Grenfell regional health services or presently reside here. This organization brings funding of approximately $1.5 million annually for various community services in Northern Newfoundland and Labrador. This is funding that would not be available from other sources, and it has a major impact on the lives of people who live along the Coast of Labrador and in Northern Newfoundland.

Most people are aware of the historical significance of the International Grenfell Association, but many may be surprised to know the level of contribution which this group makes to health, education, and to community groups within our Province.

I want to take this opportunity to publicly recognize the work of the International Grenfell Association in the past, and the important work that they continue to do in our communities.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate one of my young constituents, Brian Francis of Burin, on his being named as a finalist in the 2000 Sport Newfoundland and Labrador Annual Awards, as the Junior Male Athlete of the Year.

Mr. Francis' dedication to his sport of soccer makes him an ideal candidate for this award. He had a stellar season in 2000, after playing with the Canada Games Team on the Burin Peninsula Championship and the Challenge Cup League. After his team won the Burin Peninsula Championship, Brian was named MVP and was also an All-Star in the Challenge Cup League.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Francis' dedication to his sport and his achievement should be recognized. He is currently attending St. Francis Xavier University on a scholarship, where he is a member of the varsity soccer team.

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Francis for his accomplishments in soccer in the year 2000, and I wish him the very best of luck in his quest to be named Junior Male Athlete of the Year at the 2000 Sport Newfoundland and Labrador Annual Awards.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform this hon. House of the release of the final report on the renewal strategy for Jobs and Growth. I am providing copies of the final report for all members of the House, and for the general public. This report reflects the views and perspectives of the many individuals and organizations that presented briefs and submissions during the extensive public consultations that were held across the Province.

At this time, if I could, I would like to thank all of my colleagues, the organizations and people who participated in the process that we undertook.

It also builds on the major themes, key messages and initial priorities for action that were outlined in the interim report on Jobs and Growth that members will recall were released last March.

We have been moving on new initiatives in support of the Jobs and Growth agenda ever since then, but today's final report presents a comprehensive account of the direction government intends to pursue in advancing the overall economic and social agenda. It also presents an action-orientated plan to maintain and build on our economic progress, addressing the issues and challenges facing our economy as conveyed through the consultations. It represents yet another important element of government's overall action plan to strengthen the Province's outline by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, in his Speech from the Throne last week.

Government will move immediately to implement the priorities for action outlined in the final report, commencing with specific measures in the upcoming budget. Government is also committed to an open dialogue with key stakeholders in the ongoing implementation of the Jobs and Growth strategy to ensure we keep the agenda fresh and set new priorities as circumstances evolve.

The vision of the people we heard from in the consultations is of a vibrant and confident Newfoundland and Labrador where a can-do attitude and take-charge approach to meeting the challenges and opportunities before us will help secure our future together.

The release and implementation of the final report on Jobs and Growth will provide a solid framework to keep the economy growing and ensure all our people share fully in our progress.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government has to stop practicing placebo medicine, I say to people here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: It was only a few short years ago when another Premier of that same government sat in that seat and did the same kind of forum. He sent somebody around the Province to find out what was wrong, to ask people to come forward and tell their story. The former Premier, leading up to this Premier, did the same exercise.

Mr. Speaker, I say to you that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are fed up with telling their story. They are waiting for a little action to happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister, the people in this Province today would feel a lot more comfortable if you could stand in your place and tell us how you are going to replace the 20,000 jobs that have been done away with in the fishing industry. The people in this Province would feel a lot more comfortable today if you would stand in your place and tell the 40,000 young Newfoundlanders who have gone across the pond to try and find a job, how they can return back home.

Mr. Speaker, we saw one feeble attempt made -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - a feeble attempt of transferring 278 jobs from an urban area to another urban area, and we are supposed to be excited today? Bull!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government has reissued and rehashed its proposals that, for the last ten years, it has had the opportunity to implement. Here we are now at the top of the economic cycle, we are heading into an international recession period; it is as good as it gets on the economic cycle. This government has to start producing results, not just talk about jobs and growth. It has to start producing results. We have growth in gross domestic product due to offshore oil and gas, but we have not seen the jobs. When we can see them, maybe we can then give some praise to this government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise to ask the Premier a question today. On Thursday, outside this Legislature, the Premier indicated that the Province, and I quote, that his belief: We believe full processing - the people of Newfoundland and Labrador expect that the equivalent of the total volume that comes out of the mine in Labrador will be changed into nickel in this Province. And whether or not the business that they're in suggests that every single rock that comes out of Labrador goes into the processing plant in Newfoundland and Labrador - that's a different issue.

He suggested in this House on Friday that the government's position has not changed. It has.

I would like to ask him this question: How does he reconcile his position that he articulated not in this House but chose to do it outside this House, with the statement made by the leader of the government at their Liberal Annual Convention in 1999, in which every member there stood on their feet and applauded when the then Premier said - and here is what he said: If Inco comes forward with a plan to take concentrate from Labrador and process it within the Province, they will have a deal within a week.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: We are not interested in talking about a Voisey's Bay development unless, as part of that development, there is a plan and a means to convert concentrate ore into a finished nickel product.

How can you stand in this House, Premier, and say your position has not changed and the position of your government has not changed, when clearly it has?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I would invite the Leader of the Opposition to read the exact same quotes again, because it reflects the government's position today: that if we cannot have an arrangement whereby Inco agrees to have nickel leave Newfoundland and Labrador, there will not be a project. Our stance, as the government, has not changed. The whole fact of the matter is exactly that. We believe that is what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want. They want a finished nickel product to leave Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is what we are going to try to accomplish.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is very important to deal with words, because this Premier talks about straight answers. Let's see if he will give us a couple today, then.

Are you saying, Premier, that the former stance of your former Premier is that no nickel concentrate leave this Province, that all concentrate must be processed here, so that when the product of nickel leaves the Province it cannot further be refined? Is that still your position?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me state again, and for further clarity: In the 1999 elections it said clearly this: The Liberal government, with a new mandate, will maintain a firm position on behalf of the people of our Province that there will be no mine at Voisey's Bay unless a smelter and refinery are built in our Province.

That was the mandate in 1999 in the election, and the mandate today is this: That whatever type of smelter and refinery they want to build, they can talk to us about that, but the fact that a smelter and refinery of some description will be built so that we can have a finished product leave the Province is the stance of this government.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: He neglected to also read from his Red Book, which I have here - and I will ask him, is this still his position? The question that I ask: Is this still the position of this government that, "In 1996, Inco commited to a project that would last at least 20 years - and involve both surface mining of the ovoid and later underground mining - now they are only committing to seven years, to surface mining of the ovoid."

This is the quote directly from your Red Book, "Inco proposes to take the ore in the Voisey's Bay deposit and ship it elsewhere to be processed. That is not acceptable."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Is that still the position of you and your government?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that he is on a supplementary and he ought not to be using quotes from various documents and transcripts.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Again, the context piece is useful, I think, for everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador. In 1996, it was Inco that came to the Province, bought the rights to a deposit at Voisey's Bay, and laid out a plan for a smelter and refinery at Argentia, a mine and a mill in Labrador.

By 1998, Mr. Speaker, in advance of the 1999 election, they were saying publicly that they would build no smelting and refining capacity of any description whatsoever in Newfoundland and Labrador. They had no intention of having any finished product of any description made in Newfoundland and Labrador. They were saying they were only interested in having a mine and a mill in Labrador, and they would then ship that out to other places for processing.

It was on that basis that we put together the platform in 1999 which said clearly that a

proposition to take the ore in the Voisey's Bay deposit and ship it elsewhere to be processed is not acceptable. It was not acceptable then; it is not acceptable now. The objective of this government ever since 1996, restated in 1999 and again today, is to have a finished product leave Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, clearly this Premier has trouble being forthright, because in the House he has talked about an equivalent amount going out.

I ask him, in terms of context, let's put this in context: In November of 1999 in this Legislature, I asked the Premier, the leader of the government, the Leader of the Liberal Party at the time, a question dealing with this very same issue, and his response was very clear. He said: Let me tell the Leader of the Opposition that this government is not interested in a partially-finished product, that 100 per cent of the ore must be processed here; that an entirely finished product must leave here, a product that cannot be refined elsewhere.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question.

MR. E. BYRNE: Is that still the position of you and your government, Mr. Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is clear that we are having some difficulty; somebody is having some difficulty understanding something.

Mr. Speaker, the whole notion again of what full processing means in Newfoundland and Labrador, without an attempt at manipulation by the Opposition, is quite clear to everybody.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: If, in fact, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Let me say it again, Mr. Speaker. If, in fact, you have what was described on Thursday past, of the equivalent of all of the deposit in Labrador processed somewhere in Newfoundland, that is full processing, and everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador understands that. So, if there is only one ton of ore that can be made into nickel, and one ton of ore gets made into nickel in Newfoundland and Labrador, that is full processing.

The other part of full processing is clear, that it is not a partially-finished product that leaves Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a finished nickel product, of which there are seven or eight in the industry that Inco makes and sells into the marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, we are quite willing to enter into a negotiation with Inco to have full processing -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - meaning that the full amount of what comes out of Labrador over the life of the project will be processed in Newfoundland and Labrador, and that it will be made into nickel in Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Two final questions, Mr. Speaker. The first one: I can take from the Premier's comment that he is willing - is it true that you and your government are willing to ship out ore from Voisey's Bay in the interim, for a guarantee that you will get an equivalent amount of some ore from somewhere else in the globe to come back at some point in the future? Is that the position you are articulating, Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Let me ask a question again, Mr. Speaker. Maybe it is the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER GRIMES: Let me ask a question, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Is it, Mr. Speaker, the position of the full Official Opposition, as was articulated by the critic on a radio show just a day or so ago, when he was asked that even if there were guarantees and everything was in place so that if a spoonful left today and was going to come back next week, and it was guaranteed, would you still have a problem with that? - he was asked. Would you still have a problem with that?

I ask the Opposition if, in fact, just on a good business case, that you might in fact have a little bit of something leave for a day because you know you are getting it back the next day. Would they object to that? Is there something wrong with that when, in fact, you have the full equivalent of the value of what's in Labrador being fully processed in Newfoundland?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Is that the problem? That is what we need to know from the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: I will ask the Premier again - so we can provide him with the opportunity to demonstrate his new-found philosophy of straight answers, maybe we will get one. Is it your position that you will allow some of the ore, for some period of time, to go outside the Province in exchange for some guarantee, at some point in time, for the equivalent amount of ore to come back? While you are answering, could you tell me: Is that the position supported by the entire Liberal caucus?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, might I ask again if it is the position of all of the Opposition that was asked publicly in Newfoundland and Labrador yesterday. Let me ask the question as it was put yesterday: Even if the language is strong, the guarantees are, you know, severe enough or the penalties severe enough to ensure that the obligation is kept? Is that a problem?

The critic for the Opposition said: We would say, yes, we have a difficulty with that. Even though there is a guarantee, even though the language is strong, even though there are severe penalties if the obligation is not kept, the Opposition - are they saying and will you say, as the Leader of the Opposition, that if we can accomplish that arrangement you would suggest to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that it should not be entered into?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I will ask you again, Premier: Is it your position to let ore leave this Province for some guarantee, at some point in the future, that some ore from any other part of the globe will be allowed to come back in as long as it meets a guaranteed weight or tonnage? Is that the position of your government? Stand up and answer it! Provide some straight answers to the people of the Province!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will tell you the position of this government, and that is we would gladly enter into a negotiation which would see the development of a new project at Voisey's Bay that provides maximum benefit for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and sees full processing of the deposit at Voisey's Bay made into a nickel product in Newfoundland and Labrador, for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Any time we would do that.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad there are no cameras in the House right now because people would see the type of straight answers that this Premier is getting on with.

Words are very important, I say to the Premier. In 1997 the Member for Humber West, who was Minister of Mines and Energy at the time, along with the Premier - at that time Brian Tobin - stood in this House and said: Government's own studies, government's own fiscal and financial analysis demonstrates that this project, the Voisey's Bay project, is viable economically - from Inco's point of view - if they process 100 per cent of the ore to a finished nickel product in this Province. I asked then: Would you provide or table the studies? The answer was, no. So in view of your new-found philosophy and your new-found conversion to transparency and openness, let me ask you this question: Would you be able to release those studies to us, please?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, what we are interested in doing, on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, is having the Minister of Mines and Energy enter into a negotiation with Inco to see if we can find a way - sooner rather than later - to have that particular property developed for the maximum benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians so that we can achieve those kinds of benefits and have a finished nickel product, full processing, in this Province.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the question again. In 1997 the then Premier, the then Minister of Mines and Energy - I believe you where in the Cabinet at the time, weren't you?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, he was.

MR. E. BYRNE: So you were part of the government which said they had completed the financial analysis that clearly demonstrated to the people of the Province that the Voisey's Bay nickel deposit was economically feasible, was economically viable to Inco and its partners over a twenty year period, and which demonstrated that the blending of ore from ovoid in the eastern deeps was economically viable.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to his question.

MR. E. BYRNE: I ask you again, right now, in view of your words on the Throne Speech about transparency and openness, I ask you directly: Will you release that analysis to this Legislature and through this Legislature to the people of the Province? Yes or No, Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are, hopefully, going to conduct a negotiation with Inco in the not too distant future to try to develop the Voisey's Bay deposit in the best interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Again, in 1997 - and it's always important to remember the context and the point in time in which the point was made. In 1997 Inco was suggesting to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that under no circumstance would they do anything in Newfoundland and Labrador other than build a mine and a mill in Labrador. That was their position. Our position was that unless you do processing there will be no project anyway. Our information was then, and is now, that there is enough value in the Voisey's Bay deposit to support processing in Newfoundland and Labrador. We will convince them of that through negotiations. They know that unless they do processing there will not be a project. I look forward to a day when we can actually go ahead with that particular project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Premier, do you think that the people of this Province are so naive and so stunned to believe that you are talking about the equivalent amount of ore being shipped out of the Province and they do not see that there is a significant shift in the policy of this government not to do it? Do you hold the people of this Province in such contempt that you cannot stand in this Legislature today and admit forthrightly that this is what is on the table and this is what your government is pursuing? Why don't you stand up and do it Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

I would never suggest, at any point in time, that the people of Newfoundland are either naive or stupid, and I certainly do not hold any of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in contempt. What I would suggest to you, is that minus - and even with the weak attempts at manipulation by the Opposition, because they do not want to see this succeed - that everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador are quite willing to enter into a discussion whereby 100 per cent of what comes out of Labrador gets changed and processed into nickel in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about flexibility on when it happens. We are talking about full processing. I know that the Opposition sits in dread and fear that we might actually conclude a successful arrangement and start this project. Stay tuned, we are going to try our very best to make it happen for maximum benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador, and full processing in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Premier. The Premier stated on Thursday that the Prime Minister had committed to changing the clawback provision on the federal equalization program. Now the Prime Minister's office has indicated that the Premier was wrong and there was no commitment given in that meeting on Wednesday. Is it possible to believe that two such opposite things could come from the same meeting attended by the same two people? I want to ask the Premier: Will he clarify the statement that he made on Thursday regarding that meeting?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and glad to do so.

The indication clearly that I gave, which is the exact same indication that I repeated again today in Newfoundland and Labrador - and will, because it is a fact - is that the Prime Minister agreed at that particular meeting, that the notion of trying to find some way to change issues, like the clawback, so that a Province like Newfoundland and Labrador could keep more of its revenues from its own sources, was clearly an understanding between the two of us. Now some media headline suggested that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker, quite clearly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Some headlines had suggested that there was already an agreement by the Prime Minister, and that he actually had made the change. It is quite clear, that I believe -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe it is a very positive sign for all of us in Newfoundland and Labrador that the Prime Minister of the country and the head of the government is seized of this issue to the point that he understands that finding a way for Newfoundland and Labrador to keep more of its own source revenues is in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador and the best interest of Canada, and I look forward to the details of how he is going to accomplish that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I sat back and watched that at 1:00 a.m. on NTV, the whole interview. We have a tape of that interview, I might add, and it is not what the Premier stated today.

Premier, why did the Minister of Industry, Brian Tobin, come down and try to clear things up this weekend, and became the spokesperson for this Province on the weekend? Now this is a matter of trust, Premier, that people's confidence in you is shaky. The Prime Minister and the Industry Minister are essentially saying that you made up a story. What assurances can you give to the people of this Province that you spoke the truth and the Prime Minister and the Industry Minister did not tell the truth?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That's the first time I have heard anyone suggest that I did not speak the truth. There is a difference of opinion as to exactly what was said and what it meant, but no one has ever suggested, until this very minute, that I may not have spoken the truth. The fact of the matter is, I did speak the truth and I will always speak the truth any time there is an interest -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: - any time there is a matter of interest and importance to Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. I understand fully and completely that my only role in this is to look out for the best interests of Newfoundland and Labrador and to represent the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and to indicate whether or not there is any hope that an issue such as the clawback could be changed. I reported that it could be changed. I have reported that the Prime Minister is seized of the issue. I reported that he started work on the matter already, and I look forward to the results of those discussions.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is not what is on the tape. They asked: Is it long-term? Immediately, as soon as it can be done basically, and that's what the tape says. That is what the recorded voice of the Premier of this Province said. Now the Premier said he is a straight talker, he gives straight answers. Why then are you allowing the federal Minister of Industry to come down here to this Province and put his political spin on this issue? Where, Premier, is the straight shooter?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe we should, again, cast our minds back to Thursday when I made a statement after my visit with the Prime Minister on Wednesday, where the Opposition's tactic that day was to say: What, you met with the Prime Minister and you did not get a pile of money? You came home with no money? My answer clearly was this: Those kinds of initiatives, such as the change of a formula and the combination of a clawback, I did not expect to have resolved yesterday but I was very pleased - and is a direct quote of the tape you watched - to see the Prime Minister fully apprised of the issue, fully engaged in it and very much committed that he would have it and has had it looked at very closely, and looks forward to making some progress on it that he can report back to us. That is exactly what I said. That is exactly the circumstance, and I look forward to positive results on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Education. At a recent meeting with the Burin Peninsula School Board the minister made commitments regarding the all-grade school in Lawn that are significant for schools and communities all over this Province. I do not question the minister's decisions with respect to the school at Lawn but I ask her now to confirm that all schools in the Province, in equivalent circumstances to the Lawn school in size and distance from another school, qualify for necessarily existent status? Minister, please.

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of criteria that apply to schools to determine whether or not they qualify for SNES status.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: I beg your pardon?

MR. SULLIVAN: The ones that are (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we look at each school on an individual basis. Of course, it has to be at the request of the board whether or not a school is considered for SNES status.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again there were some difficulties with the school board.I understand some members resigned over this issue.

Again, I ask the minister: Will you confirm that your department, then, will approve construction of a new school in any community, like Lawn, that is fourteen or more kilometers by road from an existing school that can accommodate the students? Minister, please?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, clearly there is more going on here than just a question about whether or not we would approve a school SNES status in any other community similar to Lawn.

We had a request from the Burin Peninsula School Board to decide whether or not they should go forward with building a new school in Lawn. I said to the school board at the time: that is entirely up to you, but you must know that your board has an SNES status, and if that would continue then, of course, we would certainly consider, if the funding was available, building a new school.

What we have coming from the Burin Peninsula School Board is a request for something totally different than just a school. They are looking at a type of community school complex. It has been made very clear to that board that it has to be the board's decision - it would not be a decision of the minister - what they want to go forward with. Then we would have to determine if there is funding available. That has to be determined at this point as well.

Mr. Speaker, they have also been told that if they want to go forward with that kind of a complex then the board would have to assume responsibility for the entire complex but make sure that they receive funding from other partners involved in order to proceed with it.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Minister, a school is a school. I can tell you that I have been on the receiving end of many school communities in this Province whose schools have been closed down because they have been told, in no uncertain terms, that it is not an option; that they have to go to the regional facility.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question.

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, Minister, will you be able to explain to those school communities, such as Heart's Content, maybe the North Shore, why they cannot apply to your department for a school in similar circumstances?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, requests for new bills, requests for renovations, come from school boards. The department considers those based on the priorities of the boards concerned. We look at what we have in terms of funding available to us to determine what can be done.

The board comes forward to request whether or not there is SNES status for a school. There are a number of criteria involved in that: whether or not the students can be accommodated at a school close to where the school presently exists. There are any number of criteria, and the hon. member knows that. He is trying to get at something different here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS FOOTE: I will tell him again: School boards make the request; and, if we have the funding available to us, it depends on the priority of the boards and it depends on how much money the department has available to it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. Now that he has intimated - although he has not said it directly - that the Province's position on Voisey's Bay processing has changed, I want to ask him a question about the equalization clawback.

Former Premier Tobin indicated that the Premier got along with the Prime Minister like a house on fire. Yet, he had to quickly rush to the rescue of the Premier. I want to ask him directly a specific question: Is there a commitment from the Prime Minister to do more than study or review the issue, as the Premier said on Thursday - to do more than that - or is there only a commitment to look at it, to study it, as former Premier Tobin has said and is quoted as saying in the paper today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I expect to hear back from the Prime Minister in short order as a result of his looking into the whole issue of how he might change the clawback or other arrangements so that Newfoundland and Labrador can keep more of its own source revenues for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Given that the Premier has quoted figures of trying to change the clawback arrangement from 70 per cent down to 60 per cent, or 50/50, will the minister confirm and perhaps explain why it is that, in fact, the numbers for the clawback are in excess of 70 per cent; in fact, ranging from 78 per cent on mining taxes to 110 per cent on HST; in fact, averaging greater than 90 per cent, as the Voisey's Bay nickel study in 1999 shows? Will the minister confirm that the numbers are actually higher than the ones that he has been quoted as referring to in the papers?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: There are, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member would know, in excess of some thirty different categories with respect to equalization in which some measure of clawback does apply. The 70/30 number that has been in the public has basically been the number that is used for the offshore.

The other thing that is of note is that on the way through to Ottawa last Wednesday, I also had a very good meeting with Premier Hamm from Nova Scotia, who is touring the country, as members might know, trying to have the clawback changed from 70/30 to 30/70 when, in fact, both of us would recognize that the ideal circumstance for a Province like Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia, because we can plead a special case, each of us, just related to offshore developments, would be to have a clawback rate of zero for a period of time so that we could keep ideally all of own source revenues from certain developments to kick-start us so that we can use those funds in the best interest of the people of our Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, there are different initiatives being undertaken and I do look forward to hearing back from the Prime Minister as to what is possible to change in the short term for the benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

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

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make another point today regarding Question Period. I plan on insisting on making these points. I do not stand during Question Period, to stop the flow. I just want to remind hon. members again about a very important, fundamental rule about Question Period.

Although many of the traditional rules have been put aside regarding Question Period, there is one that remains consistent, that remains as modern as today, and that is, §409.(2), which says, "The question must be brief. A preamble need not exceed one carefully drawn sentence." Those rules are made by the Speakers today. "A long preamble on a long question takes an unfair share of time and provokes the same sort of reply." That is the essence of it, Mr. Speaker, that it provokes the same sort of reply. Lastly, "A supplementary question should need no preamble."

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to follow these rules, both in the question and in the answers.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I concur, to an extent, with the Government House Leader; but I would also advise all hon. members of §417, which he again today failed or neglected to point out, which reads, "Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate."

If the Government House Leader, on the one hand, is going to stand up and lecture this side of the House on how we should raise questions, or how questions should be asked, then I also advise the Government House Leader, in his next caucus meeting, to advise the ministers and the Premier on how they should answer the questions that this Opposition puts forward to them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the Chair would like to say that I have tried to be a little bit flexible with both sides in terms of questions and answers, but if members are insisting that we be very rigid with this, then certainly I can do that. There is a way to do that and, of course, that is to put a time limit on questions and answers, and be very strict with that.

The Chair would like to talk with the House Leaders on this matter a little later on.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to move the following Private Members' Resolution;

WHEREAS the current Administration was elected in 1999 on a commitment that Voisey's Bay nickel ore would not be shipped from the Province for processing elsewhere;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador must not sign any agreement involving the shipping of Voisey's Bay nickel ore from this Province for processing elsewhere unless it first obtains a mandate for such an arrangement from the people of the Province in a general election.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I shall on tomorrow move that the following committees be composed of the following members:

The Government Services Committee: Mr. Joyce, the Member for Bay of Islands; Mr. Osborne, the Member for St. John's South; Mr. Mercer, the Member for Humber East; Ms Jones, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; Mr. Collins, the Member for Labrador West; Mr. Sweeney, the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace; and Mr. Young, the Member for St. Barbe.

The Resource Committee: Mr. Walsh, the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island; Mr. Ottenheimer, the Member for St. John's East; Mr. Efford, the Member for Port de Grave; Mr. E. Byrne, the Member for Kilbride; Ms Jones, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; Mr. Andersen, the Member for Torngat Mountains; Mr. Taylor, the Member for the Straits & White Bay North.

The Social Services Committee: Mr. Sweeney, the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace; Mr. Fabian Manning, the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's; Mr. Rideout, the Member for Lewisporte; Mr. Efford, the Member for Port de Grave; Ms Sheila Osborne, the Member for St. John's West; Mr. Bob Mercer, the Member for Humber East; and Ms Mary Hodder, the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to present this petition on behalf of a number of people on the Northern Peninsula who would like to have access to a Licensed Practical Nurse course.

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador:

WHEREAS the College of the North Atlantic was seeking permission to offer the Licensed Practical Nursing course in September, 2001, at the St. Anthony Campus, but as of now it will not be offered because a review by the Council of Nursing from St. John's, under recommendations from the hospital and the John M. Gray nursing home in St. Anthony says it is not feasible for the course to be offered at the St. Anthony Campus;

WHEREAS we feel there is a need for LPN training, the St. Anthony Campus has the ability to offer that training, and many people in the area want to do this course, forcing people to travel to other areas to take the course is wasting our own facilities and reinforcing the notion that there is nothing here for us on the Northern Peninsula;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to conduct another review of the feasibility of offering the Licensed Practical Nursing course at the St. Anthony Campus in September of 2001;

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, there are in excess of forty people who would like to take this course in St. Anthony. Basically what they are saying is that the Council of Licensed Practical Nurses is recommending that the course not go here because there is no need for it in the area.

There was a questionnaire sent to Grenfell Regional Health Services, looking for how many people would be hired in permanent, full-time positions in the next number of years. Obviously, with a high number of casual temps on staff, there probably would not be all that many hired in the near future for permanent, full-time work.

There are a couple of things here. There should not be a requirement for a job within the area in order to offer a course within an area. If there was, we would close down three-quarters of the schools in Newfoundland, given the out-migration that we have.

Secondly, there are three facilities in Newfoundland where it looks like this course will be offered this year. One is in Burin, another in Grand Falls, and another in Gander. The question is: Why are we offering the same course in Gander and Grand Falls - for the first time, to our knowledge, in the history of those two campuses - when you have the northern part of Newfoundland, the western part of Newfoundland, the Northern Peninsula, Southern Labrador, I guess I should say, that will be denied access to this course?

There are people who want to do this course, who I am sure are not just looking to work in St. Anthony, and would go anywhere in this country to go to work.. They should be given the opportunity to take this course in close proximity to their home.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition here for the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation. I will read the prayer of the petition:

We, the residents of Shea Heights, wish to petition the hon. House of Assembly to address the need for wheelchair accessible housing units in the Shea Heights area. We are asking the government to consider the fact that people with disabilities, and their families, need to be able to utilize the support of family and friends within the community of Shea Heights. If persons are forced to live in units outside the community, it compromises the help and support families so vitally need. We are asking that serious consideration be given to the construction of wheelchair accessible units in the Shea Heights area so families with physical disabilities may avail of the essential support networks.

Mr. Speaker, I have presented similar petitions to this in the House on previous occasions. The community of Shea Heights, while it is a community within the city boundaries, is very much a close-knit community. You cannot walk down a street in Shea Heights, I say, and ask if somebody knows somebody in Shea Heights, without everybody in the area knowing everybody else. That is how close the community is. It has the same makeup, I would say, as many rural communities throughout the Province in that it is a very close-knit, very united community. To ask a family to leave that community because there are no wheelchair accessible units in the community that they can avail of is simply a shame. To ask a family to leave that community, to take a housing unit somewhere else in the city where they cannot avail of the close-knit feeling of the community, without being able to connect with family members and neighbors that they have known all their lives, is a shame.

I ask the Minister of Housing to reconsider this petition on behalf of the people of Shea Heights, and to construct a number of wheelchair accessible/ physical handicap accessible units in the Shea Heights area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador:

WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's decision to lay off and transfer Hydro employees in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and its future plans for layoffs will have a severe social and economic impact on our communities;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to direct Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to reverse its decision in this regard;

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to bring attention to, again, this particular issue of layoffs with regard to Hydro, especially as it affects my District of Harbour Main-Whitbourne. We find that in this particular district, both the Hydro office in the Whitbourne area as well as the generating plant in Holyrood, the cutbacks in these two particular areas, these two particular facilities, is having an adverse effect on my particular district. The people who have signed this petition are certainly asking that this be revisited, that it be looked at, and that the government would take the leading edge in trying to turn around or reverse this particular decision.

I bring it to the attention of the House that it is not just a matter of the loss of jobs, but certainly in this particular district, which is a rural district, a few jobs mean a lot when it comes to the whole economic and social outlook in this particular district.

I bring this to the attention of the House: I particularly was moved by two particular workers in my district. One was eligible for retirement, be it a couple of months, and was bridged and allowed to retire with full benefits which, for him, was certainly a great situation; but another, who had twenty-odd years of service with Hydro, was laid off with some sort of a promise, some time down the road, perhaps, of future considerations. He was eleven months away from retirement - just eleven months. Now he is given a severance package and just told, goodbye.

What is at risk here, of course, is that he is certainly at an age where it is very difficult in my area to get work; but, more importantly, his retirement benefits are gone after twenty-some odd years of labour with a particular company.

Again, I stand not only for those gentlemen but for all of the Hydro workers throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, and on behalf of their families petition to ask this government to look at it again.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1, the hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

I have received a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

All rise.

The letter is dated March 20, 2001, to the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board:

I, the Administrator of the Province of Newfoundland, transmit Estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year ending March 31, 2002. By way of Interim Supply and in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend the Estimates to the House of Assembly.

Sgd.:

Clyde K. Wells, Administrator

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

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

I move that the message, together with the bill, be referred to a Committee of Supply.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Supply, Mr. Speaker left the chair.

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

"An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2002 And For Other Purposes Relating to the Public Service." (Bill 2)

CLERK: Resolution: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2002, the sum of $1,226,446,100.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

The Interim Supply Bill, Bill 2, which has been presented here to the House today, will make provision for a three-month allocation, as just communicated by the speaker, for $1.2 billion, and this represents about 30 per cent of next year's budget.

It is important, obviously, for the continuation of the departments, and the timeliness of it is particularly important this year because in order to have our social assistance recipients able to receive their cheques, we have to have this passed by March 26 so that we are able to get those cheques to Labrador particularly.

Again, the Interim Supply Bill is a fairly routine procedure that occurs each year to allow for the continuation of the departments for the first three months of the year, about 30 per cent of the budget.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

She is in the House only a day or so as minister, and she is the most expensive Finance Minister in the history of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: She wants $1,226,446,100; about $150 million more than last year they wanted, three months. At that rate we will spend $5 million this year. She wants almost $5 million, and that is only for the first three months.

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

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

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

The hon. gentleman should note that this request did not come in the name of the Minister of Finance. It came in the name of the Chief Justice of the Province, and I suggest to him that he give him his money right away.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If it came in honor of the Chief Justice the last person who should be standing and defending it is the Minister of Industry, the former Government House Leader and confidant of the individual who asked for this money. He should be the last person to be surprised.

MR. FITZGERALD: Where did he sit (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: We know where he sat when - well back, yes he did so. He did his penance. He served his time in that place called purgatory. He paid his dues and now he is going to be rewarded. Well deserved, I might add. I am not disputing it. If anybody goes to the Senate from over there, yes, it should be you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, up along. Yes, sir!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: In the Senate? You will need one because you will fall asleep up there, it is so boring. You will need a bed in the Senate.

Listen here, I don't think I have an extra amount of clout with the Prime Minister. I don't think I am on the priority - your Premier cannot even agree with the Prime Minister. They cannot even have a conversation. They don't know what happened at the meeting. Can you imagine myself and a colleague having a meeting and we come out and one person says: I have a commitment. The other person says: I didn't get a commitment. That is not true, he doesn't know what he is talking about. That is what they indicated.

The Premier thought he had a commitment. In fact, the Premier thought he had a commitment on Voisey's Bay. Yes, sir, he got a commitment, but when the Premier of the Province read the public opinion poll, he said: Roger, there is no agreement and you have to go. In comes the new Minister of Mines and Energy there, that is what scuttled the deal on Voisey's Bay. The public opinion poll that followed the settlement. Yes, the Premier delivered on his deal back - when? Two years ago? Whenever. A couple of years ago, but it got scuttled. That was two years ago. It got scuttled because the opinion poll said: under no circumstances are the people of the Province going to tolerate this. Just as there are many people over there today who do not agree.

I cannot see how you can agree to say we are going to allow so much ore to go out. They are not going to use the conventional method. They are going to use the hydro method that has not be proven, especially for the type of ore we see here, unlike the ore in other parts of the world. (Inaudible) technology. What happens if it doesn't fly, if it can only produce low quantities? If it is not successful, what do we do then? Do you think they are going to come back and build another one? No. Let them keep their hands off that ovoid. If they get at that ovoid, in a matter of four years, I think, it is possible to deplete all that rich, on the surface, easy cost to mine ovoid, and that would be disastrous for our Province. Why would they want to go to cost then in underground mining, and added cost, if they can get at the prize and pick the plum out of there first? That is a major, major concern. That is one I can assure you, Leader of the Opposition and Mines and Energy critic, we are not going to be letting the Premier off the hook.

The Premier is going to have to take somebody along with him. He is going to have to bring along a recording. We are going to have to listen to what the Prime Minister said. We do know what the Premier said because we have it on tape. I sat back after 1 a.m. on the weekend, on NTV, and listened carefully. We have what the Premier said taped. A reporter asked a question: We are looking at equalization in 2004? No, he said, immediately. As soon as they could get it together, basically. I thought we would be getting a cheque in the mail before March 31. We would not have all these problems here looking for so much money.

Here we have the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board looking for expenditures of over $1.25 billion. She wants that just for three months. At that rate it will be $5 billion in a year. That is $1.5 billion more.

MR. TULK: Now, Loyola.

MR. SULLIVAN: I do believe, I stand to be corrected, but I say to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development - that is the correct department, it gets kind of complicated - to my knowledge - and the minister should know that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, you do. I shuffled the deck. I do not recall looking for as much money as this ever before; $1.09 billion - $1.1 billion, it went as high as - but $1.25 billion over the next three months. It is going to be a big payroll, big party, big commitments, a lot of commitments to be met out there, and a huge amount of money.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Wait until we see the Budget? I expect the Budget must be close to $5 billion. We are spending one-quarter of it. They want one-quarter for three months. Why do we need so much money, because by the end of June it is three months? We should have the Budget passed by May.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, I don't think there is an election coming. No, I don't expect that. I don't think there is an election coming.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Danny.

MR. SULLIVAN: Listen here, talking about Danny, there are two Danny's you have to be worried about: One coming at you front on, flat out and one coming up behind you. I don't know which Danny you have to fear about most. I don't know who you should fear the most!

MR. TULK: Loyola, you can have both of them.

MR. SULLIVAN: To the Member for Port de Grave, we don't want your Danny. We do not want him. He sat in the chair where the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair was. He sat in the House for three years when I was here and never moved out of that. When he moved, do you know where he moved? He moved down to Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier, Parliamentary Assistant. He moved down there.

AN HON. MEMBER: He moved up actually, not (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, he moved down because he came down a step. Look! I am talking about altitudes now because in the public's mind - it is the voters who tell you whether you move up or down. He moved down here at a lower altitude. When he got down to the lower altitude he became a lapdog for the Premier. He neglected the people up on the coast of Southern Labrador, and he went to Florida. In fact, he went to Florida in the 1996 election. That is where he went. He went to Florida when the election was called and stayed there. He came back a little later.

AN HON. MEMBER: And we paid for it.

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't know but he visited you there. I don't know if he did.

MR. MATTHEWS: I stayed home then.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, you did. You go at more opportune times, at less conspicuous times when there is not as much at stake. That's right. I must say, the Mines and Energy Minister is very choosey when he travels. He tries to pick the spots, the openings, and tries to look at the ceiling that is there for flying and gets in at the proper time under that ceiling. He does so. He is more selective, I might add. He is more selective when he decides to abandon the people who elected him. He is more selective in doing it. We are not saying he does it, but we are saying he is more selective in doing it.

This Minister of Finance gets in the job for a few days and comes here to the House and asks us to approve, within like two days, $1.25 billion. She is the most extravagant, the most lavish Finance Minister in the history of this Province. I don't recall - I stand to be corrected - ever coming to this House of Assembly before looking for $1.25 billion in three months. I haven't seen it before. A little over $1 billion - I don't know what she is doing with the other $200 million, or the other $150 million, but she is looking for a lot of money. She was stingy when she was in health care. I can't see why she is so lavish now. She wouldn't spend it when she was in health care. We couldn't get hospital beds open.

Talking about hospital beds; I will give you a little indication of what is out there now in hospital beds. In this Province today there are 1,807 acute care beds. There were thirty-some hundred when the Liberals came into power in 1989, and basically that has caused a big problem, that has caused a major problem. Take 1,300 hospital beds out of this Province, take forty-some per cent of hospital beds from this Province, and no wonder people are dying waiting to get into hospital. No wonder they are dying waiting to get into hospital. That is a major problem we are having here, a major concern, and that should not be allowed to happen.

Now we have a person as Minister of Finance who has some control over the divestiture and allocation of funding in the various departments, and I guess we are expecting to see a significant change in the misery and suffering that people in this Province are experiencing today. We have to see what is happening in that particular light.

I have a lot more to say on this particular thing, a lot more to say before this supply is there. My colleague has a few important things he wants to get on the record, and I am sure the former Finance critic has a few comments he wants to make on this particular bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to say a few words on Bill 2, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2002 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service"; something like the straight answers that the Premier has given, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the title of this piece of legislation.

Now, as the Member for Ferryland said, government are looking for $1,226,446,100. I wonder what the $100 is for. You could easily round it off, I suppose, and make it $1.25 billion.

Mr. Chairman, so much to say with so little time to say it. I have a few comments I am going to make because this is a supply bill, of course, a finance bill.

MR. TULK: Use your time wisely.

MR. J. BYRNE: I will use my time wisely.

The first thing I am going to say, Mr. Chairman: I am curious as to when the budget comes down, what abuse - they are going to be making use again this year, Mr. Chairman, seeing as we are in the month of March and we are coming to the end of March, of the special warrants. Last year, for example, we saw the abuse by this administration of the special warrants; $78 billion in the last month to help balance the budget. That is what they were doing last year. They were trying to give the impression that the budget was balanced. They were trying to give the impression that there was no deficit.

When you look at the hospital boards, I think the hospital board here in St. John's now are up to - if you look at $90 million and $50 million they had from previous years - $140 million which they are now using, their operating expenses.

MR. TULK: Make no wonder Danny (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Aha! There is a long story behind that, I say to the former premier, the proof that miracles exist, the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development. I say to the minister, he doesn't know what he is talking about, just like when he gets up on points of order all the time; not the click, not the clue, as usual. There was more proof today.

MR. TULK: Of what?

MR. J. BYRNE: That you don't know what you are talking about when you get up on points of order. I don't know, have you ever had one ruled in your favour yet?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh! You wanted to make sure that the former premier of the Province -

MR. TULK: Hold on, now. The former, former, former.

MR. J. BYRNE: The triple-former premier of the Province got his money. Supreme Court Justice, is he? Clyde K. Wells.

MR. TULK: The Chief Justice.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Chief Justice. There it is, the Chief Justice.

Anyway, I won't go there because I had enough arguments with that man in the House of Assembly.

Loyola, do you want to continue on and I will continue on later? Can we do that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure you can.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, we are in Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I see that the Opposition House Leader is very anxious to continue with the few words he had said. I have so much to say on this, I will guide myself by what the Opposition House Leader has to say, and anything that he says I will try not to repeat.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The current Finance critic.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

That Minister of Industry, yes, he is an intelligent fellow, you know. He is usually right, but this time he is wrong.

MR. TULK: Who?

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Industry.

The Member for Cape St. Francis is never wrong! There might be a couple of hundred people in his district wrong about him - the couple of hundred who did not vote for him - that might be it, but the rest of them pretty well know.

MR. TULK: It just shows how (inaudible) you are -

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, thank you.

MR. TULK: - when you say he is never wrong.

MR. SULLIVAN: Is he? Give me an instance. If you can give me an instance where he was wrong, then I will change my view. If you can tell me when he was wrong -

AN HON. MEMBER: I gave you an example where his math was (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What was that?

AN HON. MEMBER: All of that money (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: But that was the new math.

I would like to know where the most extravagant minister in the history of our Province is going to spend all of our $1.25 billion. I see here that she is looking for $229,153,000 for roads.

MR. TULK: There is nothing wrong with that.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, nothing wrong with it, not a thing wrong with it, but she failed to indicate that it is really an in-and-out item.

MR. TULK: What parts should she take out?

MR. SULLIVAN: What parts should she take out? She should look for an amount of money that is adequate to carry until then.

AN HON. MEMBER: Until when?

MR. SULLIVAN: Until such time as the Budget is passed, which would be in May. Let's say it is June. Three months up front, you do not have all of these expenditures up front on contracts. Why $1.25 billion when we never even utilized in the past 1.1 and 1.09? Why do we need over $1.25 billion, 37 per cent roughly of the budget. She wants to spend it all in the first few months.

MR. J. BYRNE: It is not a billion and a quarter; it is one and a quarter billion.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, one-and-a-quarter billion. One billion-and-a-quarter would be 1,000,000,000.25, right? That is right. One-and-a-quarter billion is more than a billion -

MR. TULK: Loyola, (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What?

MR. TULK: Spend money on roads.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, we are talking about roads now. I want to address roads now, too. I am glad the minister put some thoughts in my head. If we talk about roads, let's look at the Labrador Transportation Initiative. That is something that I support. I think we should have a road through Labrador connecting all of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is important. Where we got sold out - and I asked these questions in the House back in 1996-1997 - I am sure the members remember - I think the figure was $347 million. I stand to be corrected, but I think that is the figure under the Labrador Transportation Initiative - $347 million?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: When I asked in the House: Is that to cover all of Labrador, to do from Churchill to Goose Bay, and from Goose Bay to Cartwright and on down to connect at Red Bay, I was told in the House, in 1996: yes.

Do you know when I got the truth? From the minister who is now the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, who indicated in the House - the first person to give the correct answer. About two years ago, he stood and said, it is not including.... I have asked this question in the House; I am on the public record, in statements. He said, no, it is not going to cover from Goose Bay to Cartwright.

What we have done - I really think we have sold out at too low a price. We got $347 million to take over the complete ferry service from the federal government. We still need a ferry service to service, of course, Northern Labrador. It is kind of difficult to visualize getting a road link there. It is very difficult to visualize that in the short term anyway, because of the enormous distances and so on involved, and other factors. Now we are still going to be spending millions on a ferry service that the federal government was paying for, and our money is all gone on roads and we still do not have a road to link Goose Bay to Cartwright.

I said the same of the South Coast. We took $55 million, and the Member for Port de Grave was minister at the time. Do you know what he said? When he was Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, he said: We are going to take that $55 million and we are going to put it into a fund, into a trust. It is not going to be touched. The interest on that fund, in the vicinity of $5 million, he said, the $5 million a year on that fund would be used to pay for the ferry service that was costing about $4.5 million to $5 million a year. He said it would be there forever and we could always cover it. What did the government do? The government took that $55 million, threw it into the general Treasury, spent it all, and now we have to incur those costs forever and a day, the same as we did on the Labrador Transportation Initiative.

We have let the federal government off the hook. Now we have to pay the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have to take it out of the provincial budget, all the costs of this service that the federal government was paying. Those are a couple of areas that are going to be, and are, very significant costs.

Another point of what they did - I mention this, too, - and I don't necessarily disagree with (inaudible), with the amount of money. Under Term 29, in our union with Canada, we were guaranteed to get $8 million forever, in perpetuity In 1996, they figured, how are going to get our hands on some money? We want to do some things. They said to the federal government: How about, over the next twenty years, give us twenty years payment up front, $160 million that would be, give us up front. They said: Oh, we cannot give you $160 million up front because that is too much. You wouldn't get that because for the next nineteen years, if you had interest on that, you would make more than $160 million, but we will give you $130 million.

What did they do? This Province said: We will take $130 million in 1997, 1998 and 1999, spread over three years, and for seventeen years now we are getting nothing. We have that $8 million which is called a structural deficit. That is part of the structural deficit of our Province and it was built in for the ferry service, built in from Term 29. Now we are seventeen years with not a penny, and wait for another seventeen years, whenever it is, I think we started at 2000 - in 2018, I think - we will start getting back under Term 29 awards. They took that and spent it, and pumped that in there.

When I stood in this House as finance critic and Leader of the Opposition back in 1996 on harmonization, I said that giving up and harmonizing taxes, when only two other provinces in the country did it, two others in Atlantic Canada, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia under harmonization, the HST, what did they do? The only province in Atlantic Canada that didn't participate, they gave them the centre and the jobs in Prince Edward Island. The one who didn't participate!

I said that one hundred and some million dollars in revenue is taken out, and they said by reducing the rate from 19.82 per cent piggyback, when you take your - at the time 12 per cent and 7 per cent, that was 19.84 per cent in total, when you piggyback the 7 per cent on top of the 12 per cent, or the 12 per cent on top of the 7 per cent - almost 20 per cent, because there is so much (inaudible) taxes, the economy growth, we are going to get back just as much revenue in a few years.

Where are we in revenue under HST? We were getting in over $570 million a year in revenue, and what are we taking in now? Four hundred and sixty-some million projected in this fiscal year. One hundred million. We have not gained one extra cent of growth in sales in revenues accruing back to our Province because of this. What do we do? We went along with a plan that we were told we were all going to buy into in the country. We took it hook, line and sinker. Yes, the Premier of the Province, hook, line and sinker. Ottawa threw out the bait and he ran for the bait as fast as he could, anything that would enhance his chances to get the top job up in Ottawa. He took it hook, line and sinker, and we have less revenue. The economic growth in our Province did not grow. We got a false sense of growth in our Province. We have a jobless growth. We have thousands, in the tens, of less jobs in the fishing industry in our Province.

We stand up and talk about the growth in GDP. We talk about our export value. Why are we getting an export value in our Province? Why do we have an increase in export value in the fishing industry in our Province? Because we now have a significant increase in the quotas for crab, and a significant increase over the last while in the price of crab on the market. We have expanded allocations in shrimp; we are going up in the hundreds of millions. We have almost doubled in value, what we had in the fishing industry, and tens of thousands of less jobs in the industry in fish plants around our Province. Fish plants have shut down; people cannot get 420 hours of work.. They put them in washing pans; they put them out around a wharf doing work, anything to get them 420 hours, because we have lost the most labour-intensive part of the fishing industry and that is the groundfish in our Province.

So, we have had jobless- and we talk about how fantastic our Province is. Why, if we are increasing, if things are so fantastic and we have the highest rate of growth in GDP, the highest rate of growth of anywhere in this country, why is our equalization going up significantly in terms of where we are in the Canadian context?

The cap that was put in 1982 on equalization - and I stand and challenge the statement made by Paul Martin, the Prime Minister, where he said that we need the consent of all the Provinces to change equalization. Well, you did not need the consent of every Province in 1982 to cap it.

What does capping equalization do? Here is what it does. Right now, this country puts about $10 billion into equalization; we get over a billion of that. By capping equalization, the federal government is not paying out any more money than the cap. As our needs and disparities in our Province get greater, there is less money to service and close the gap of disparity in our Province. That means the rich get richer and the widening gap of disparity gets bigger. I did a news release on February 28 and said: You did not need the consent to put the cap on; you do not need the consent to get the cap off.

We did not come around in 1994, when the former Minister of Fisheries, Brian Tobin, a member in our Cabinet, the federal Cabinet representing us, when he sat in the federal Cabinet and slashed Canada health and social transfers to this Province by a peak of $155 million a year, they did not need the consent -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and we are not talking about fishermen. I am talking about a representative on finance issues, issues of important resource and revenues in our Province. What happened?

MR. TULK: Tell them about Jim and the factory freezer trawlers.

MR. SULLIVAN: Who?

MR. TULK: Jim McGrath.

MR. SULLIVAN: Jim McGrath? That was before my time. That was so far back in the past, I hardly remember who Jim McGrath is. Jim McGrath, that is so far back.. How old is that man? How old is that man over there? I cannot even remember that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), old enough for the Senate.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, he is old enough for that. He is old enough for the Senate. I don't know, but he has deserved it. That is one thing I will say. If there has ever been a workhorse, a guy who has trudged over there, bore the burden -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: I thought, as critic, I had an hour.

CHAIR: Ten minutes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Ten and ten, okay; someone else go.

By leave to continue?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the Minister of Labour, the minister who is now in labour: Yes, I would be delighted to go on. That is only a pun; there is no ill intent. I have said it to her before.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You got jealous when the Member for Bonavista South went out in the lobby, and now -

MR. TULK: That is terrible. (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, isn't, it? That should not be allowed.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, but we were talking about the cap on equalization. Number one, it is wrong. It was wrong to bring it in. There was not consent of the provinces in 1982 to cap equalization, and there should be no consent to lift it. They could arbitrarily, with a federal election coming up - last fall, they lifted the cap for just this year only. That is why we got $38 million out of that $58 extra million. It comes from lifting the cap. The other twenty is because the growth is occurring in the rest of the country more significantly and the disparity is getting greater, in other words. That is why we got the other. If the cap was gone, this would make sense. I am sure you have to agree with this: If, in the equalization formula, the have provinces in the country who contribute: Alberta, B.C., and Ontario, and the have-not provinces, and sometimes Saskatchewan slips in and out of have-not, based on their resource royalties. Sometimes they are there and sometimes they are not, but if under the equalization formula we should get $1.3 billion, for example, or $1.4 billion, when you add up all the equalizations for other provinces that comes up over a cap of $10 billion - when they put that cap in, roughly $10 billion at the time. Why should we be cut back on amounts of money that are needed to eliminate the disparities in the ability of provinces to raise taxes and get revenues to give comparable levels of service to maintain a national standard? Why should that be capped? That should be lifted so we can reduce the growing rate of disparity in the Province, and that is the fundamental principle that is in the Constitution of this country that protects and allows people to give levels of service at comparable standards around this country.

A cap on equalization is contrary to the constitutional right of equalization. It is like telling you no more equalization beyond a point, and I think that is contrary to the Constitution of this country that guarantees that. They put it on. They lifted it with election coming up, and something should be done about it. I will ask ministers to make that a very strong issue. Number one, the cap can be changed right now. It was changed for this year. Why can't it be lifted forever because there is so much pressure coming from the have provinces? The have provinces are we want more and more. Alberta wants to get rid of its deficit in two years. Ontario wants to reduce its deficit from that mess created by Bob Rae when he was there. They are trying to get that back under control. Mike Harris is doing such a phenomenal job up there.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. SULLIVAN: Such a phenomenal job. Ralph Kline is doing such a phenomenal job in Alberta. Ralph! Ralph they are shouting! They cannot wait to get him in.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That's right, but apart from that - I got carried away a little there - we are back on the serious issue of equalization. It is wrong to cap equalization. That is the number one problem. That is one problem we have. The next problem - and we have talked about it today. The Premier tried to do some fence mending on it today in his statement, but I sat back and watched NTV news after l o'clock, the whole newscast, and we taped it. Look -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, I am disappointed you cannot stay because I would not want you to miss some vital information that you might want to take to Ottawa and press on in your future capacity on the hill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is good. I will send you a copy of Hansard and you can click on the Net and find out what we need to be addressing.

One point is the cap, and I did not hear the Premier bring that up. He brought up equalization but the cap is one point that should be done away with immediately. That is contrary. I am saying it infringes on the constitutional right to have equalization. They might argue: well, we guarantee a certain equalization. How can we provide national standards when we don't have appropriate revenues and clawbacks that infringe on the right and ability of our Province to be able to provide goals? That should change.

Another problem we have is clawbacks. We have about thirty-six, I think. I went through them a couple of years ago. I went through all the different categories; I think thirty-six or thirty-seven. I have a list of all the different categories which are subject to basic equalization in the resources there. The mining sector is about 80 per cent. I think our oil is about 70 per cent. There are other variations right up in the 100 per cent range. There are numerous extra amounts. So why does a province, a part of the Country of Canada, why are we not given the opportunity to be able to become self-sufficient?

Federalism has hampered our ability to self-sufficiency. It is done by the current Liberal government, and by the former PC government. I do not care what governments were there, they hampered our ability to be self-sufficient. They regard us, a half-million people, as something that can be cajoled and a few crumbs tossed here and there to keep us happy. We have not gotten our fair share. Quebec, of all, was espoused nationalism. They have the best of both worlds. They can keep a separatist government in Quebec and can go on the national stage and get more. Play it smart. They play it smart and get the best of both worlds.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What can we do? We can be more vocal. The only Liberal government of a province in this country with a federal Liberal government. If you cannot bend the ear of a government in the same stripe, what can you do? We have to be more vocal. We have to be more demanding. We can't be so tolerant of disparities increasing.

If Ireland in the EU - Ireland is a separate country. It is not a part of Germany, or any other countries in the EU - can get certain preferential areas until its economy got up to a certain level, why can't Newfoundland and Labrador? Why can't Prince Edward Island? Why can't we stop that clawback of resources there? We talked about it here. The Premier said he has been advised it is millions. It is not millions, basically. Substantially, he said, up in the millions. Let's face it, we only get $48 million, total, on all our royalties.

I will just take a look at it here. Our royalties are $44.8 million, of which about $37 million or $38 million of that, in that ball park to my knowledge, is from the oil in the offshore. Those revenues are the full revenues we get right now. Out of that $37 million or $38 million we are getting, when they do the equalization they take 70 per cent of that $38 million. Let's call it $40 million, a nice easy figure to work with, 70 per cent of that is $28 million. Instead of getting our full amount of equalization of 1.3, for instance, they will clawback $28 million out of that, and that is all we will get. So really we are only getting, out of that $40 million, $12 million. It is only $40 million in total. If we get a 10 per cent reduction from seventy to sixty, what are we getting? Ten percent of $40 million; $4 million. That is all we are getting. If they eliminate it all, every single bit, we would gain $28 million. If every bit of clawback is eliminated, right down to zero, and he is only talking about 50 per cent or 60 per cent to be significant. Fifty percent would be $8 million; $8 million in a budget.

Look at what we are taking in on tobacco tax. The tobacco tax, for example, the figure is up around $70 million, I believe. The figure is $67.5 million, it says here. We are making $12 million in royalties in the offshore; net. On the tobacco tax we are netting $70 million. We are netting six times as much on tobacco as we are netting in offshore oil royalties. We are netting ten times as much on gasoline tax as we are on royalties. We need to eliminate - until such point that they come within a certain range of the equalization, a certain range, a certain percentile, a certain part on that spectrum, within that main - until we fall inside that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, why didn't we? We did not have these revenues from offshore royalties then. It is only now we are starting to benefit from some of these. The royalties have only started to go now. I don't care who is there. I say to the Minister of Fisheries: I don't care who is there. I did not get up here and compliment Peckford or anybody else. I am on the record of this House as disagreeing with it. I disagree with what you did, former governments, I disagree with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and I don't support that.

AN HON. MEMBER: What can we do?

MR. SULLIVAN: What can we do? Number one, we can be adamant in getting a cap lifted because that is unfair. That is an autocratic stroke of the pen. That is one thing we can do. The second thing we can do is demand and raise hell on it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Who knows? I wouldn't say we would survive now because we have given so much away.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Not right now, but if we get control of our resources - there is a big picture here that we have to look at. We have a large coastline. We have an ability to patrol and manage that coastline. There are a lot of factors. I am not advocating that we jump off the edge or we are going to separate and jump up and down. No, I am not saying that is the avenue to take, but I am saying an aggressive approach - we can't be kowtowing. We have a Premier here who kowtowed everything to Ottawa. He didn't want to disturb Ottawa, that might interfere with his political ambitions; which we said from day one.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. SULLIVAN: Brian Tobin, when he was here. Those points hurt us. We got hurt on the federal stage. We got hurt on that issue.

Even Clyde Wells, on Meech Lake, would not bend over to the federal government. He did not do it. A lot of people disagreed with it, but he did not necessarily -

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) trying to get a better deal through that process.

MR. SULLIVAN: Through what process?

MR. NOEL: The Meech Lake process.

MR. SULLIVAN: Down here?

MR. NOEL: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: They would not bring it back. Sure the Premier of the Province -

MR. J. BYRNE: Three times he went back on his word.

MR. SULLIVAN: He went back on his word. He would not bring it to Legislature of the Province. I can't speak with authority on that, I wasn't here at the time. I can't speak with any authority, and he wasn't here. None of us sat. None of us sitting here today sat here at that time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Not as a member, no. He wasn't here as a member.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I have been serving longer, with the exception -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, with the member sitting here today. He was a member, the only one who was a member at the time. I followed it but I am not intimately familiar with all the details. I didn't sit in the House. I followed it in the media the same as anybody else did. I can't speak with any particular authority of being there. I have been here since 1992 and have followed, reasonably close, of what happened then. We have lost strides by being too tolerant, lacking a certain aggressiveness and we have to do something about it. It's as simple as that.

Disparities; we are listening too much and playing the political big thing with Quebec and western alienation, and because we have played it so strongly with Quebec, federally, it has alienated the west. The same as Trudeau alienated the west back in the time of the energy policy. We have a problem. We have a distinct problem here and I think we have to realize that the Government of Canada is not committed to eliminating disparities. We have widening gaps, I might add, of disparity. If it is not committed to eliminating them, what is the purpose of federalism? It defeats its basic underlining purpose of federalism. It does not serve a purpose. Why do you want to be a part of federalism that continuously take your resources, spread them out and not allow you to stand on your own? If you never let a child stand up he will probably never learn to walk until a later age, if you never give him the opportunity; if you tie him down, strap him down. You have to allow him to survive, to grow and develop on his own. Get back the money from our resources - build that.

We don't want equalization. We don't want it. We would like to have the revenues coming in on our ledger that would not necessitate equalization. I would like to see Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and these other provinces there. Alberta has a wealth - they are part of a federalism there. Ontario; massive growth. Ontario has such an increase of manufacturing jobs. It will come back to show, and it is starting to show in history now, some of the policies - Brian Mulroney, when he was in office, was hated in 1993. They kicked him out in no uncertain terms, but some of the fundamental decisions that were made then have been positive for this country.

In fact, before the ink was dry the Prime Minister was out talking about - I heard on the news today, the federal minister said: The U.S. has been protectionist. When Canada - when they fought free trade as the worse thing. Manufacturing jobs in Ontario, the competitiveness - our exports have increased. It has helped the growth that we have incurred in this country with free trade. That is why, when they got into office, they saw the light. They saw how important - that we can't operate in isolation in a global market today. We have to take down the doors of protectionism and we have to be able to compete; have our people be able to compete and produce a product that can compete and sell on the world market. They saw that and rushed for free trade in North America. They couldn't wait to extend the boundaries for free trade because it was positive. Anyone who does an analysis will tell you it has a positive effect.

You talk about helicopters, the EH101, whatever they are. Because the Forces had gone to such a dangerous level they saw the need to have to get back and buy helicopters. Because it was political they could not touch it, but they came back and saw the need. When you are not in power - it is easy for opposition - there are lots of times you probably don't see the full depth of the problem, or if you do see it you don't want to recognize that you do see it. That happens on times. That is what happened in that case and that has been detrimental to the growth in the country.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: How much money did (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I do not know; you will have to ask him. They do not share their bank accounts with me, and I do not know what they are doing on it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I do not know, I say to the Minister of Fisheries. I do not know how much money they made on it. I am not aware of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I do not. I do not know him. I haven't met him. I would not know him from the man the Premier called the man in the moon, whom he alluded to in that interview I watched. I did not know there was a man in the moon. Did you? The Premier said there was a man in the moon, I think he said last week. I listened to him using an analogy of what they said in Ottawa.

Now we talk about the debt of our Province; the total debt of the Province. I must say that the debt - each year we have not produced a balance. There has always been a deficit each year, even though they projected a balanced budget. We have not. We always just come in the red each year, which means the deficit goes up, unless you are using higher dollars to retire your debt, from what you are doing. So, our deficit is at a fairly high level and we are not as bad off. You know, we are the best Province.

It is funny, you know; when we come to negotiations for contracts, we cannot afford it, but when it is not at negotiation time, we have the best growth in this country, economic prosperity. It almost bowls you over when it comes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, the Minister of Finance asked me to keep the level up because she is not comfortable when I talk too low. Besides, there is too much noise over there. I cannot even get to hear what I am saying. When I speak up, I have a tendency to be able to hear what I am saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: The echo is coming back off the wall.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, whatever it is. There is a lot of hollowness over there, I would say, and it is all an echo, I might add. I am glad the Minister of Fisheries recognizes that.

Now, we have a GDP that is going up, and it is not all bad to have a debt; because if you do not have a debt it means you do not spend money, and maybe we deprive ourselves of services. God knows, in this Province we have deprived ourselves of a lot of services, but as long as your GDP - there are a few indicators - is growing faster than your debt, we are in a fairly comfortable position. If your percentage of debt goes up in relation to GDP, your ability to repay that debt is lessened, and that is a problem; because if we always have an increase in our GDP over the increase in our debt, a point arrives in time - for instance, if you owe $1 billion today, in twenty years' time if you owe $1 billion, it is not nearly as significant, especially if the GDP is gone up significantly, and our ability to pay; but we have certain things that hamper our ability to pay that debt. One is, we have to depend on revenues and resources outside our Province. We have to depend on the federal government to help us pay that debt and keep the bills paid and keep the services provided in our Province, and that has fluctuated from up to 48 per cent right down to the 42 per cent and 43 per cent range.

We have seen some improvements. I must say, since I have been here I have seen some improvements in the foreign debt; the amount that is foreign hold. There is over 30 per cent of the debt in our Province now, roughly, that is held in foreign currencies, which can be difficult, especially with the U.S. dollar. Just take the U.S. dollar alone in comparison with the Canadian dollar. The bottom has gone out of the Canadian dollar, which means that if we have to repay debt, we have to convert and pay on U.S. borrowed money, that is very expensive, and against any particular - certainly, currency fluctuations can be devastating on the bottom line in our Province. God help us, let's hope the dollar cannot go down any lower. It might be great for export to the United States, and some companies have done quite well on export and on the exchange. Any export thing, like the fishery, for example, has benefitted, but I think that is factored into the mechanism now, too. Is that a part of the formula on mechanism on the market now, too, that the U.S. - I am not sure if that is built into the settlement formula mechanism in the fishery that was adopted what - two or three years? This is the third year now, I think, that we are going into that. I did not see it, but I think it is a part of it, I do believe, not just the market price but the currency is a big part of it. I mean, if you are trading at 50 per cent - right now, I guess, if you want to change into U.S. funds now, it is costing you about sixty cents on the dollar, I guess, just about. Anybody who has traveled that way lately, it is in that ballpark. I have seen when it was down to the seventeen cent, eighteen cent to twenty cent range, and there has been a big change.

We have seen -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not quite as old, I say, as the Minister of Fisheries; I don't go back to prehistoric times.

There was a time, yes, I remember, when it was probably ninety-some cents, I think, back - I don't remember when it was par. I guess I was certainly a teenager, at the oldest.

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible) and John Diefenbaker was the Prime Minister.

MR. SULLIVAN: My God, that must be in the 1800s, John Diefenbaker.

MR. H. HODDER: It was in 1963.

MR. SULLIVAN: Diefenbaker got elected in 1957, if I remember correctly, in a minority government. In 1958, I think, he had, up to that time, the largest majority in the history of the country at that time.

There are a lot of concerns. I was speaking earlier on health care and I had to leave, and I want to get back to that again. In our Province - and this is an injustice too. I want to say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands, I think he was asking some of the things we can do to change. Here is another point I wanted to get to under another aspect to help level that playing field, to help adhere to national standards. One of the bases of equalization was to allow provinces to be able to provide reasonable service at a certain national standard. That is the function that we do not allow discrepancies to occur.

Back in 1994, and this is just off the equalization scene, close to it, when they wrapped up the CAP, the Canada Assistance Plan, and EPF, Established Programme Financing, that covered health and post- secondary education, those three were wrapped into - I don't have to give you a history lesson; you know that - but when it was wrapped into the Canada Health and Social Transfer, they moved from a need basis, because anything we spent on social services, in other areas, whatever the case may be, we got 50 per cent recovery on those dollars from the federal government. We were getting a need basis. We were getting money here on a need basis, but it is not happening now. We are getting it on a per capita basis, and our Province has gone from 583,000 people, down in the last count, I think it is probably 539,000 now or 541,000. One figure I have there shows 541,000 but around 540,000 let's say. We have lost close to 45,000 people. We are getting money- now it started to go down before they changed it, of course. I am not implying that we saw the big reduction under that, but the decline that started has gone down. So, under the Canada Health and Social Transfer now, we are getting it on a per capita basis.

Every other province in this country has experienced an increase in population growth. For some, the rate of growth has gone up even. In Atlantic Canada, two of the other three Atlantic Provinces have shown a rate in the increase of growth, not just extra growth but a rate in their increase of growth. I believe that is P.E.I. and Nova Scotia, I think. New Brunswick has increased growth but the rate of growth has not gone up. One of them has a slower rate of growth but they are still growing.

So, what does that mean? When we carve out the pie per capita, we have less people now and we are getting a smaller piece of the pie. Can anyone tell me if it is cheaper to deliver health care in Newfoundland and Labrador, per capita, or in Prince Edward Island? You can drive around Prince Edward Island in a part of a day. Nova Scotia has a lot more people. Nova Scotia has 800-and-some thousand people, going up to 900,000, close to that, I think, up in the high eight hundreds.

Newfoundland - can you imagine delivering health care service to Labrador, the immense geography of Labrador, parts of this Island that we have in isolation, that you have to get to by boat? The Northern Peninsula is a disbursed geographical area of our Province. I would say this is the most expensive Province in the country to deliver health care, based on geography, and we have a declining population so we are getting a smaller piece of the pie.

There is no wonder -

AN HON. MEMBER: ( Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What I am saying, Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, is that we need to slice the pie a bit different, based on needs and geography, and have demographics play a part, not just per capita; because it is not downtown Toronto. The City of Winnipeg has more people than this Province. The City of Winnipeg has 600,000 people; we have 540,000.

If they are doing it on a per capita basis - and you cannot just look at that, because in Newfoundland and Labrador we are spread out so much that it requires facilities. We have to have something in Burgeo, and you have to have something in Port aux Basques and Stephenville and Corner Brook. You have to have it. You cannot expect people to go long distances in emergencies. That is the point I am making. We have to have, within certain distances, those facilities.

Can you imagine someone in St. Anthony - between St. Anthony now and Corner Brook there is no hospital in between, up the peninsula. There is nothing in between. Can you imagine, that is a long distance. In fact, I have been told, I think, the longest distance by road by ambulance to any hospital comes in my district, Trepassey. It is the longest distance by road to any health facility. That is what I was told. I don't know if that is accurate or not, but it is a fair distance away, because at least other areas are fairly -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN: The nearest hospital is about 170 kilometers roughly.

AN HON. MEMBER: If you had Roger Fitzgerald there, you would have a hospital up in your riding.

MR. SULLIVAN: Actually, we are not saying you should have a hospital there. As a matter of fact, I think that would be a waste of taxpayers' dollars, to put a hospital up in Trepassey. What we are saying is they should not be on their backs telling them they are making too many ambulance trips and they are going to cut them and take action on them, when they are the farthest away, by road, from hospitals. That is what is wrong. They don't have a hospital facility there, and I am not saying they should. They have one person there who can do X-rays and blood work and so on. They have one person who is cross-trained in lab and X-ray who does the job there. If the doctor has any concerns, if he is in doubt, in fact he will send people in by ambulance, and I think that is the route to go, not put a big infrastructure there.

I have been saying all along that we have to be looking at reasonable expenditure of the dollars. I said I did not oppose the reorganization in the City of St. John's and other areas with reduction of hospitals if it is going to reduce paying your light, your heat and all the other costs, provided you can turn this savings into giving the service and catering to, not less people. You don't take beds out of the system so you can put them into these other centres. I was told that is going to happen.

Now that I have gotten to that, back some time ago when they were starting this move on the Janeway, they said this was going to cost $80 million. I have it here: Janeway move to cost $80 million, there by department. I said: It is not going to be done. I went to the first meeting of the Health Care Corporation at Holiday Inn, their first annual meeting, and I asked questions. I won't get into all these. I said: How are you going to provide this service, how are you going to finance it? I went into that. I won't get into all that. I said it here in the House before.

What has happened since? Here is what has happened since. They have taken the Grace Hospital out of it and removed the beds. That is what they did. They cut down the emergency department and didn't expand it enough to make up for the lost space. They have gone from 3100 beds in this Province in 1989, when Clyde Wells came into power, to 1807 beds as of March 31, 2000. Can you imagine, 1300 beds! You took over 40 per cent of the beds, 42 per cent of the beds; almost sliced in half.

No wonder there are people calling. No wonder you know people, and I do, and everybody else does, who have died waiting. I know people who have died waiting to get into hospital - I have names to go with them, if anybody wants to check - who were told: it will take four to six weeks now and we will get you in to get that bypass, and who was found dead on the kitchen floor by their daughter when she went in one morning; a person with an aneurysm, perfectly healthy apart from that, who could have gotten a bypass to correct it. We are seeing those types of things. We have diagnostic tests you cannot get.

The system today is bottlenecked, and CEOs out in the hospitals agree with me and boards will agree with me. I hope the minister addresses this, because what is causing us a lot of grief in the system is there are people waiting four and eight weeks in hospital. They are waiting thirty, forty and fifty days to get a simple diagnostic test because a piece of machinery is not working, because they only operate their MRI for ten hours or so a day - some jurisdictions run them twenty hours - or because the equipment is broken down more than it is running.

To get an angiogram - an angiogram is not a long procedure. I think they do an angiogram about every twenty minutes, I believe. Dozens and dozens of people, up to thirty, forty and fifty people - some place up in St. Anthony, six people were waiting. On the West Coast there were, I think, eight people in the hospital there, twenty or more here in St. John's, all over, waiting for an angiogram. If you could get your angiogram done, if you could get in and get it done, you might get an angioplasty and be home in three days; all is well, but you wait forty-two days. You could do fourteen people in that time, put them through the same system there. We are bottlenecking the system and we are not addressing the bottlenecks. What is it coming from? Lack of investment in equipment. We have robbed our system by not investing in equipment.

I went over to the nuclear medicine centre and I had to undergo a test there a couple of years ago. I went in and they went through a particular procedure there, and the guy working on the machine asked me: Do you mind if, when you are there on the other machine, a person works away while you are going through the procedure? I said: I have on problem. The faster you get it working, I guess, the better it is for everybody. It doesn't bother me. I went through it and a person came in - I won't mention the name, it is too recognizable - and said: Machines are broke down more than they are working.

I know companies that operate and service machines. I went through it down on the Burin Peninsula when a person died there in Burin. I said: Look, they allowed two of the service contracts to expire on these down on the Burin Peninsula and it was serious. They allowed the service contracts to expire on life-saving equipment down there, on defibrillators and various pieces of machinery. There were over a hundred pieces of equipment that they allowed to come (inaudible) and some service contracts to expire, and that is wrong. They went in to get a defibrillator to revive somebody and found out it was shorted out, and by the time they got another one there - I am sure the member, Madam Chairperson, is familiar with the instance. I have talked to people who were brought there, and they did not have the service there. They had to send a person to Clarenville who died on the way. I have talked to dozens of individuals there.

We haven't been efficient managers of our system. We have not reduced the bottlenecks in our system. I am sure money would cure it all, but money is not the only answer; the efficient delivery, addressing money in places where it would reduce bottlenecks and serve more people. We have come to saving dollars in the system today with what we call wait listing. You save by wait listing. You make people wait longer to get the service, because if everybody got the service faster we would have to spent more money, because you would have doctors seeing more patients, more fees and costs. That is a strategy today, wait listing. We are not the only province in Canada in the situation.

People talk about the system in the U.S. You have to pay for it in the U.S., but you can walk in today and get an MRI.

They talk about preventive maintenance. If you have equipment operating and you are in a business - I spent twenty years in business and we had millions of dollars worth of equipment, let's put it that way. Yes, the equipment cost in the millions in total, and you didn't wait until it broke down to get something done. If you didn't have preventive maintenance, it did not work right. Today in our system, we are not doing the preventive maintenance to stop these problems. We are not investing enough into the prevention of disease. In a lot of cases we are not even investing money to deal with the cause of it, we are dealing with the symptoms of it.

So, we have to direct our money better, we have to shake up the system, we have to cut down on the lines of bureaucracy that are there in the system, all through the channels, departments and boards. When it is good news, the department is running mad with an announcement and when it is bad news, the boards are out trying to defend themselves.

Even the Member for Bay of Islands accused myself and my colleague of being out there fearmongering, out on the West Coast. He got his knuckles rapped, I tell you, the next day.

MR. J. BYRNE: Out doing his job.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, out trying to raise the issues out there.

I heard him on radio making an inaccurate statement. I heard the quote was carried in the paper. It was carried in the Western Star, how I said it was hundred of millions of dollars. That was wrong. The Premier, who is the current Premier, stood in the House here in December and I challenged him to produce it. He hauled out Hansard and read a feeble inference to a statement that anybody from the Grade 3 Level up would know what the words were. He tried to play with words. The member sat in the House that day, and he knew - he knowingly said something at a meeting in Corner Brook that was not right. I didn't go back to correct it; I left him alone. The editorial and the raps he got on the knuckles out there, because he attacked us for trying to meet with people and find out the concerns there, to raise the issues, because that is how you get response - if you never raise issues and leave everything alone that is going -

AN HON. MEMBER: How about the LANS, Loyola?

MR. SULLIVAN: What about them?

AN HON. MEMBER: You did.

MR. SULLIVAN: Who said?

AN HON. MEMBER: You did.

MR. SULLIVAN: Indeed I didn't.

AN HON. MEMBER: You voted for that here in the House.

MR. SULLIVAN: Indeed I didn't.

I will tell you what I said. I did a video several years ago for the Centre of Nursing Studies. I was interviewed on a video where I chaired - I happened to chair from 1990 until I got into politics - an innovative project, a primarily health care and nursing model. I went on record on a video that was used as a training element, and stated that people should be allowed to perform up to their level of training. If nurses take on added responsibilities, if licensed practical nurses or nurse practitioners are trained, you should be able to perform to the level of your training. There are two standards in this Province. There are parts of this Province where they allow LPNs to do certain duties and other parts of the Province where they don't allow them to do, and they have the same training. You have got to recognize the level of training and what someone is capable of doing.

All the members are trying to construe statements I made there, who don't even know what they are talking about; completely erroneous, misinforming the public on issues. If they don't know what they are talking about, they should say nothing and then you don't lose credibility. Because, you lost credibility on that issue out there. You should have said nothing. At least you would be at the level you were before you said something.

Every word I have said I stand by. They are not a contradiction. I remember everything I say. When you speak the truth all the time you never have to try to remember what you said. That is what I say.

That Premier must have an awful time trying to remember what went on up there in Ottawa. Either he is getting into early stages of Alzheimers or not. The Prime Minister is and Brian Tobin, because they on one side, both of them are. Well, if the Prime Minister is getting it, Brian Tobin is getting it for sure, because whatever he gets Brian Tobin gets. I think they are Siamese twins, are they? Yes, I think they are inseparable.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. SULLIVAN: The Prime Minister and the industry minister.

How can you go to a meeting and sit down with Jean and say: Jean, are you going to cutback on the clawbacks in the resources? He said: Yes. When are you going to do it? As soon as possible. We are not going to wait for 2004. Immediately, as soon as we can get it done. And the Premier rushes back to Newfoundland: we had a great meeting, a positive meeting there. We are going to cutback now on those clawbacks. The Prime Minister said: He got it all wrong. The next morning he said: Brian, come in here, Brian. Brian, is that what you heard in the meeting? No, Prime Minister, that is not what I heard. You said, just a commitment to look into it further. Yes, we will get a news release out on that, which we did. Now, you get on an airplane, Brian, and you get down to Newfoundland and you be the spokesperson because the Premier is not allowed to speak on Friday, Saturday, Sunday or Monday. He is not allowed to speak. He never opened his mouth the weekend. He must be gone on a trip into hibernation, saw his shadow and went back in for the weekend.

Brian Tobin came down and he was the spokesperson. He tried to tell people the media mis-reported him. Well, the tv I saw and the tape we have makes no mistake about it. Brian Tobin and the Prime Minister, on one hand - in the white corner, to my left, is the Premier of the Province and in the other corner, to my right, is the industry minister and the Prime Minister who are infallible, who can't be wrong.

I thought we were going to get the third apology out of the Premier. He apologized for Clyde Wells when he was here. Clyde Wells made him stand up and make an apology for something he said outside the House, and humbly he stood in his place in the House - he was over there in that section - he stood and he humbly apologized back around 1992, I think it was, 1993 or 1994, somewhere around there.

Then the other Danny, the one coming at him from behind, made him give an apology. That was the second one. I thought Brian Tobin was down trying to get an apology out of him the weekend: come on, Roger, get up and apologize. The Prime Minister has been good to us. Get up and apologize again. Three strikes don't mean you are out. Maybe you are going to be out anyway. You might as well swing hard at the third pitch. You might hit it. You might get a hit. Who knows? But, that is what happened. Damage control Brian, the apologist, double duty bodyguard for the Prime Minister, came down here and the Premier was not allowed to speak. Does anyone think the Premier is running this Province? He wasn't allowed to speak on an issue because he disagreed with the Prime Minister.

The Member for Bay of Islands, he is going to have a rough time out there. They are telling me he is going to have a rough time out there the next time. The first thing; he didn't support his colleague next door. The second thing; he accused us of fear mongering, he got his knuckles rapped. He can't seem to do anything right. So my advice to the Member for Bay of Islands is to say nothing, but saw wood. Say nothing, keep you head down, set your course, put your head down and keep going.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What motion?

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't mislead people by doing that.

MR. SULLIVAN: Where did I mislead people? Tell me.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, I will show you.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, show us. Tell me, I would love to know.

We have a population in this Province - and I have asked the Minister of Finance, who is the former Minister of Health, the former minister of - What was she before health?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Municipal Affairs and then health before that. Questions on long-term care. We do not need any long-term care beds, she said. We have enough long-term care beds. We have people waiting to get in to long-term care beds, and there are enough. We have hospital beds empty. They will not put people in there. They have cut their budget. Empty beds in hospitals - they already took away one hospital, the Grace, and they have empty beds in other ones.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Certainly did cut hospital beds, I say.

They moved the social services department, a good chunk of it, into child protection. They moved into health, so that amount went up. Family and rehabilitative services has gone under the Department of Health, so that is gone up. Millions in the budget because of it.

So cuts: you cannot even get surgery. People waiting for surgery cannot even get a cut. The only cuts that are coming are in health care. You cannot get it in surgery in the operating room, because they bungled that. We did not have sufficient critical care nurses to be able to carry out operations. There were not enough in critical care. Can you imagine this Province spending in the millions to get a third cardiac surgeon in and have to spend a year-and-a-half with no surgeries to do. Why? They solved the profusionist problem. They had to dedicate a space for cardiac care - the operating room, the recovery room - and would not pay nurses. We had all the other parts to make that vehicle run, the same as you have tires, the same as if you put a wheel on a car and everything else together but if you do not put gasoline in it, it cannot run. There was one thing missing and that is what happened; critical care nurses. The critical time came when nurses went on strike and they were legislated back to work and ignored, and that devalued the importance of them as humans. That caused a death blow basically in our Province in health care.

Look what happened in Alberta. I do not expect us to be paid on a par with Alberta. I have said all along - and the minister used to get up and say: Oh, the United States. They can afford it. I said: I am only asking that we be paid on a par with little Prince Edward Island with 130,000 people, Nova Scotia with 800-and-some and with New Brunswick 600-and-some thousand. Pay us on a par with Atlantic Canada. A nine-year nurse in Alberta, today, can make $64,000, and a nurse starting off first, right out of school with a diploma, an RN, can make $49,000. A nurse here, at the top of the scale, after years here, even with the increase we have had, will make between $44,000 and $45,000 - around $45,000 at the top of their scale. Starting nurses are making in the thirties here in our Province.

We have not even paid our health care professionals on par with Atlantic Canada. How do you expect people to stay here when they can go over to Halifax and get more money or Prince Edward Island? How do you expect radiation technologists and profusionists - and now some movement is being made in some of these areas - how do you expect any health care professionals, pharmacists within the hospitals system, radiologists or medical radiation technologist - not radiologists, they are in a different category. They are doctors, specialists. How can you expect us to be able to keep these people?

We talk about private medicine in the United States. You know, we have spent millions. We send people out of here to private clinics in Cleveland for radiation treatment because doctors said the wait to have it done here provides a high risk to the people. We cannot keep them here, the risk is too great to their health and to their survival, basically. So we send people and we pay millions to private health care clinics in the United States for that when, in one stretch here in our Province - back two years ago we had three medical oncologist here. Within a one-year period every one of them left this Province. Can you imagine? Turned over your professional medical oncologists - every single one here in our Province a turnover. We have got to face it. We should stand up and tell the people: Look, you do not deserve the same status as Atlantic Canada, you should get a second rate service. Do not try to tell them one thing and give them something different. Face it, say we are not going to give it to you. Do not try to use any other excuse.

Nova Scotia, half of their debt is in foreign debt, very highly leveraged on the foreign market. They do not have the same basic ability to have stabilized payments on their debt as we do in our Province. It is significant - Prince Edward Island and those areas. Prince Edward Island, their capital city is what? Twenty-five thousand or 30,000 people, 130,000 or so in the whole Province, and they pay better than us, pharmacists and everybody else, right though, hospital pharmacists, psychologists, social workers, the whole gambit. Now we are going to see the public service strike. We are talking about that on April 1. It will be interesting to look at comparisons between our workers in equivalent positions in other parts of Atlantic Canada. That is a part of it.

We have to be appreciative of the level of service. We will get better productivity, we will get a more positive attitude, we will get reduced sick leave, we will get better performance on the job, we will get all of these things with more pleasant working conditions and treating you as a human and a valued worker. That happens. That is human nature.

What would you do? Just think for a minute. If you just finished a twelve-hour shift, three in a row, you are ready to go home and they tell you: Look, you have to come in tomorrow on your day off, on the weekend. You say: No, I am going somewhere with my two kids and my husband. We have this weekend planned. They say: No, you have to come in and go to work. You have to come in and work that twelve-hour shift. We need someone up in the operating room and we need someone on another floor. You have to come in.

What is going to happen when you get time? You have to work extra time. Casuals are working far beyond their regular time, because the people on regular shifts are given their regular schedules. They don't get a regular schedule. What happens? You are more likely to say: Well, look, I am overworked. I need a break. I am going to take a day sick, so I will take a day sick. Then you have to pay the replacement and you have to pay the person who is off sick. That is happening a lot in our system.

There are millions. I have been told, colleague, I think, the cost in the system just in western health care alone, $7 million.

MR. J. BYRNE: Seventy, for sick leave and (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, not $70 million, $7 million for sick related costs just for the Western Health Care Corporation. Can you imagine? Put this right across the Province, people being forced to come in extra hours. I have spoken to people who have worked here at the Janeway. Remember about two years ago, it will be two years this spring, when the neonatal unit was blocked to capacity and they had to fly babies to Winnipeg and services all over the country because they didn't staff it up to a high enough level? Then, some people chose to work only part time. They said: Look, I want to have a bit of a life with my family; I will just work two shifts a week. They are on permanent part-time and that is the way they wanted to work.

Can you imagine being called up when you made a commitment to your family to work two shifts a week, that is all you want to do and all you are prepared to do, and you are mandated to come in and go to work, mandated to go in. Give up time, have to call a babysitter in today because the kid has to go to school. You have made a decision, as a parent, to spend time with your kids when they are growing up, and to be available, and mandated to go into work because it was not staffed at a level that was appropriate. Then you will call in aircrafts from outside the country and fly babies away to Winnipeg and Halifax and prepare contingencies all over the country.

That is not wise use of provincial resources. That is mismanagement, indiscriminate use of our resources, and it is something that should not be allowed to happen. We have seen too much waste in there, too much time putting out political fires, not enough time planning and trying to do certain things on a more rational basis.

We, in Opposition, don't think there should be hospitals in every community in the Province, or in every little area in the Province. It would be crazy to think that, it would not be responsible, but we do believe that every area within a certain distance should have reasonable access to services. We think there should be regional facilities in areas that can build up, because you are not getting - why build a facility somewhere when you cannot get a specialist to go there, you cannot get trained people to go there? They want to go places where they have a quality of life for their family. They may have their kids into swimming, ballet, or whatever the case may be, wherever. People are going to go, because when there is a demand for health care professionals, or any particular job, people will gravitate to where the best salary and/or working conditions are. That is what people will do. People will move to those particular areas, and it is important that we recognize that.

We should not have to have a wake-up call of a strike with nurses to give us up a wake-up call on nurses to address that. We would have a lot healthier attitude. Government did not gain anything by it, I can tell you, because nurses are just as poisoned with government as they were before they got the increase. Had you done it beforehand, you certainly would have found favour with them. When you do it, when you shut the barn door after the horse leaves, you never win back favour.

The same with the public service. I think there needs to be an examination of certain remuneration for work, and how it is comparative within the public services in provincial legislatures of our similar size and ability to pay, and in those areas there have to be considerations. That is something that this government has not ever espoused to, and it is something that we need to do. If not, it just disenfranchises people and they are not prepared really to be as cooperative. The work environment is not there. If you are not treated like a human, you usually do not respond in that manner.

Those are just some of the points. I am sure I will have an opportunity over the next while again. I know there are a lot people here ready to jump up and make some comments.

MR. J. BYRNE: Not on that side.

MR. SULLIVAN: What?

MR. J. BYRNE: Not on that side.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, and I am sure my colleague from Cape St. Francis - are you ready to roll there again, and give us some words of wisdom basically? I am sure we will hear an answer from the minister as to why she wants over a billion and a quarter dollars for the three months of spending. That is big spending; that is a lot of money. That is a big trip, a billion and a quarter of public funding to spend in three months. The commitment is there. It is the highest yet, and I say the most extravagant Finance Minister probably in the history of this Province.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

MADAM CHAIR (Hodder): The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I must say, it was a pleasure listening to the Member for Ferryland, the very current and the new critic for Finance, and I am sure he will put the same effort into his critic portfolio as he put into Health, no doubt about that. It would do good for the minister to listen to what that man has to say. She has a lot to learn, and she will be listening to the right individual if she listens to the Member for Ferryland with respect to finances in the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Next to you, Jack.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, I would not want to blow my own horn there, but I understand what you are saying.

MR. SULLIVAN: Do not praise me up too much because I will want to get up again.

MR. J. BYRNE: I know.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), Jack. They are all broke up. The bookends are gone.

MR. J. BYRNE: The bookends are gone, she fell apart. The Member for Port de Grave and the Member for Humber West are gone and she fell apart on that side of the House. That is right.

Anyway, Madam Chairperson, I want to say a few words on Bill 2, as I stated earlier, with respect to the Interim Supply Bill. One and a quarter billion dollars, basically, for the government for the next few months. Of course, as the member said and the Minister of Finance said when she was on her feet, it is a thing that happens every year, a situation where we try to get some money in the system before the Budget is approved so bills can be paid and what have you, but I want to look at a few of the expenditures here, just a few, and have a few comments on them.

Under Finance: If you compare Finance, you have $24,282,600 in the subhead for the Interim Supply; in Work, Services and Transportation, we have $229,153,000. We have what appears to be coming forward in the next little while, within the next two weeks actually, a major strike with the civil servants in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. As many as 16,000 people could be hitting the streets.

The Government House Leader says: Is that true? Now, can you believe that? That is almost as bad, making that comment, as the Minister of Finance - and I am going to get on to that - and the Premier have said recently in the media. The Minister of Finance - and I was only looking at $24 million here for Finance and, as I said, compare that to Works, Services and Transportation, I am going to talk about Education, and Health and Community Services.

I want to talk about Health and Community Services because I was on the West Coast there a few weeks ago and we had the Member for Bay of Islands making a few comments which I am going to address in the near future here. With respect to Finance, as many as 16,000 people could be hitting the streets. The Minister of Finance made a comment in the media. This was what she actually - I mean, I could not believe what I was hearing. The Minister of Finance said in the media that, you know -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Not to NAPE -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) the negotiating table.

MR. J. BYRNE: Not to the negotiating table. No, do not give them a letter, make an offer. Well, what I am doing now, I am saying we will give them three, three and three.

MR. SULLIVAN: Negotiating (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, that is as good as an offer, isn't it? she said.

Is she going to do all the negotiations in the media? Is that the proper way for the Minister of Finance of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to behave?

I don't think so. We have civil servants in this Province who, over the past ten or eleven years, have had no increase basically. As a matter of fact, they had a rollback. From my understanding, if you look at the cost of living over the past ten years, they are down close to 25 per cent with respect to their spending power.

We have the Minister of Finance saying basically: Well, you know, we made an offer. Now NAPE and the negotiating team are technically correct in saying we did not make them an offer, but we made them an offer in the media; so, in effect, that is an offer.

That is bad enough; but then, a couple of days after that, the Premier of the Province, the new Premier of the Province, the man who has had some pretty negative publicity the past month or so, I would say, doesn't seem to get anything right in any of his comments, and I will refer to that shortly.

A prime example was this past weekend, of course. You know what he actually said in the media? What he actually said was this: I really don't understand how NAPE can be putting a strike vote ahead of negotiations. That is what he said.

MR. SULLIVAN: And they negotiating in public.

MR. J. BYRNE: And these guys negotiating in public.

NAPE, for the past year, or at least six months to a year before this, have said that at a certain date in March they are having a strike vote. There is no point in trying to do anything at that time. To have a strike vote for April 1, to have it counted and have everything in place, they had to start at that point in time. The Premier of the Province, trying to make an issue of that, is absolutely ridiculous. All they are doing is playing games. All they are doing is playing games with the civil service of this Province. We know the Premier is good at playing games.

He talks about straight answers and real solutions. We saw a prime example today in this House of Assembly when he was asked a straight question. He did not give a straight answer. We saw it last week.

AN HON. MEMBER: A crooked answer.

MR. J. BYRNE: We got a crooked answer, I suppose, would be a polite way of putting it. We saw it last week when he was asked questions in this House of Assembly, as Premier, and he would not answer, and he went outside this Legislature, outside in the lobby, to the media, and made comments. He made comments that -

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, it is like this, I say to the Member for Trinity North. The Member for Trinity North is actually now questioning me. The man who turned his back on the Member for Port de Grave, who got him elected out there, now he has the gall to question me here about hearing the speech. How often have we heard anybody on that side of the House get up, Madame Chairperson, and say something with respect to the Budget, to support the Budget, to support Interim Supply?

I challenge the Member for Trinity North to get up and tell us why he did not support the Member for Port de Grave for leader, for Premier of the Province. That is what I challenge the Member for Trinity North to do.

Now, back to the issue, back to NAPE and the civil service, and what is going on here. As I said, Madame Chairperson, this civil service has had a freeze on salaries for ten or twelve years. They had a cutback, a rollback, and if you compare them to the other Atlantic Provinces' civil servants, from what I understand they are quite a bit behind, quite a ways behind. That is only one issue there.

Now, also with respect to equalization, I want to say a few words on this. I have to say a few words on that, of course, because that is a major impact upon the revenues of this Province. We have the Premier of the Province going to Ottawa, and other premiers before him, trying to make changes to the equalization. By the way, again, in the fall election, in the federal election, we saw the former Premier, Mr. Tobin, and we saw ministers in this Cabinet -

AN HON. MEMBER: Paul Martin.

MR. J. BYRNE: Paul Martin, and the Prime Minister of the country, saying that they were going to address it as soon as possible after.... The carrot in front of us again, Madam Chairperson, and no action.

We saw Paul Martin, the Minister of Finance; he is the man controlling the budget up there. I am wondering if there is something going on between the would-be candidate for the leadership of the party from Newfoundland, Mr. Tobin, and the would-be leadership of the Liberal Party, Paul Martin.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are in cahoots, are they?

MR. J. BYRNE: No, they are not in cahoots. Paul Matin, I am talking about, and the former Premier of the Province. Is that why there have been no changes made to the equalization formula?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: What are you asking me for? Go to Ottawa and ask them. I am not in the House of Commons. I am answering the question here with respect to what has been said publicly by the Prime Minister, the former Premier, and the Minister of Finance on stated facts.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, at least when we say something we mean it, I say to the member.

Madam Chair, back to this again.

MR. NOEL: What is the Tory position? What did Joe Clarke (inaudible)?

MR. J. BYRNE: The Tory position is this, and I have no problem saying it, that they will be fair to Newfoundland and Labrador. They have always been fair. By the way, the federal Tories have always treated Newfoundland and Labrador better than the federal Liberals. There is no doubt about it, as always. That is a fact and that can be proven, I say to the Member for Virginia Waters.

Now, Works, Services and Transportation - I got off equalization. I am going to finish up on that. I was distracted. I would like to ask a question. The Premier of the Province, as always, whenever we ask a question he gets up and asks a question. I would like to ask the Premier of the Province: Who, really, is telling the truth in this situation? We have the Premier of the Province coming back and telling the media - I heard him with my own ears, saw him on television - that the Prime Minister of the country was anxious to make changes to the equalization formula for Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SULLIVAN: In the next century.

MR. J. BYRNE: Maybe the next century.

He came down here last week - then we have the Prime Minister's office coming out and saying: Misunderstood. Then we have ‘Captain Canada' coming down, the former Premier of the Province, saying basically: Well, there was a misunderstanding and it was the media's fault. I happened to notice today, I couldn't help it, when the Premier of the Province -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up. Does he have leave?

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM CHAIR: By leave.

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

I had to laugh today when the Premier of the Province stood in his place and answered the question and said: the media's fault. The media started to laugh, and rightly so. I laughed. We all laughed on this side. Then he was trying to say it was our fault because our critic for Mines and Energy made some statement, so it is our fault -

AN HON. MEMBER: The media, that's what he said, is it?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, everybody. The devil made me do it, in other words. That is what the minister is saying. The devil made him do it. The credibility -

MR. SULLIVAN: Ask him will he give us permission to play the video in the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: I am going to tell you now, Danny Williams never (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well now, that is a peculiar thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't make it (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That will tell you how much you know. It is a strange thing, I say to the Leader of the Opposition -

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: I rise just to provide some insight to a constituent of mine, who happens to sit in this Legislature. To acknowledge - as he has just acknowledged - on the great work of the now critic for Health, and former critic for Finance, on the great job that he did as critic for Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I concur and share his view that he has done an excellent job. I don't want to be absent from the record in letting a constituent of mine, the Minister of Industry, compliment him without me, as Leader of the Opposition, compliment him as well.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: There is no point of order.

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

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

MR. TULK: Madam Chair, I just want to tell my MHA, the Member of the House of Assembly, my member, that I have never, in my lifetime, seen anybody learn as fast how to twist what somebody said as he just did. Excellent job, young man.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: I will say that the former Government House Leader has provided me with some lessons that I have taken to heart.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: And further to that, I would say, there are very few lessons that man could give anybody on this side of the House, other than how not to get up on a point of order that he is always wrong on.

I would suggest that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development read Hansard from last year, around this time, and read his own words. I suggest that you read your own words.

MR. TULK: Birds of a feather, I guess.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, and you should know all about that, I say to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development. He should know all about birds of a feather, I can guarantee you that.

With respect to this Interim Supply bill, Madam Chairperson, and Health and Community Services, we have now requested, for three months, $492,739,200.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Madam Chairperson, we have members on that side of the House questioning our motives over here when myself and the Member for Ferryland went on the West Coast to do the job that the members for the West Coast should be doing, who are supposed to be representing their people. We have the Member for Bay of Island - I can't refer to him not being here, but I wish he was because I would ask him a few questions. First, I would ask him why he is not representing his people out there with respect to health care? I would ask him, with respect to the Atkinson Report, why it was not made public until after two or three years fighting? I would ask him why we had to fight to get the most recent report made public during the last election? We had to fight for that. Then I would ask him if he knew anything about impact statements with respect to - if this report and recommendations are implemented - what impact it would have on the people who are in his district? I would ask him if there was an implementation study done to show how it would be implemented? These are some of the questions we were asked when we were on the West Coast. He took a lesson from the former Premier, the Member for the Bay of Islands, when he was interviewed and made comments in the media of fearmongering. That is the word he used, fearmongering. The favourite words of the former Premier and the present Premier.

MR. TULK: The former, former.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, the former. You are correct, I am sorry. The former, former, Mr. Tobin.

MR. SULLIVAN: Is that the guy who said he should be in Cabinet?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, that is the guy who said he should be in Cabinet. I can understand why he is not.

Anyway, he was there saying that fearmongering - here we were out listening to the people who were preparing to make the changes, the people who were being impacted by the changes within the system, and the general public who are using the system, and this man was out there and all he could talk about was fearmongering.

When you look at the Budget, for three months, $492,739,200 will be spent on health care. Of course health care is the largest part of the Budget, over one-third.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, it took me about five minutes to figure it out. It took me less than that to figure out that you knew less, I say to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

Education, Madam Chairperson, $164 million. Now, what is going on in education today in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? What is going on? Is there political interference? We heard questions asked in this House of Assembly today with respect to that. The school boards are being dictated to where they can spend their money. That is the problem. The boards are being dictated to of where they can spend the money. There are schools - I would say that the Member for Bonavista South - where are you from?

AN HON. MEMBER: Bonavista North.

MR. J. BYRNE: Bonavista North. The Member for Bonavista North is making comments across the way concerning a certain Mr. Williams, and we are not talking about Edgar Williams, the man who writes all the letters to the paper supporting the Liberal policies; of course, a well-known Liberal. Maybe someone writes the letters for him, I don't know. We have Danny Williams on this side who is going to be taking over leadership of the party within two or three weeks. We have a Danny on that side, and there is no doubt about it, we don't want to have anything to do with that man. I have never seen such fear - fear, Madam Chairperson! - in any one individual as I see in the Member for Bonavista North. We all know where he is going. He won't be fighting the next election, and he is still frightened to death for his buddies on that side of the House.

MR. SULLIVAN: Who is that?

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Bonavista North. He is frightened to death of Mr. Williams. How many times have you heard his name coming from the lips of the Member for Bonavista North? Well! Well! Well! Well! Frightened to death!

The problem is, he feels he has such a good situation going, he doesn't want to see it come to an end. Do you, boy? You really don't want to see it come to an end.

MR. TULK: What?

MR. J. BYRNE: Your situation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, he has a better situation coming. That is right.

MR. TULK: Make up your mind. Your over there and one minute you are saying -

MR. J. BYRNE: You are not listening. You don't want to see the good situation coming to an end for the members on that side of the House, many who won't be there in the near future. But you are going to be up in Ottawa in the big seat.

MR. TULK: What big seat?

MR. J. BYRNE: The big red seat in Ottawa, I suppose.

MR. TULK: No, I tried them already (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Are they? Now, Madam Chairperson, you heard that yourself. He has already tried them out. What an admittance here today.

Madam Chairperson, I was hoping -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) push yourself down into them.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, I can understand you having to push yourself down into them, all right. You are not bad, you are doing all right with respect to the weight.

Madam Chairperson, I wanted to say a few words actually about the Throne Speech. I was hoping that I would have an opportunity to say a few words on the Throne Speech before we got into Interim Supply. I would imagine the illustrious Government House Leader over there will eventually again call the Throne Speech and I will -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, I don't know about that. I wouldn't agree or disagree with that. He is a very reasonable man. He has been in the position, not a long time, a couple of weeks the fall. I say to the Member for Bonavista North, we don't have as much fun with him as we could with you just the same.

MR. TULK: He is not as bad as the last fellow who was there.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, and the last fellow who was there is worse than the guy who was there for Clyde Wells, but he was a clone. We see this in the media now where they are cloning sheep, and they are talking about cloning people now. Well, maybe you are the first clone of Ed Roberts, are you? Is that a possibility? There is only one of me and I am proud to say it. There is only one of me and there will only ever be one of me, I say, Madam Chairperson.

AN HON. MEMBER: Jack, there is nobody who could clone you anyway.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank God for that, I would say.

Anyway, Madam Chairperson, someone else may want to say a few words now I expect. So, thank you, Madam Chairperson. I am sure I will say a few more words on the Throne Speech in due course.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I want to have a few further comments, because I couldn't let a bill of such significance go through this House without speaking on it a number of times. I had an opportunity to address a few of the concerns in health care, a few of the concerns with Works, Services and Transportation, and a few of the structural deficits that have been put in place since 1996. I am sure the smiling industry minister there, the minister of greener pastures, is really interested in knowing the structural deficit that is going to be left behind there by spending all of that $55 million on the ferry service on the South Coast and we still have to run the ferry service, by spending the $347 million to link the Labrador highway and we still do not have a highway between Goose Bay and Cartwright. Really by taking all of that, Term 29, they took $130 million instead of $106 million. They spent all of that and we have to fill all those little holes over the next while in our Budget and we have to look for other avenues. We do have, I am told, $100 million to spend, and I touched on it earlier when he was not here. One thing we have to do -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I cannot hear what the fella is saying over there, hon. member.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, yes, I am getting there. I am not so naive as to think it is that. There are adjustments done. I am a little familiar with how the equalization works on each basis, and I have a funny feeling there will be manna come from Heaven. It came in the 1999 election. There was going to be $40 million for health care, and when the smoke cleared and the dust settled, we got a paltry $4 million. Remember, the Premier went up with cap in hand and came back with $40 million that shrank into $4 million when the election was over? Remember that announcement on February 7, I believe it was, back from Ottawa and it fell from the sky. On this equalization cap that got lifted just before the election, the Minister of Finance stated that $58 million is actually, she said, $38 million by lifting the equalization cap for the fiscal year.

Can you imagine, a cap since 1982 - over twenty years without lifting the cap. Can you image how much money we would have if they did not put that equalization cap on? If it was $38 million a year, almost $40 million a year, for almost twenty years, we would have a big chunk of money. We would have $800 million, close to $1 billion. Imagine what we could do with $1 billion. The Minister of Finance wants a billion and a quarter now for the next three months, another $1 billion a year, or in total even, would put us in a pretty comfortable position.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, it is one and a quarter billion dollars, and there is a difference.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right. A billion and a quarter is a billion and change, but one and a quarter billion is a lot more than a billion and change. There is a big difference.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and if he wants it back, I am pretty cooperative there, if he wants this job.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Why? He has his views over there now - the Minister of Industry and all. I do not think he is very well tuned in now. I think he is starting to drift away a little there. He is not so tuned in to what is going on, and I do not blame him. He has toiled in here for seventeen or eighteen years. Was it eighteen years?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You had a little recess. Sam Winsor gave you a four-year recess. He gave you a four-year recess from 1989 to 1993, an unexpected one. Anyway, he did come back. He survived since and he got that restructuring niche.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and that restructuring now of electoral boundaries is not going to hurt him any. It did not hurt him any in 1996 or 1999 at all, I might add. He came back. Let's see, when did he get elected to this House? I would say he got elected in - did you get elected in 19-

AN HON. MEMBER: July 12, 1979.

MR. SULLIVAN: In 1979. So, now you have twenty-two - I said he is here eighteen years, so I am right. He is here eighteen years in the House, and he has had his share of trials and tribulations in that period of time, I might add.

Now, I have only touched on a few of the issues, how they gobbled up the $347 million for roads for Labrador, and in 1996 I mentioned: Look, that is not enough to do the highway. They kept telling me, yes; Premier Tobin is telling us yes. The straight talk, real solutions. It was not straight talk and it was not a real solution, and now we have a big chunk of country between Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Cartwright that is not going to be cheap to put a road through between there. It will require a major bridge, I think, across the river, in addition to in the hundreds of millions of dollars to get that link finished.

Another area we mentioned - I did not even get into Hydro, the very Crown Corporation that has become a cash cow for this Province. The government wanted to sell it. They wanted to privatize it and get rid of it. Why would you give something away that is turning millions into the coffers of the Province? They have taken in tens of millions of dollars from Hydro. Actually, during I think it was - I am not sure if it was Clyde Wells demanded this, or Brian Tobin, when he was Premier. I know Brian Tobin, when he was Premier - yes, that is where they reached out. They had to look at every way they could money for the short term. They got it for the short term. They went to Hydro to make them pay, resulting in increasing rates which would occur because they have to pay it. They had to borrow the money; they did not have the cash. They had to borrow with increasing rates and their costs would occur as a result of that, and we would all feel that on our light bill. We went out and took Term 29, and the HST, and we took all of these hits on the ferry service and we said, let's take everything from the feds - not enough to run it - and now we have to pay the piper. Those are some of the very short-sighted things we have done in our Province.

We have looked at trying to balance discrepancies among payment to people out in the public service, and that is an issue coming up in the near future. I know it is a major issue. It is not the way to negotiate. Can you imagine negotiating in the public? NAPE will not sit down and negotiate. It is not the place to negotiate. They are out taking - and at the same time, right in the middle of votes, comes out: We will give a three, three and three - nine over three years. The minister, the pot calling the kettle black. She told them - negotiating in the public forum, the same thing she accused NAPE of not doing. You cannot play that game. How do you build up a certain relationship, a certain amount of trust, between the particular bodies? Nobody wants to see a strike. A strike does not help.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I would like to see a settlement. I do not want to see a strike. There are hardships suffered when you have a strike.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: How much? I would have to see the figures in public services in comparative sized provinces, I would have to take a look. It is not my critic area., so I have not gone into it. When we talked about nurses and the health care, I told you what it should be basically there. I have not done the research myself, personally. I have not been in the critic area to draw that conclusion, but over the next while I am sure we will take an opportunity to take a look at it.

They should be paid on a comparable level to their counterparts who are performing in reasonable-sized provinces, reflecting what they have had over the past number of years. That has to be a factor. If they have had very low increases, the cost of inflation, the CPI and other things is increasing rapidly, you have to take those things into consideration. The further you get behind, the greater the increase should be. If some group has not gone as far behind, well, the increases should reflect that.

I cannot give an arbitrary figure out of my head, because I have not studied it in that depth or that detail, and it is not my job to do it; but, certainly to be aware of it, we will be looking at some of those things in the future. I am not sure. I know what the government has said: 3 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Have to run a deficit? That is the question the Finance Minister has been asking. Do we run a deficit? You have been running a deficit since I came into this House. You have been spending money on useless things: $160,000 to put a platform in Labrador, to fly dozens of people in, announce the big initiative, the big glory of the Premier going in; $22,000 to write a speech for the Lower Churchill. I could have written it for $5,000. I would give them a good one for $5,000. I might even give them a good one for $1,000. We could have saved $21,000. The big puff of smoke, and all of a sudden he is gone and there is no substance. That is what the trademark of this government has been over the past five years, a big show; all show and no action.

Those are the types of things we have to start changing in government here, and start utilizing taxpayers' dollars wisely, rather than putting on a show. Look, the best record you will have is good responsible government that people can trust, and efficient use of their money. What a better mandate to go back to the people with. That is the best mandate to go back to the people, not how many you can put on a platform and how many platforms in the backdrop, and all the hullabaloo on big announcements. That is the PR short-term thinking to create sensationalism. It is the lacking of substance, paying the prices for those things. No wonder our Province is a have not. No wonder the disparity is getting greater and greater.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) have not will be no more.

MR. SULLIVAN: Have not will be no more. I heard that on the radio this morning. Yes, the sun will shine and have not will be no more, and every mother's son will come home. Three jobs for every man. Burn your boats, three jobs for every Newfoundlander. Joey Smallwood: Burn your boats, three jobs for every person. Every mother's son is going to come back.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't know, I didn't hear him say it. I heard the radio this morning. I listened to it on the radio this morning. Along came a guy called Clyde, and the have-nots will be more have-nots. Along came Tobin and the have-nots will be a bigger have-nots. That is basically what it is. That is what happened.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, the same basic thing has happened.

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: My time is up. When your time is up, Mr. Chairman, I guess you time is up and you can't do much about that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

It is about this time every year - we operate under a parliamentary calendar, as all members know, and this motion that is brought forward on behalf of the Lieutenant-Governor is asking all members of the House - the Chief Justice in this case, the former Premier of the House - to approve certain sums of money, $1.2 billion to allow, I guess, for the lack of a better term, public services to continue; to allow the effective administration of transportation and road work to continue; to allow the Department of Fisheries to pursue its initiatives; to allow the Department of Health to continue to provide the level of services that it now provides.

This is a parliamentary tradition, but we are asked to do this because of one reason only, because the Budget is coming down on Thursday. There is a certain amount of time that is allowed, that must be debated, the Budget, in a parliamentary sense, and allows - and demands, I guess, is the best word - a certain amount of time on the Budget for debate.

What we are asked to do is to provide to the government, in a sense, somewhat of a blank cheque to allow these public services to continue. We have always done that. In my time in the House, in the eight years that I have been here, we have never, in an obstructionist sort of way, allowed, or tried to obstruct, the continuation and continuity of public service to be allowed to happen, and I dare say that we are not going to do it this time. It allows for payroll to be met; it allows for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to continue its work on land claims; it allows the University to continue its work.

With that in mind, that is what we are debating, but it is also an opportunity for the Opposition to talk about government's priorities. We have seen those in the Throne Speech, recently outlined by the current Administration and the current Premier. On Thursday, this Thursday, before the cameras, before the public, and I would say the entire gallery, which is normally full on Budget day, we will get a sense of truly where government's priorities are in terms of the Budget and what they see as, I guess, the biggest concern of where public service money should be spent, or where the government's priorities for the next year, or in many ways the next three or four years, will be.

It is also an opportunity, Mr. Chairman, for us, as an Opposition, and for those people in the gallery, to understand the difference in what legislation is about. This is a finance bill, and when you see the latitude that occurs on debate it means that on any finance bill in this House many legislatures before all of our times, every member in this House, and legislatures hereafter, I would predict, when it comes to a finance bill, we all have the latitude to discuss any and all issues facing the Province.

I would like, for a few moments, to talk about the report that was tabled this afternoon, called the Final Report on the Renewal Strategy for Jobs and Growth. This was a major, major undertaking by the government at the time.

Following the 1999 general election, there was a series of broad consultations which is outlined, where those consultations took place, on where government can look towards renewing a strategy for the most important, ‘the' most important, concern facing this Province: jobs, employment.

We have often said in this House, and many have said it before, that the best social safety net that any Province could boast about is not an effective EI system. It is not a system of assistance provided by the government to those that are less fortunate for whatever reason. But the best, and the truly only social safety net that people of this Province are looking for is a job; and this report is significant in that sense. What does a job provide? It provides an opportunity to get up in the morning with some dignity, go to work, be a productive citizen of our Province and play a real role in providing for a family, meeting a family's needs, meeting your own needs and contributing to the tax base that allows public services to continue. That is what the best social safety net could be.

There are many areas- I have not had a chance to read all of the report because it was only tabled this afternoon. There is one area I would like to talk about in my short time that I have in dealing with the issue of Interim Supply, and that is the area in the Department of Forestry and Agrifoods. There are many, many people under the impression - I mean, if I was to ask the question today - let me ask it: What is the biggest industry in the Province today? What is `the' biggest industry?

MR. SULLIVAN: In terms of contributing to the (inaudible)?

MR. E. BYRNE: What is the biggest industry that employs the most people, that consumers and individuals in this Province spend the most money on? It is the department of Agrifoods.

In 1993 - and I want to predate myself because the opportunity is -

AN HON. MEMBER: Five hundred million?

MR. E. BYRNE: Five hundred million here. That is not exactly true. It is true in the context it is written here but it is much bigger than that.

I recall a former member of this House, before he was a member, was commissioned by a former government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bud Hulan.

MR. E. BYRNE: Exactly. The Minister of Fisheries used to be his executive assistant. He wrote a report, the Hulan report, task force on Agrifoods. If there is a department which has the most growth potential in this Province it is the Department of Forestry and Agrifoods, particularly on the agrifoods side. I want to be clear on that.

If my memory services me correctly, and I believe it does, right now that industry is worth about $1.25, $1.3 billion dollars totally to the Province each year. What it lacks, what that industry -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I will get to that in a second, in terms to the components of it.

What it lacks, more importantly than anything, is the sound infrastructure to strategic investment, strategic infrastructure to allow us to compete. Let me tell you why.

Last year, in the root crop industry alone, just last year, 90 per cent of what we consumed in this Province we imported, 90 per cent. In terms of potatoes, in terms of carrots, in terms of turnip -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I believe it is about 90 per cent.

If there is a disagreement, we are only talking percentage points. We are only talking minute, maybe 85 to 90, but certainly not below 85 per cent.

Why is it? Fundamentally the question has got to be asked: Why is that? We do not have the cold storage facilities in this Province; can't hold it. In some of the agricultural belts of our Province - Kilbride is one area, out on the West coast in Cormack, out in the Codroy Valley, out around Lethbridge - it is interesting, Lethbridge, and I will get to that in a second. But the cold storage facilities alone: we have the capacity right now to produce, just root crops alone, enough root crops in this Province to meet our demand for it. If we took an effective long term view and strategy of that industry alone, just the root crop industry, in four to five years from now we would not be in a position where we would have to import 90 per cent of what we consume. People would not have to go and buy it, not that there is anything wrong with anybody else's product. I am not suggesting that. But we would not have to go to the local markets, the local grocery stores in the middle of January, February and March, and buy PEI potatoes, or red potatoes from some other area. We have not made the strategic investments necessary to produce in that industry alone.

Just think about the jobs - back to my earlier comment, in terms of seasonal jobs that could be created. You would love to long term jobs year after year, but in that industry, it is a seasonal industry. It is the nature -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Absolutely. It is a sound investment, a very sound investment. We have put public money into other investments that have not paid the dividends that this area could pay. Over a period of four to five years, on root crop alone, we could probably create an additional 2,000 to 2,500 jobs on the outside. Guaranteed 1,500 to 1,600 for six months every year, not because we could not produce it year over year for twelve months of the year, but it is just the nature of the place we live in.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. E. BYRNE: Exactly, in the middle of the northwest Atlantic.

I recall a farmer in the district I represent, a very successful one. He passed away recently, Eric Williams, a great proponent of the agricultural industry in this Province. He came to me in 1994, as a example, on his own dollar. He had researched and developed a market in London, Ontario, for Newfoundland turnip. Now, anybody who is in the know about the industry knows that our turnip is the best in the world. Because of the soil conditions, the climatic conditions that we live in, it is the sweetest turnip. He actually had people in grocery stores in London, and other places around Ontario, doing the taste tests that you would commonly see at Price Club or somewhere else, with turnip lightly boiled, lightly fried with pepper and garlic. It is a true story. He had the ability to supply the product required for that market. He couldn't get it there. There was no assistance.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: I thank the members of the House.

An opportunity that was there that we could have realized, but we did not. An opportunity just in his area to put an additional fifteen to twenty people to work year over year. What it required was the Crown granting certain sums of land, because everybody knows that if you grow a turnip, you cannot grow it in the same patch of ground until four years after. It just won't grow the same. It is not going to happen. Do, you would need to rotate it. But, what was required. - and a proposal that was in for four different parts of the Province, the West Coast, parts of Central Newfoundland, the Lethbridge area, and this area on the northeast Avalon, predominately in the district that I represent and adjacent areas to it. One opportunity missed. Another example -

AN HON. MEMBER: Value-added secondary processing..

MR. E. BYRNE: Absolutely, the ability for secondary-processing. That is just in root crops alone. Ninety per cent of what we consume in root crops in this Province, we import. That is an issue. We want to talk about government placing public money in an industry that can produce jobs that can add value, that can look to export markets in terms of secondary-processing. That is an area that government should be pursuing at all costs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes. One million dollars in terms of ground. That involved a number of components. It involved land clearing, it involved the completion and construction of cold storage facilities so that we could supply our market month over month, but it was not there.

I recall out in Trinity North, the producers during the byelection, which the hon. member was elected to, I met with a group of farmers, people in this industry, who had a proposal - I still have it upstairs - before government for cold storage facilities.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Excuse me.

I am not sure what program it is under. It could have been the same one. In terms of cold storage facilities, a very sound proposal that has applications all over this Province, not just for that area. A great agricultural area, rich soil, great growing conditions, perfect climatic conditions, but what was contained in that proposal has application in many regions around the Province. That is a challenge in terms of the expenditure of public money, that in that industry alone we have an opportunity.

When we talk about A Final Report on the Renewal Strategy on Jobs and Growth, that is an opportunity that we should not miss. That is an opportunity in the agrifoods and agriculture industry that we are pursing aggressively enough. What it requires is not magic. What that industry requires is not rocket science. What that industry requires are not handouts. What that industry requires is a recognition by government that there is a significant opportunity to grow an industry and as we grow it a significant opportunity to employ people in the process of it. That is the best social safety net that we can provide.

If we can use public money - and we have an obligation to use it, I say, Mr. Chairman, we have an obligation to do it correctly - if we can place public monies in an area, or into certain infrastructure that we know, that even without exporting anything, without exporting any of our product, that we can satisfy local demand. That picture of 90 per cent of what we consume in root crops we have to import, 10 per cent of what we consume we grow locally, that maybe over a period of three years, five years or six years we can turn that picture upside down, so that at some point in the future, some government, some minister of agrifoods can stand in this House and say, in a ministerial statement, this is seeing it first in order to make it happen: Mr. Speaker, five short years ago the agrifoods department identified certain investments that we needed to make. Five years ago in this industry, in terms of root crops alone, we imported 90 per cent of what we consumed. I am happy to stand in my House today, as the minister for agrifoods and agriculture and say: Five years later we have turned that picture around. It can be done, but it requires recognition of what steps must be taken to do it, what steps we must ensure to do it.

I recall I was in Ireland a couple of years ago and the type of just bacon alone - listen to this - there is a need, a demand amongst the consumers, because it is all consumer driven. Our products have to tied to what the marketplace is asking for. Anybody who has been there, there is a difference in what we call Canadian bacon, or the bacon we eat, and the bacon that is served, for the most part, in Ireland. It comes from a different part of the pig, a different part altogether.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: In Ireland. It is Canadian back bacon and the bacon that they serve in Ireland comes from a different part of the pig, the side or the belly of the pig. That is the difference. The difference in terms of the texture of it is that the bacon served in Ireland is like a bacon steak; no fat at all, maybe on the tail end of it, but very little.

The point I am trying to make is that there is a demand in that country for Canadian back bacon, a demand that is not being satisfied. It doesn't need to be fancy, what we need to do to export our products, but it needs to be quality driven.

That is an area, an export market, that we have yet to tap into on one product line, one product line alone. But, there is a demand for the type of bacon we produce here because of the type of hog that we spend thirty years developing, disease free, that we scuttled in 1994, should never have happened, best hog product in North America. Not in Atlantic Canada, not in Canada, but in North America. Because of the science of developing the industry -

AN HON. MEMBER: What part of (inaudible)?

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, I dealt with that. It wasn't. No, and I will revisit the debates we had in this Legislature about it because I was part of it. That industry, part of the infrastructure -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: 1994, I think it was.

AN HON. MEMBER: We spent $20 million on that, didn't we?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, it was 1994. Government saved $800,000, supposedly. The former member for Exploits was the minister of agrifoods at the time, so it was the year before he left the Cabinet.

AN HON. MEMBER: In 1994 he left.

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, if he left in 1994, it was in the Budget of 1993. It was either 1993 or 1994.

We had taken twenty-five to thirty years to develop a disease-free hog. That is not sexy stuff politically I suppose, but it happens to be the truth. It happens to be the absolute truth, and what do we do with it? Times are changing. I would like to have the opportunity to do something with that industry. I really would, honest to God.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I can say to the Member for Trinity North, there is one thing that you can bet your last dollar and your jacket on, that I will not be over with you. Not that I have any reservations about you personally or anybody else but you can go home tonight and put your head on the pillow and say: if I was going to invest in something, I would invest in that, that the Member for Kilbride will not be sitting in a Liberal caucus or a Liberal government. No offence intended.

But back to the issue, we had - and I stress the word had - a significant opportunity for export markets because of the quality of our product, because of the recognition of the type of industry that we were developing. Now, if you look at just that industry alone, just the hog industry, if you look at what it cost government to get into, in the 1960s, and year over year - take it on an every five-year basis, up until the time that we destroyed it, we were that close to making that industry pay for itself. We were that close. I remember debates here in the Legislature about it, what government saved -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, you had to be here because I came in 1993. You were part of the government caucus. Wherever you were, you were. I think you were sitting where the now Minister of Labour sits, if I am not mistaken.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

MR. E. BYRNE: Right where the Minister of Labour sits was where you were sitting. I remember and I will tell you why I remember, because I was sitting right here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I was not sitting there when you - yes, I was sitting there but I tell you why I remember, because I remember one day the former Government House Leader got up and was going to teach me a few lessons, he told me, to which I stood up on a point of order - I think I was only here about a month - and said he could teach me no lessons. That member was not going to - but I remember where you were sitting; but we were that close.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, and I taught former Premier Wells one, too, in the process. That was what was really exciting about that whole debate; but we were that close to making that industry pay for itself. We had a world-class product recognized by geneticists, recognized by producers, that this was our hogs because we had taken so much time to develop an industry. We were producing a disease-free pork, a disease-free product. That is a fact, and what did we do with it? In an effort to slash the budget and save $800,000 on a budget of $3.2 billion at the time, we threw the baby out with the bath water. That is the Agrifoods minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, that was the debate that was put at the time. I remember it well. I was part of the debate. I asked questions in Question Period on it, put forward our points of view on it at the time, met with industry at the time, a lot of public meetings, but I want to get back in terms of the issue itself. In terms of an industry, that has potential for growth. That is just one other product. That still, even though what we have done to it, even though the decisions we have taken on it, it still has an opportunity for tremendous growth.

Does anybody know how much salt meat - last year, how much was the salt meat industry worth in this Province? Do you want to take a guess?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, your consumption has gone down by the look of you.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, boy.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is part of the diet. You can eat more of it. My significant other lost thirty pounds on the same diet; but how much money was the salt meat industry worth last year? Twenty-nine million dollars in this Province; $29 million. Think about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Put me down for nine times twelve. About (inaudible) of that I spent.

MR. E. BYRNE: Sport in the House is a great time, and I hope the cameras do not -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Twenty-nine million dollars, salt meat was worth to this economy last year. A huge industry. We have a great product but when you think about growing the industry and the expatriate Newfoundlanders and where they are - this is not rocket science. Again, it is commonsense. Have we done enough - that is just local consumption, to my understanding. Have we done enough to try to export that product to a market that we have defined, that we know exists? It does exist. It is there in large quantities. Yet, another industry, in terms of the ability to carve out a market for our salt meat products and get to a -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Absolutely. Over in the mother country, as we call it, over in Ireland they call it boiled bacon. Basically it is a roast pickled, just like salt meat.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, any good dietician will tell the member that there is not necessarily a bad food group, it is the consumption in moderation that needs to take place.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I understand that. I am not a physician. I would assume that the consumption of any product in excess is not going to be good for anybody.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, pork rinds. No question about it.

MR. MATTHEWS: How much pork do we sell?

MR. E. BYRNE: How much pork? Not nearly enough. Not nearly what we could be doing. Yet another example, in terms of strategy for jobs and growth, that we are not taking advantage of. None whatsoever.

I know I am operating under leave of the House and I don't know who is up next. I think it is my colleague for Bonavista South. Are you up next?

AN HON. MEMBER: Adjourn the debate.

MR. E. BYRNE: I will keep going for another while if you want me too, it is not a problem.

In terms of growth opportunities, I hope that we will see in the budget the task force recently in agriculture. We have a minister in the agricultural chair right now -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: There is a minister in charge of the agrifoods industry right now, in my view, who earned his living as somebody who played a big role in the industry on the West Coast of the Province. I am not trying to be facetious here. I am not doing that whatsoever, and I am not trying to cast any aspersions on former ministers. There is an opportunity here, and I will tell you what people in the industry are saying. People are saying: finally, we have somebody in the position who understands the industry. There is some hope because people within the agricultural industry have, in terms of the increased cost of feed, the increased cost of maintaining a living in that industry because of the elimination of the feed (inaudible) assistance program, increased cost in transportation, that people are seeing in the current minister, an opportunity for somebody who understands the industry. An opportunity for someone to bring some clout to the table, to see if we can get some structural and sound investments made in infrastructure for the people in the industry. That is what is at stake here. Make no mistake about it. People in the agriculture industry are beginning to maybe believe a little bit again, that this government, and in essence this Legislature, but in particular this government -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: But you were not there long enough. There were bigger things in mind for you. Much bigger things. The former Premier had much bigger things in mind. I can imagine it being an exciting department, but it is a department that has to act hand in hand with industry. The Department of Industry, it has too. So in that sense, as a former Minister of Agriculture, who has an acute understanding I would hope, of the industry, that the Minister of Agriculture has somebody who understands and is going to support the initiative that he brings to the Cabinet table.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: You have an ally? I say to the minister of agriculture, I am finding you new allies every day on that side of the House amongst your colleagues.

I want to keep talking. It is very important, but in terms of industry and the ability to sign the cheque and then make the sound investments in infrastructure that are required, that is what it is worth.

If you look at just the milk industry, does anybody know how much fresh fluid milk was worth to the economy last year? Twenty-four million dollars. I recall when I was president of the student union at Memorial, a newly formed group - this is a true story -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, now we are, but we were not in 1985. A newly formed group, the Milk Marketing Board, came to the University. On the University food committee I sat, as president of the student union, and others, and we had a huge influence in terms of what transpired and what products were going to be offered to about 1,600 to 1,800 students on campus every day.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: There were 1,600 if you include those who were on the meal plans, I say to the minister.

The first chair of that board was Eric Williams. That is where I first met him. They were soliciting our support at the time for a developing fresh fluid milk industry. Here is what has happened since 1985: In 1985, 80 per cent of the milk that was consumed in this Province was powered milk or reconstituted milk that was shipped in from other places other than the Province. Fifteen years later, what did we do in terms of the establishment of the marketing board? We created an industry. Government created an industry. We made the necessary investments. We put in the necessary legislative powers to allow that industry to grow. Fifteen years later, there is no reconstituted milk in this Province any more. There is no garbage, if I can put it in that terms, compared to the product that we are offering now. We are self-sufficient in fresh fluid milk. In other words, all of the milk that we consume in this Province, we created ourselves. In other words, we have developed an industry. We have created jobs, we have created wealth, and we have created opportunity.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, yes, the principle is the same. In a sense, yes, it is. I understand.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, but you cannot take away from the fact, I will say to the minister, that fifteen years -

AN HON. MEMBER: There is a difference.

MR. E. BYRNE: There is a difference, yes, and I will get to that. Fifteen years ago, in this industry alone, 80 per cent of what we consumed, we imported. Fifteen years later, 100 per cent of what we consume, we create ourselves. Yes, there is a difference in the comparison; because he has gone right to the point, that I may be trying to make a comparison in this industry and the root crop industry, and I am.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, the only way that we can get control of the supply side for the demand side is if we make the necessary infrastructure investments and if we promote our products and ensure that in government outlets, like the Confederation Building and others, that if anybody is going to get a tender to serve, every Thursday, corned beef and cabbage downstairs, that they must use their potatoes if they are available. That is the only way we can do it. We cannot dictate to Dominion. We cannot dictate to Sobeys. We cannot dictate to anybody. In our own outlets, in our own public institutions, we can dictate, right? We can say to whomever gets the contract for this building, for our universities, for our college system, for our hospitals, that when it comes to products and services being provided, if the demand is there, and it is, and the supply is there of products, then they must use Newfoundland products. We can dictate to that.

The point is this: I could choose to think like the minister and think of the reasons why we cannot do something, or we can choose to think out of the box and come up with reasons why we should. That is what we have to do. We have to get out of the box that we are in. We have to stop thinking within that box. We have to get outside of it, and we have to start thinking about ways and means that we can grow a certain industry. That is what is required. That is what people in this Province are looking for from this industry.

I do not know if there are any other speakers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Lots of them.

MR. E. BYRNE: I know there are lots of more speakers. There are a lot, and I am looking forward over the coming days and weeks to discuss what is in this report, because what is contained in this report is government's action plan. It is all contained here. It is government's action plan. It says, priorities for action, under each heading.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, I understand that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: This is important. We have often seen situations in a courtroom where the jury is asked to come to the scene of something so they can have a first-hand view of it. I wish I had the opportunity to take every member of this House to a farm, a dairy operation, that is self-sufficient in my district, just to see opportunities where people are growing barley, they are growing wheat, they are growing grain, bringing down their cost of bringing in feed, bringing down the cost of maintaining a solid farm operation, and raising the opportunities to employ further people. That is just one farm. There are many of them doing it.

I would like to have a situation where forty-eight members could go in and see it. Maybe if the minister of agriculture was looking for more support for the department, maybe then this place would operate in not necessarily a more open fashion but in a more supportive fashion of that industry alone.

Mr. Chairman, it being now 5:14 p.m., I would like to adjourn debate on this at the moment and continue it tomorrow.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise and report progress.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MR. MERCER: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow being Wednesday, Private Members' Day, we will be debating the motion by the Member for St. John's East.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do adjourn until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.