The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, I would like to welcome today a new Page, Cameron McKay, who is a university student here in St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate a couple in my district on their wedding anniversary, Aubrey and Verna Pilgrim of Griquet who were married fifty-eight years ago yesterday, on April 29, 1943. They had fifteen children, thirteen of which are living today. They have twenty-six grandchildren and thirteen great-grandchildren.

Auby, as he is known, is seventy-seven years old and Vera is seventy-six. I would like to ask all members to join their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and myself in sending our sincerest congratulations and best wishes for the future.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I would like today to congratulate the finalists and winners of the Writers' Alliance of Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Book Award for 2001.

Six works were nominated in the non-fiction category; Nanatsuak: Stories of the Big Land by Cyril Goodyear; Old Newfoundland: A History to 1843 by Patrick O'Flaherty; Remembering the Years Of My Life by Paulus Maggo; Adapting to a Changing Situation by John Lou Ennis; A Personal Calligraphy by Mary Pratt; Crossroads Country by Malcolm Macleod.

In the poetry category, the nominees were: Long Girl Leaning Into the Wind by Janet Fraser; Thirty-for-sixty by Al Pittman; and The Birth and Burial Grounds by Boyd Chubbs.

The winners in the non-fiction category were Mary Pratt and Patrick O'Flaherty, and in the poetry category Al Pittman. They were awarded a cash prize in each category and stickers for their book covers by the Lieutenant-Governor Maxwell House on April 24.

I would like to congratulate the winners and those nominated on their accomplishments, and I would like to commend the Writers' Alliance of Newfoundland and Labrador for their activities to promote excellence in the literature of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Saturday, April 28, I attended the largest, ever held, day of mourning ceremonies in Labrador West. The church service and wreath laying ceremony was held at the Steel Workers Building in Labrador City where there was a plaque laid with the names of workers who were killed or died of industrial disease at the Iron Ore Company of Canada mining operation.

Mr. Speaker, April 28 is a very important day to working people. It is a date each year where we renew our commitment to constantly keep pressing for improved health and safety regulations, safer workplaces and continuing education in the workplace.

Since I became a member of the steel workers union in 1972, in my local union alone, there have been eight members, friends and co-workers, who have lost their lives to industrial accidents. Three of which occurred in a nine-day period, and at least two others who have passed away from industrial disease. In our Province last year there were twenty-eight workplace fatalities and seventeen workers died from industrial disease.

Mr. Speaker, our Province has probably some of the best health and safety regulations in this country which was adopted mainly through the efforts of workers in Labrador West and Baie Verte. However, we must continue to make improvements and we must continue to improve workplace conditions. We must make safety education a regular part of all workplaces in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, this is what April 28 is all about to workers. It is a duty to remember all workers who were killed, injured or disabled by industrial disease and a resolve to make our workplaces as safe as possible for the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give my hon. colleagues an update following my appearance before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance last week in Ottawa.

Along with my colleagues from Atlantic Canada, I was pleased to have had the opportunity to explain to the committee, Newfoundland and Labrador's concerns regarding Bill C-18. As my hon. colleagues may know, Bill C-18 is intended to amend the equalization program to lift the existing ceiling for one year, 1999-2000. In the Province's view, the amendment does not go far enough.

I explained to the committee that for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador there are two overriding issues with respect to an equalization ceiling: First, whether a ceiling provision should exist at all; and, second, if a ceiling is imposed, ensuring that it is fair and reasonable.

On the first issue, I informed the committee that the Province is fundamentally opposed to the existence of a ceiling provision and believes it should be struck from the program. This is our longstanding view and is consistent with the views of other equalization recipient provinces.

What the ceiling does, in effect, is to first look at the normal level of equalization entitlements, which by federal definition is a fair average of the revenue generating potential of provinces and in keeping with the Constitutional commitment. It then second guesses this entitlement to ascertain, by some arbitrary measure, whether this level is too much for the federal government to pay. The ceiling, if it reduces equalization entitlements, results in recipient provinces, like ours, being underfunded and puts us in a position of not being able to maintain reasonably comparable services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation. The ceiling should not be a mechanism used by the federal government to constrain and suppress normal program growth.

On the second issue, I argued that, if the federal government is intent on having a ceiling, despite our protestations and advice, that the ceiling must allow for fair and reasonable growth within the program. Atlantic Ministers and Premiers were united in their view that Bill C-18 must be amended to allow the equalization program to grow, at least at the rate of the national GDP.

Mr. Speaker, my appearance before the committee was a good opportunity to express the views of Newfoundland and Labrador on the importance of the issue of equalization and the program itself, as well as the impact a ceiling will have on this Province. We will continue to press the federal government to strengthen the equalization program to better benefit the provinces who need it most, like Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Basically, the cap on equalization was put in, I believe, back in 1982. We did not get consent of any provinces to put a cap on equalization, and we do not need the consent of any province to lift the cap on equalization. It took a federal election last fall to lift it for one year for the first time. We got $38 million as a result. Had it not been there, we would have possibly gotten in excess of $700 million. The purpose of equalization is constitutionally guaranteed, as the minister made reference here, "... to maintain reasonably comparable services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation." What the cap on equalization has done is allowed the gap between haves and have-nots to get greater. It was capped at roughly $10 billion at the time, which means the pot is not changing but the disparities are getting greater based on the haves and the have-nots. We are seeing an erosion of real dollars being put in to close the gap as part of federalism. Federalism has failed us on equalization. It has failed us miserably.

The same basic government, what they have done is taken - in one particular year alone we went from a high under Canada Health and Social Transfer - and we do not need consent of provinces to change this - a difference of $155 million in one year. From the peak back in the early 1990s up to - later in 1996 when they changed this.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, just to finish, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: We are seeing $155 million on this loan. We do not need - as the federal Minister Paul Martin indicates - consent of provinces. We do not need any consent to fix this problem here with a cap on equalization. I raised it here in the House before Easter again. We should do something about this. With a federal Liberal government in Ottawa - we are the only provincial Liberal government in this country. If we cannot persuade our counterparts to change something that they unilaterally changed and made different now. They have to come back. They are hoping for B.C. By the time that happens, we might see a reverse here. Who knows, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear! hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The questions of equalization are of fundamental constitutional importance to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The two fundamental issues are the ceiling and the claw back. We are being affected by the ceiling on the one hand, as previous members have stated, and we are also being killed by the claw back which is fundamentally destroying opportunities for development and progress in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, last fall, the former, former Premier of this Province, Brian Tobin, went to Ottawa on a promise to fix the equalization formula. Now is the time for Mr. Tobin to show his ability to do that in Ottawa, and it is time for this government to insist that he do that for the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear! hear!

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

My questions are for the Minister of Mines and Energy. Recently, the public review process for the White Rose development was announced, but what was very peculiar in the terms of reference for that public review was a limitation clause that excluded fiscal and royalty regimes from being included. Now, the question is this: How is it that you can have a public review on such a significant development in an emerging industry, yet at the same time limiting the scope of it, limiting the scope in terms - not allowed to discuss the impact of fiscal royalty regimes? How can that review have any meaning in judging the socio-economic impact on the people of the Province, and benefits in terms of a benefits package? Minister, why was that review so limited? Why did you agree to a public review with such a limitation clause contained in it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear! hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the hon. member, the support is very good and much appreciated.

With respect to the review process on the development application, it is in place as a result of the responsibility that C-NOPB has to ensure that type of review takes place. The issues of royalties and the issues of taxation do not fall under the purview of the C-NOPB in any way, shape or form. The issue of royalties and the issue of taxation with respect to what we get or do not get from any of these projects is determined by this government, or the government of the day, through the process of legislation in this House. Clearly we would not want to see, because it is not appropriate, it is not the place to have it vented or aired, issues of royalty and taxation through the development application process. These are matters that are decided upon by the government, through bringing into this House legislation and regulations that give rise to whatever it is we get or do not get through way of royalty and taxation regimes.

Mr. Speaker, what is happening with respect to the direction of C-NOPB and their overview of the application review process is entirely consistent with their obligations, with their responsibilities, and what we do with respect to determining royalties and taxation is certainly the government's responsibility to deal with.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I recognize the hon. member, I just want to say to all hon. members that questions and answers ought to be directed through the Chair and not directly to members of the House. Questions ought to be directed to the Speaker, to government, and, as well, answers should be that way.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister has laid, essentially, at the C- NOPB's doorstep, that this is their decision. That is not true. The fact of the matter is that you have an ability, or an obligation, under the Atlantic Accord, to provide a full public review process. The question is: Why haven't you done that? Why is it that the public cannot have access, or cannot be provided access, to discuss in a very public way, through a comprehensive public review outlined in the Atlantic Accord, the opportunity to discuss any and all aspects of this development and any other potential development when we deal with the emerging oil and gas industry?

Minister, won't you commit today to remove that impediment in the terms of reference, to remove that limitation on the public review process, and allow any and all interested parties, including ourselves in this Legislature, or any member of the public, to participate fully, and to have the latitude to participate fully, in this very important public exercise.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member either misses the point, or he knows the difference.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: I choose to believe that he knows the difference, because the issues of taxation and the issues of royalties - whether it is with respect to offshore resources, mining activities in the Province, or anything of that nature - are decisions that are taken by government after a very, very public exercise. The public exercise that I refer to is ultimately what happens on the floor of this House. There can be no more public forum than on the floor of this House.

Now, issues with respect to taxation are not singular to the project that is under consideration, known as the White Rose project, the Husky project. The fact of the matter is that we had a royalty regime that was negotiated for Hibernia, and it was specific to that project. We have a royalty regime for the Terra Nova project that is specific to that project. Beyond that, we have in place a generic royalty regime to which the hon. members have all the access of information that they want, either through the floor of the House, through the Minister of Finance, or through my own officials or myself in my department.

Simply put, it is not appropriate to have for discussion, through the development application process, the issue of royalties and taxation. These are separate issues dealt with in a separate manner directly by government, through the Legislature of this Province.

MR. E. BYRNE: You are absolutely wrong.

MR. TULK: He is not wrong.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes he is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

The only thing that is singular that can be pointed out - and his answers raise more questions today - is your intent to limit the scope of a public review and your intent to not allow an accountable, transparent process to take place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister this: Is he aware, that under the powers of the board, the public review as outlined in law and in the legislation in the Atlantic Accord says this, that the government will permit a comprehensive review of all aspects of the development, including those within the authority of the Parliament of Canada and the authority of the Legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador? The question still remains, that you have provided that answer: You will not allow a review to go ahead - you have had to sign off on it - that will allow for the socio-economic impact of this development to be debated thoroughly in the public.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. - order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Why not, Minister?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the application review process is going forward entirely consistent with the mandate of C-NOPB and in the context of the obligations of both the federal and the provincial governments on this issue.

The proponents who will be appearing before the review process are free to bring forward and comment upon any issue they want, whether or not, I suppose, it is in the context of what is laid out as issues to be -

MR. E. BYRNE: The commissioner can only be guided by what -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: I am answering the question, Mr. Speaker. I am not talking about what the commissioner will hear or do. I am saying that the proponents can talk about almost anything when they appear before him. Whether or not the commissioner can take it into consideration is certainly in the context of the issues that he is prescribed to deal with. Simply put, Mr. Speaker, taxation and royalty issues are issues that we deal with as government. They need not and they are not a part of the development process review, and we believe that the way that the development process review is proceeding is entirely consistent with the way it should proceed under the various acts and within the context -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: - of the various levels of responsibility that people such as the C-NOPB, ourselves, and the federal government, have.

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

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

Wouldn't the minister agree that this review process, in terms of the limitation clause that is in it, is a completely different direction than the review process that took place for Hibernia and for Terra Nova? Wouldn't you agree that the limitation clause in that confines the commissioner so much that the commissioner cannot comment freely upon, or go outside the scope and latitude. The issue still remains: Why is it that you signed off on that limitation and agreed with it? Why is it that the public are not allowed to have their commentary in the public review process on this very important industry debated publicly, and then giving the commissioner the latitude to report back to you directly, Minister? Why have you stopped that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Simply put, the issue of royalties and taxation have already been dealt with, with respect to this project, by the government on previous occasions as a result of the various royalty regimes and taxation schedules that we have in place. The interveners, if they want to comment on issues that are outside the scope of a commissioner, for the commissioner's consideration, can certainly make the commentary, but I have to say to the hon. member that he knows that issues of taxation and royalties are not appropriately placed for discussion in the public review, and in that context the review -

MR. E. BYRNE: You made a conscious decision (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the hon. member, the issues of taxation and royalties have been dealt with. Now if the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, wants to raise issues about taxation and royalties, he can raise these issues in this House any day and he can raise them every day. I haven't heard much commentary from the hon. member about the very, very good royalty regime we have in place, considered to be in the top one-third of the world's royalty regimes in terms of its acceptableness in the industry and what is appropriate for the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Simply put, we have dealt with taxation, we have dealt with royalties, and now we are dealing with the other issues that have to be examined under the review process.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: What is appropriate for the Province is exactly what is at issue here, I say to the minister, that the public be afforded the opportunity. The Atlantic Accord clearly spells it out, Minister, and it says that you can provide a review even with those (inaudible) the jurisdiction of the Parliament of the country or the House of Assembly for this Province. The issue is: Why haven't you done it?

The supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is this: This review is critical, not just for the sake of the White Rose development but for the future of a natural gas industry. Now, are you concerned that the limitations that you provided on fiscal royalty regimes - the limitations that you can only discuss the well, one well, and not associated wells - prohibits in any way, shape or form from interveners providing information and, two, and most importantly, providing the commissioner the latitude to comment on the overall development not only of oil but of a potential gas industry?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Are you concerned that this process circumvents that in any way, shape or form?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The application process that is ongoing at the moment with respect to the White Rose project deals with the development of the oil field on South Avalon, in that area. It does not involve consideration of issues with respect to North Avalon, where I believe most of the gas is contained. The reason for it is that we are talking about the development of an oil field. When we did the Hibernia and the Terra Nova project, we dealt with the development of oil fields that are separate and complete.

Now, if the hon. member wants to talk about natural gas, that is a completely different discussion in this context: that we are in the process, as a government, in developing for consideration by government at the officials level, a natural gas strategy, or an approach that we should be taking with the industry in consideration of the development of a natural gas industry in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the consideration of issues under the development plan that is in the hands of the commissioner deals with the development, or the proposed development, the concept, the method, the length of the field, and all of these issues around 230 million barrels of oil in the South Avalon/White Rose oil field. It does not extend to include issues of natural gas which, of course, in time, will have to be considered not only in the area of how it is going to get developed, in concert between all of the partners out there, or individually by any partner -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: - or whether or not we have the appropriate regime in place for natural gas royalties; a separate issue.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am astounded by what the minister has just said, to suggest that the development of oil is a separate issue than the development of gas. Is he aware, as Mines and Energy Minister, of the term high-grading of the resource; that if you do not develop the oil in the proper way, or in an improper way, you will not get the gas out of the reserves? How can you say, on the one hand, that this is only talking about the development of oil, and gas is a separate issue? They are directly linked. Their development is directly linked. Their benefits to the people of the Province are directly linked.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to get to his supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Why don't you understand that, Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I understand the difference between oil and gas. I understand the difference between hot air and cold air. I understand, and I believe very clearly, that the hon. member knows the difference in the issues. What he is propositioning is the fact that we should now, under the development application in place and in process for the White Rose oil field, the smallest of the three oil fields that has been either considered or put into development so far, that we should somehow bring into that significant issues, which I agree with him are important to the future of the Province, there is no question about that, but for purposes of this application the commissioner, C-NOPB, and all of us, have to take into consideration what the issue is under consideration, and it is the development of an oil field with about 230 million barrels of oil, South Avalon, known as the White Rose project.

I am sure that in time there will be other applications that will have to be examined with respect to the development of natural gas, and there will be considerations that we will have to take, as a Province, as a government, with respect to how we want to see that proceed, and with respect to what the royalty and taxation regime should be in that context, for that particular type of development.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: If that is the approach that the government are going to take, I am fearful of what this government is going to do within the next eighteen months. You cannot talk about the development of one small oil reserve in one area without talking about the development of all others, because if you don't you will never have an industry, Minister!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: You will never have an industry for the next twenty-five years!

The question is this: Why is it that you continue to stand on your feet tonight, today, and propose that the public review going on is somewhat in keeping with the spirit of the Atlantic Accord when it is not? When will you stand up and say: Let's talk about all aspects of the development of this resource and the oil and gas industry in general so that the people of the Province, at the end of the day, will win? That is what you should do, Minister. Why won't you do it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has probably gotten more to the point of what he really wants to talk about, and that is a fuller discussion, a fuller debate, a fuller consideration -

MR. E. BYRNE: You don't. (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No, I never said that. You asked the question and I will give you the answer.

I am saying that, in the context of wanting to have a public debate that involves the whole issue of oil and gas in a bigger picture and in a different context, I don't disagree that probably that debate should take place. In fact, the debate is taking place publicly at different levels, but with respect to the development application for White Rose, with respect to this development, this application is dealing with a project that a proponent is putting forward, it is dealing with the development of oil in a particular reserve, and in that context it is not the place for the fuller, bigger debate as to what we should be doing with respect to oil and gas generally into the future, as a Province. It is a different issue altogether.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development. Minister, we are all painfully aware of what is happening at the Marystown Shipyard and the uncertainty of Friede Goldman to continue its operation there and provide much needed employment. I ask the minister what options his government is presently considering, and do include recovering the assets of that particular facility?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentlemen that I made a comment last week on public television in the Province that we are always being accused of taking something from the PCs Blue Book. In this case, I say to the hon. gentlemen, he is far behind in his efforts to take something from the Red Book.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we were all last week meeting with the unions, talking to lawyers, discussing options to make sure that the assets of the shipyard stay in Marystown. I can say to him that under legal advice that we have at this point, under Chapter 11, Bankruptcy Act in the US, the assets in Marystown are in no danger.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, I would like to ask you again, what efforts your government is considering and what efforts they are putting forward to make sure that those assets, at that particular facility, remains in Marystown and remains the property of the taxpayers of this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Let me just say to the hon. gentlemen that we are pursuing all options that we know are available and that at the present time - unlike the hon. gentlemen and unlike his leader last week who was up saying that we should all open the Legislature to discuss FPI, I am not about to make premature statements on them that might put any of those options in any way, shape or form in any danger or raise any expectations that should not be there until I have clear cut - I hope the hon. gentlemen is listening to me rather than his leader; you will learn more.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I know boy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: I am not about to make any premature statements in any way, shape or form that might indeed endanger anything in Marystown. I say to him that at the present time, under Chapter 11, Bankruptcy proceeding in the US, which gives, I understand, Friede Goldman 120 days - 114 right now - to put forward a plan for how they intend to proceed as a company in that period of time. The Marystown assets are in no eminent danger; and that we should all be thankful for.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, would you not agree that if a simple clause had been added to this contract between your government and Friede Goldman, we would not be in the situation we are in today? Minister, the question that needs to be asked is this: Have Friede Goldman lived up to the contract it signed with your government and if not, why don't you just cancel the contract?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Opposition is exhibiting its 20/20 hindsight, its vision, that it usually exercises. The truth of the matter is that the assets at Marystown are safe. I want him to hear this very clearly: That we will leave, as a government, no stone unturned to make sure that those assets stay in Marystown.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. The minister will know that the Fishery Products International Act gives substantial powers to the FPI Board of Directors in relation to possible attempts by shareholders acting in concert to acquire more than a 15 per cent of the companies shares, or to vote in concert. Does the Province have a process in place to review the procedure the board is following in carrying out its responsibilities?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the member opposite said, there is a piece in the legislation right now which says that an individual or a company can only hold 15 per cent of the shares in FPI. On the weekend - I do not know if the hon. member is aware - the current Board of Directors of FPI met, along with three of the dissident slate or members of the slate; Mr. Risley, Mr. Rowe and a representative of the Icelandic Seafoods. They came to an agreement that three of those groups will not be voting tomorrow. If the current Board of Directors of FPI get 51 per cent of the remaining shares voting their way tomorrow then it will be up to the current board of FPI to determine whether the three, that I just mentioned, were acting in concert or not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am aware of what happened over the weekend, I inform the minister, but that was not my question. My question was: What is the government prepared to do about what happened over the weekend? So I will ask it again, and I will rephrase it a little. Are you concerned that the agreement that was reached between the current board and the proponents of the dissident slate could be an abdication of the boards responsibilities under the act? Does the minister agree that if the shareholders elect an alternate slate of directors tomorrow that this will fully satisfy the trustee responsibilities that the FPI board has to the Province under the act?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not exactly sure what the member is suggesting, but under the current legislation that was drafted and put through the House by the member opposite right here, it is up to the current Board of Directors of FPI to determine whether or not the dissident slate are acting in concert. It is already in the legislation that the current board determines whether or not there is someone acting in concert.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods. As the minister is certainly aware, Abitibi Consolidated has threatened to close its number seven machine in Grand Falls, thereby putting out of work, directly and indirectly, in excess of 200 people if the union does not go along with its demands to strip the contract. Last week the Premier said that he was going to check and see if there were any written undertakings whereby Abitibi Consolidated promised to continue to run the two machines in exchange for concessions on fibre resources and the building of a Star Lake hydro development. Can the minister tell the House whether or not these deals were contingent upon the mill continuing its two machine operations? If they were not, why wasn't the government able to extract those kinds of agreements?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the situation in Grand Falls and ACI, the dispute between ACI and the unions in that area, that is what it is, a labour dispute. That is how it started. Now the company is threatening to shut down number seven altogether. The member is quite right.

To tie it in with Star Lake, or anything else at this point, there has been nothing like that which has come to our attention. However, I want to make it quite clear to everybody in the House, to everybody in the Province, and to ACI, that when it comes down to protecting the jobs in Grand Falls or anywhere else in the Province that ACI is involved in, we will definitely look at anything - power purchase agreements, timber sales agreements, timber licenses agreements - that is tied in with ACI and their involvement, anywhere in this Province. We will be looking at that before there is anything done in Grand Falls with regard to job losses.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is the minister then saying that Abitibi Consolidated Incorporated will not be allowed to shut down the Grand Falls mill as long as they have, in their timber concessions, sufficient resources to run that operation.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, the question in Grand Falls with regard to number seven machine has nothing to do with resources with regard to fibre, absolutely nothing. It has to do with the machine itself. Number seven is an old machine. It happened to come at a time when they were going to talk to the union anyway, about the possibility of, not the possibility, the reality, of the loss of eighty-eight jobs over a period of three or four years. At the same time the machine broke down - it is rather coincidental, really - they were going to talk to the union about the loss of those jobs, and some of them by attrition over three or four years. They could not come to an agreement on that.

Now ACI is using that as a lever to say that we are not going to repair number seven unless you come to an agreement with regard to that. What they are trying to do is bring the man-hours of cost in line with their other mills around the country. This is what they are really trying to do. Now they are using the repair of number seven as a lever, whether the union will agree with their position or not. That is where it stands today. It is not the fibre, it has nothing to do with resources, nothing to do with fibre supply whatsoever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South. Time for one quick question.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Minister, last October the Province signed a six-year municipal infrastructure agreement with the Government of Canada, that would see all three levels of government invest a total of $154 million into municipal infrastructure, about $25 million a year. The municipalities' share of the annual cost is about $8.5 million. Can you tell the House today, how many municipalities have submitted requests under the program and how many of them have been approved?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: I can say to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, that we have had more than 1,100 requests for more than $546 million, of which we have this year a budget of about $50 million.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Before we continue with our routine proceedings, the Chair just wants to again bring to members' attention, that during Question Period questions, particularly questions, ought to be directed to the Chair and not to individual members, and ought to be in the third person, not in the first person. I ask members, when phrasing their questions and constructing their questions, to keep that in mind.

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

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

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act, Bill 13.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Chiropractors Act, The Dietitians Act, The Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994 And The Social Workers Association Act, Bill 11.

I also give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Medical Act And The Medical Care Insurance Act, 1999, Bill 12.

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on tomorrow I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act, Bill 15.

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 3, Mr. Speaker. I ask leave for first reading on Bill 7, An Act Respecting Municipal Elections.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting Municipal Elections," carried. (Bill 7)

On motion, Bill 7 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 4, Mr. Speaker. I move first reading of Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Schools Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is putting a question to the House. I ask hon. members to pay attention.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Education to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997," carried. (Bill 8)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Honourable members ought to know that, when a question is being put to the House, there ought to be some order here in this House and that members ought not to interrupt the Chair when he is putting a motion to the House.

On motion, Bill 8 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. LUSH: Order 3, Mr. Speaker, Concurrence Motion, Resource Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 3, Resource Committee, Concurrence Motion.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East & Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are days when I am not quite sure where I am from myself, as I listen to my colleagues from the other side trying to put forward their fractured platform for the next election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, the Resource Estimates Committee, which I had the privilege of chairing, of which the Member for St. John's East had the privilege of co-chairing - well, not really, vice-chair with me - we had the opportunity to review and discuss a number of departments, including Fisheries and Aquaculture; Forest Resources and Agrifoods; Industry, Trade and Rural Development; Mines and Energy; Tourism, Culture and Recreation; and the new Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

During our deliberations, I must say that all members who participated in the Estimates Committees had an opportunity to discuss, probe, seek answers, selectively discuss various aspects of the budgets of each department. I must say that all of us can say that the meetings went exceptionally well, to the point that I do not believe we were required to use the entire amount of time allocated, which says in itself that good questions were asked and satisfactory answers were given. In some cases where departments were not in a position to answer the questions in detail, the responses were given at a later date.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most interesting aspects, I think, of our committee meetings was the fact that we had a chance to review in great detail a new department, that department being Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs. It was an opportunity for us to look at how government was now viewing all aspects of Labrador, that indeed this new department would channel virtually the activities of every government department with its dealings in Labrador.

Any government department now, whether it is Municipal and Provincial Affairs; whether it is Education; Finance; Mines and Energy, will now see its energies channeled cohesively or through the new department.

One of the aspects, of course, of the new department, is establishing itself. It will have a firm, strong base in Labrador, and at the same time will have strong representation and activities within the confines of this building here in St. John's.

The new Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, a bringing together of two departments and an opportunity for us to move further into a one-stop shop, an area where all aspects of economic development, whether it is in the urban areas of our Province or indeed in rural Newfoundland, where I think all of us would collectively agree, rural Newfoundland is struggling. Rural Newfoundland has not had an opportunity to recover from the closing of the cod fishery in 1992. It has not had an opportunity to carve a niche that will allow it to continue to grow and be strong and, I think, if not grow, to remain strong; and this new department will bring together all aspects of government with the intent of being able to, in specific, deal with rural Newfoundland and its needs.

The Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture was an opportunity for all members to participate and to look at the new life that is slowly coming back into the fishery. Albeit, it is a new fishery. It is not the fishery that traditionally we would expect in Newfoundland, or the traditional fishery that kept so many of the small communities in Newfoundland alive, but it is a new fishery.

MR. FITZGERALD: What would you know about the fishery (inaudible)?

MR. WALSH: I would suggest that my knowledge of the fishery is probably equally as strong as the hon. Member for Bonavista South. At least, I am still speaking on fisheries matters.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: What a blow! (Inaudible).

MR. WALSH: I cannot say too much about the hon. colleague. He gives me too many suggestions in other areas.

It was an opportunity for us also to look at the new aspects that are taking place in the aquaculture industry, and the new directions that industry is taking in this Province, and the new directions that the Province would like to see us develop.

Mines and Energy, as well, was a department that we had an opportunity to review the Estimates of, and also to get an overview of what the department is doing currently, and some new and innovative concepts that have come forward such as the development of wind energy. We have had an opportunity to look at yet ways of capitalizing on developing other energies in this Province.

With respect to Tourism, Culture and Recreation, an opportunity again to look at the exciting plans that are in place for this year when we will be celebrating the year of Marconi.

Mr. Speaker, in Forest Resources and Agrifoods, and indeed in all of the departments we have had an opportunity to deal with, I believe again, as I said in my preamble, that it was an opportunity for all of us to look at the new departments being created, to get an opportunity to review existing departments but also to look into where the departments will go and what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador can expect from those governments in the months to come.

Mr. Speaker, thank you.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to stand for a few minutes today and just make a few comments with respect to the committee of which I had an opportunity to participate during the Estimates hearings over the past several weeks. As the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island just indicated, during those Resource Committee Estimates hearings we had discussions with respect to six departments: Fisheries and Aquaculture; Forest Resources and Agrifoods; Mines and Energy; Tourism, Culture and Recreation; Industry, Trade and Rural Development; and Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that when we look at the resource sector, and when we look at the total budgetary allocation, we see that on the resource sector the Estimates for the years 2001-2002, has been allotted for $183,500,000, which represents approximately 4.6 per cent of the overall provincial budget.

There is an actual breakdown. We see, of the six departments which were indicated, the department with the single highest allocation is the newly comprised Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, showing an estimate value of some $60 million; followed by Forest Resources and Agrifoods; then followed by the Department of Mines and Energy; Tourism, Culture and Recreation; then Fisheries and Aquaculture; and then the Department of the Environment. The new Department of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs was not in the original list, and because of that, it is not included in the total allocation as found in the Estimates book under the resource sector.

The department that I would like to give some specifics to is the Department of Mines and Energy. There are a number of areas that I think all members present should be aware of in terms of trying to give a breakdown of the actual components within that department, which is of most significance to the people of this Province. Obviously, the area that began discussion during this session of the Legislature was the area of Voisey's Bay when, of course, it was certainly suggested by the Premier, with some contradiction by other members of his Cabinet, that the government had initiated talks with Inco on the direction and future negotiations with Inco on the proposed development of Voisey's Bay. But what was interesting, as we will recall, is the fact that there perhaps was a new direction, and the fact that what was being proposed and negotiated was, in fact, completely separate and apart from what was being envisaged by the previous administration, the previous Premier, and that lead to some divergence of opinion in terms of questions being asked of the minister during the Estimates hearings as to exactly what the position of this government was, what the position of this leader is, vis-à-vis, ongoing negotiations with Inco on the proposed development of Voisey's Bay.

Other areas of particular interest with respect to the Department of Mines and Energy were the Churchill Falls recall; discussion on the transmission line; hydro job cuts. We will all recall, Mr. Speaker, that it was only a number of weeks ago that the union voiced its objection to proposed hydro cuts in rural Newfoundland leading to redundancy and to the fact that a number of individuals, with significant years of experience with Newfoundland Hydro, were losing their particular positions. Of course, the other area within the Department of Mines and Energy, the White Rose project, and that particular discussion - as introduced today during Question Period by the Leader of the Opposition - is of utmost importance, I would suggest, in terms of the future resource development in this Province as it relates to the offshore oil industry and the emerging natural gas industry.

With respect to a particular area of debate that has taken up most time in this Legislature, and still falls within the ambit of the Department of Mines and Energy, would be the debate surrounding Bill 4, which is with respect to fuel price regulation. As we are all aware, that particular bill has already passed second reading. It was anticipated that it would go to committee stage today. However, as we have just recently found out, that is not the case, which is why we are now discussing the Estimate Committees and the concurrence debates with respect to the resource sector within the estimates area. However, the whole concept of fuel price regulation does come within the ambit of the Department of Mines and Energy and is worthy of a few comments, I would suggest.

There has been considerable and significant opposition to what is being proposed under Bill 4. There has been significant commentary by people in this Province who are saying that fuel price regulation is not necessarily what the people of this Province need. That is perhaps evidenced, I would say to the member opposite, by the fact that the Minister of Mines and Energy - on the very day when this bill was being introduced in the Legislature the Minister of Mines and Energy stood in this House and said quite clearly, without any question, that obviously this piece of legislation could give no guarantees that it would reduce the price of gasoline at the pumps for the consumers of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. No guarantees. That is how this particular piece of legislation was introduced in this Legislature. The minister said clearly that no guarantees could be given to the consumers of this Province that the price of a litre of gasoline at the pumps would in fact be cheaper. So that obviously begs the question, and I am sure the citizens of this Province have to be asking themselves: What is the purpose of the act? What is the purpose of an act to allow the regulation of gasoline and home heating fuel? Which will be the issue of some debate in the future. What is the purpose of such regulations and such a regulatory regime when in fact the people of this Province cannot be given any guarantees that the price of a litre of gasoline at the pump is any cheaper? That very comment, I would suggest, by the Minister of Mines and Energy has led to a reaction and a response by the public in this Province to question quite seriously what the real benefit of regulation is. Mr. Speaker, just last week the price of a litre of gasoline in the City of St. John's rose to 88.9 cents a litre. For a total increase of some eight cents since, I believe, around April 9 or April 10.

It is interesting to note that in the Province of Prince Edward Island, a province which perhaps is being used as a model in terms of the regulatory regime and the legislation that is being purposed by the people of this Province, being modeled and based upon what in fact the people of the Province of Prince Edward Island are subjected to. It is interesting to note that in the last two years, from approximately January 1999 to January or February of the year 2001, the X tax price of a litre of gasoline in the Province of Prince Edward Island is in fact greater than the X tax price of a litre of gasoline in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador for that same period of time. Here we are, Mr. Speaker, using and modeling our legislation upon legislation in the Province of Prince Edward Island. The only other Canadian jurisdiction, I might add, that has a regulatory regime in place. We are basing and modeling our legislation on similar legislation in the Province of Prince Edward Island, and that sole jurisdiction. Its experience, in fact, has a litre of gasoline X tax - outside the tax factor - under the regulatory regime, a litre of gasoline in fact has risen higher than a litre of gasoline in this Province for the same period of time. Again, the question has to be asked, Mr. Speaker, what is the purpose? What is the intent? Perhaps the more intimate question is: What are the real benefits to the people of this Province of a regulatory regime when in fact the only other example that we have in our Canadian federation shows that when we take away the tax implications the regulatory regime has done nothing to help the people of the Province of Prince Edward Island? So again, the question has to be asked, I say to the minister, the question has to be asked to members opposite: What is this regulatory regime all about?

There was some discussion during the Estimates debates on that very issue and we will be, in the next several days I understand, at committee. We will be debating, at committee stage, on a clause-by-clause basis, the real benefits. We will posing these questions to the minister seeking, hopefully, some explanation and clarification with respect to what this is really all about.

Mr. Speaker, I suggested in my earlier comments that really what, in fact, has led to such cost being placed upon the people of this Province as a result of taxation, which accounts for close to 50 per cent of the price of a litre of gas in this Province when we factor in provincial taxes, provincial road taxes, federal excise taxes and, of course, the HST component, which means every time the price of a litre of gasoline increases at the pump the government of this Province stands to gain, in fact, a greater amount because it is a compounded tax. The HST component is compounded. The higher the pump price, obviously the greater return and the greater amount is derived by government as a result of the HST composition.

We have always maintained that if the interest of consumers was truly what was behind the spirit and the thrust of this proposed legislation, if this government were truly interested in the interests, well-being and the welfare of the people of the Province, what it would do is seriously consider a reduction of a very unfair taxation regime which is applied against the people of this Province and I would state - not only suggest but state, Mr. Speaker - the highest taxes in this country. We pay the highest gasoline taxes in this country, higher than any other provincial jurisdiction. If government were seriously genuine and real in its wish to help the consumers of this Province, it is from that point of view, I would suggest, where some alleviation of this burden could be considered, but no, government has refused to do that. Government has failed to give the consumers of this Province a break. What it is doing instead, it has devised an artificial, proposed, regulatory regime - which the minister himself has already acknowledged when this bill was being introduced - a regime that need not, necessarily, really help consumers. In fact, no guarantee could be given that the people of this Province will pay lower prices for gasoline at the pumps. Again, during the clause-by-clause debate in this Legislature, we look forward to posing questions to the minister so that he can respond to these various issues as found in the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the resource sector provided an opportunity for a variety of critics and the members of the resource sector to pose questions to the various ministers, and it is my understanding that some of my colleagues will stand in their various critic areas and make a few comments during these concurrence debates. I will now allow my colleague, the Member for Lewisporte, to rise and make a few points with respect to concurrence debates in the resource sector.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

(Inaudible) make some comments about the Resource Estimates and also to highlight some initiatives that are being undertaken in Tourism, Culture and Recreation, in our department, and also to look at the progress that we have made.

We made a tremendous amount of progress when it comes to the promotion and development of the tourism industry in the Province. We have seen a number of new initiatives in the last four or five years. In particular, we have seen major progress in, as a matter of fact, a number of regions of the Province where there was great history in that we had not developed. We have seen major developments occur since 1997 and with these developments, major infrastructures created. For example, at Bonavista through the successful Cabot year. Along with - when you look at the Viking celebrations - what occurred on the Northern Peninsula. Millions of dollars was put forward by both the federal and provincial governments to highlight our history on the Coast of Labrador, and the Viking year in the last year. The whole Northern Peninsula has benefitted, for example, from this investment and it also, again, allows us to add to the number of very positive images that we can put forward to attract people to our Province. So, when we look at the overall marketing strategy for the Province, we not only put forward the great scenery that we have - the greatest scenery on the planet, as far as we are concerned, the scenery of Gros Morne Park, the scenery of the ecological reserves that we have in the Province, which we are working on now to finalize - when you look at the scenery, along with the culture and the history, it is a great combination. As we go forward with a further aggressive campaign in the next months, and plan for the next three to four years, again we will see more progress made on a number of fronts.

Mr. Speaker, I was down in Placentia yesterday, meeting with the historical society in Placentia. Minister McLean came with me. We went down and met with the mayor down there, plus the society, and they are very much promoting the history of Placentia and the whole region. We will be working with them this coming year to look at the French history of the Province, and also putting resources in to help develop the archaeology of Placentia. As far as we are concerned, we want the Placentia history to be put forward in a very serious way because it is important for our future, it is important for our economy, and it is important for our culture. So, we will be working with the historical society. I want to congratulate them on a great conference they had the weekend. They had about seventy or eighty people in the Placentia area, and they did a great job. We again look forward to working with them, as we have with the number of regional organizations in Bonavista and on the Northern Peninsula, and we look forward to seeing further developments being created.

We also want to make a comment towards the new flight schedule that Canada 3000 has just announced. Canada 3000 is now going to be putting on direct jet service out of Western Newfoundland to Toronto, to a major market that we advertise in. Also, Air Canada have also announced that they are going to be putting direct service on. I also believe there is direct jet service from Gander being planned to the central Canadian market, and that is very positive. I know that the former Minister of Tourism, the hon. Member for Gander, had worked on this issue over the past number of years. Having an airport town, we know how important it is for the access.

These are good news stories in the sense of giving us the access that we need to some major markets that we want to bring people to, or bring people from. These are positive developments that we see, and we are working in partnership with Canada 3000 and Air Canada to get more flights to our market here, and also to look at a strategy for further attraction.

When you look at the major developments that have occurred recently in the Port aux Basques region in the southwest corner, the Gateway project is recently getting under way to enhance the gateway of our Province - one of the two gateways in the Port aux Basques region. A number of initiatives in the last two or three years have been created down there: further enhancements with the lighthouses in Rose Blanche, a railway station there is very impressive, along with a number of other amenities that are now being built as you come through that corridor. We also have seen major investments in the highways in that area that are starting to really pay off and are giving a very good image of our Province when you come forward, so that has been very positive. We see those investments paying off. The Southwest Coast Development Association have done some tremendous work there, and so have the Codroy Valley Development Association in that area. We are seeing some major benefits as the major Gateway, people traveling through, making sure they are being offered the opportunity.

I want to comment further, too, on the film industry getting a lot of attention. We are getting some major films in the Province, looking at our place. That is becoming a job generator and creator. We will have more to say about that in the next couple of weeks, but it is very positive in giving us some good opportunities in the marketplace to move forward. It looks very positive for the future. I want to give credit to the Newfoundland and Labrador Film Development Corporation, the chair of the board, the board, and the staff there for doing a great job. Last week, the film corporation, along with Random Passage, the film itself, and its directors, were in Ireland and launched Random Passage to the Irish market. It was shown in Ireland and was very successful. There are more of those initiatives underway. We look forward to having our piece of that market in the film corporation, and our department and our government are going to work aggressively to see that occur.

I want to also just take the time to highlight the fact that in our recreation facilities, as part of recreation development in our Province, we have some major investments that have taken place in the last three or four years when it comes to the recreation side.

When you look at the hosting of the Canada Winter Games in Corner Brook, Stephenville and Deer Lake, and the whole West Coast region, there were multi-million dollar infrastructures built and the region and the Province hosted - Canada hosted - the country did extremely well. I believe that has allowed us and gave us further confidence to host other major attractions.

In the next couple of weeks we are going to see the official opening of a civic center here in St. John's -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: - to which our provincial government has contributed a very large amount of funds because we felt it was a good investment for the city in particular and for the Province in particular; because many people in our Province look at our city as our capital city and they see the benefits that it brings in attracting people to the place.

We are very proud of the contribution that our government has been able to make there to the civic center, and we look forward to the official opening and being a partner in the future to attract conventions, national and international. We are working in partnership with the Avalon Convention & Tourists Bureau. They are doing a very good job of marketing in the St. John's and Avalon area, and they deserve a lot of credit for the good work they have done. We will be working with them.

When you look at the new civic center in Gander, which the Member for Gander worked her heart out to help make happen - the minister - that new civic center has been the host of a number of excellent competitions. It is a major piece of sports infrastructure in that region. It has done very well, and it is going to do well for the people there. They are now able to market themselves with the hotel space they have as a further center for conventions and so on, and with the access that the airlines are going to give now more directly to the Ontario market, that is going to help also in attracting those types of initiatives.

In Stephenville, we have a new $5 million or $6 million center there, a brand new center in the last couple of years, and again they are marketing their place in the same way.

These are very positive initiatives we have seen occur in the recreation side. We have also seen some outstanding accomplishments by some of our athletes in the last little while that really shows that if we invest in recreation facilities, and we invest in supporting our young people in sports and development, the results can be very positive. We look forward to working with all of these sports organizations in the Province, to go forward with a plan to make sure that our athletes are supported.

We also want to highlight the fact that the Canada Summer Games are going to occur this summer, in August, in London, Ontario. In these games, we expect our athletes to do very well and to represent ourselves as ambassadors for our Province, and again another great opportunity for us to compete against the rest of the country. We look forward to seeing that occur.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of very positive new initiatives coming up. Two issues that I want to flag when it comes to tourism is the access question through Marine Atlantic, the recent indication that the labour dispute there is going to a mediator. We want to be assured by Marine Atlantic, and we are seeking those assurances, and also the federal government, that there will be no disruption, and we do not expect one. We are continuing to market as we normally do, but that issue we want to deal with the federal government on. This year we want to get it dealt with for the long term; and I intend, and our department and our government intend, to work on that issue.

The other issue that we want to flag with Marine Atlantic, which we will be talking to them about, is the fast ferry. The fast ferry experiment last year, we thought, worked very well, and our Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has already made representations. We have made the same, and we are making more. We are going to get into a discussion about further access and how we can have the right configurations and how we can have the shorter and quicker access that we need to make it easy for people to get here. We are working on both those issues to further improve what we have developed, which is a world-class tourism product in this Province.

One of the other things I want to highlight: just recently I met the chair of the Taxi Host Association. That is a group of taxi operators who have gotten together with the Department of Tourism and the Avalon Convention & Tourists Bureau in the region and put training programs off to help our taxi operators in the Province to have a certain code of conduct and so on. They have done a tremendous job, Mr. Speaker. I want to highlight that this Taxi Host program was their initiative, the initiative of the Taxi Association, which has done a very good job, because they meet a lot of our people in the Province as they come to airports and other locations. They have done a great job.

It is just as an example, Mr. Speaker, of the really positive initiatives, the training of our people that we are doing in human resource development when it comes to being ambassadors, and understanding that when people come to our place, our good culture, our great culture and our great scenery that we have, it also needs to have the appropriate professionalism. We have that in spades. I just want to compliment the Taxi Host operators, the Taxi Host group that have put forward the program. It is a very positive program, one of a number of new initiatives that is again giving us a high quality, high class, tourism product that we can brag about and be bold about.

We are looking at the development of two national parks in Labrador, coming up, major initiatives that the Minister for Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs is working on, along with the members in the region, where we will see further development.

I could go on, Mr. Speaker, but just to say this: there is a whole range of very positive initiatives under way, that we look forward to assuring and to attracting people to our place in a very positive way. I want to congratulate the tourism operators and Hospitality Newfoundland, the Executive Director of Hospitality Newfoundland. They have done a great job. The president and the executive have done a good job, working in partnership, together, to promote our place. We look forward to a number of initiatives that we will be working on in the next period of time to see more people come to our place in the future.

I look forward to the positive discussions from the other side.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to rise and speak again today on concurrence. I have a few words to say about our resource sectors. It is an area that I think can make this Province prosper and make this Province be more sustainable than we have been in the past. With the type of resources that we have here in this Province, there is no reason why there cannot be a lot more jobs created in rural Newfoundland with respect to developing our resources and getting the maximum benefits from our resources.

Over the years we have seen too many times where companies come in and take our resources, as some people might say, rape our resources, but we saw it a lot in the past. I do not think we can afford to see this type of action by big companies and industries in our Province, to rape our resources again, take our resources, and not give us the maximum benefits and jobs from those resources.

I can see, particularly in Central Newfoundland, when it comes to our resources in the mining sector, when you look at communities such as Buchans, probably Little Bay, Pilley's Island and places like that, where, over the years, the mining companies came into these areas, took the resources and shipped them in bulk to other places without secondary processing, without any commitment to long-term benefits to the communities and to the Province. I think that type of thing, in this day and age, is going to have to stop. We have to develop these resources, particularly in the mining sector, and develop them to any type of processing that we can do to enhance our labor force, to increase our labor force and sustain our communities in rural Newfoundland, because that is very important for communities that do not have more than one type of resource. When you are depending on one type of resource, then it is more important to get the most benefit out of that resource. When we do that, it makes it easier to keep our young people here in this Province, to let our older generation live in their communities and have a meaningful way of life in their communities. Not only with the mining and the energy sector, Mr. Speaker, it is important that we develop all types of our resources.

With the tourism resource, and the culture and recreation that we have in this Province, it can be enhanced to a point were some communities that do not have any other type of resource can avail of developing an industry based around tourism, culture and recreation. Mr. Speaker, when we look at this type of resource, the Province is a beautiful place to offer tourists, and the pristine beauty of this Province is second to none. We must develop that resource in this Province, particularly when it comes to dealing with our parks. You drive around this Province today and you see a lot of parks closed up, a lot of parks that were privatized. These people who owned these parks cannot afford to keep them running because we are not developing the tourism sector as well as we should, and there is not enough revenue being generated throughout this -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HUNTER: What do you want?

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we do develop our tourism and we do develop our recreation so that we can encourage competition from all across this country to come here to Newfoundland and Labrador. By coming here, they bring a lot of money with them and a lot of dollars are left here in the Province. A lot of jobs are created because of competition, whether it be in any type of winter or summer sports. We must be very conscious of our industries in this Province, particularly in rural Newfoundland. We must develop every type and aspect of business to its maximum potential, utilizing our resources to the maximum with the greatest benefit. We can see all too often when the big companies come in here and take these resources and not deliver on their end of the bargain, when they commit to maximizing the jobs and profits and leaving money in our rural communities here in this Province. We must be very conscious of not letting this happen over and over and over.

We do control the lease agreements, we do control the resources, and we do have a say on who leases what, and what commitments they have to make in those leases. Then we must make sure, when resources are leased to companies, that they hold up to their part of the agreement. If not, then that is the tool that we can use, or the government can use, to force companies in keeping their commitments and making sure that the amount of money that we expect from our resources is forced on these big industries; that we force them to live up to their commitments, and if they do not then we could use the hammer, as our federal member, Mr. Baker, said this morning with respect to the Abitibi situation. The government can hold the solution to the problem by being the hammer that could drive a solution to this problem that we have in there.

That is one particular area where we see a long-term commitment was made back ninety-five years ago, almost 100 years ago, when this country, this Province, gave leases - water leases, water rights, timber leases, land leases - all types of different commitments that the government made to the company in the beginning. Now, at this particular time when this company is making maximum profits and very high profits, the company wants to downsize and be more profitable in their eyes; but in the people's eyes they see that this company is very profitable. To threaten to close down a number seven paper machine does not seem very responsible to me, when the commitment was made to use our resources and to maximize the benefits to the people of this country.

Mr. Speaker, if necessary, this government is going to have to step in and show the industry that they are in control, governments are in control, with developing and implementing policies and laws with respect to leasing out our natural resources, our precious resources, so that we can maximize the jobs and keep the jobs there until it is a fit time for people to retire in their communities, so they can have a good, meaningful way of life in their communities.

I think the government is going to have to step in, in this situation. There are a lot of questions in people's minds in our Province, particularly in Central Newfoundland, of who is being truthful in the situation out there. It is government's responsibility to step in there, find out what the facts are, and find out the real reason. We understand that, according to the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods today, the wood supply is not the key issue of this dispute.

Mr. Speaker, with all the indications that I have, through documentation that I have received over the last couple of weeks, we do have a very serious situation when it comes to fibre resources for the Province's paper mills. This Province really cannot sustain three paper mills the way it is now, with the timber resource being utilized the way it is. We realize that when the Labrador linerboard mill came on stream, it was there to use the resource out of Labrador. In order to do that, we must have a settlement of agreements with the Aboriginal people in Labrador so we can give the people of Labrador an opportunity to use their resources, to make a living in that part of the Province, to sustain their communities in Labrador. We could take the resource from the forests down there and use it in the way it was intended when we first had the paper mill in Stephenville. That mill is there for one reason and one reason only. When it was put there, it was put there to use the resources of Labrador. Even at the time, Premier Smallwood admitted that there is not room in this Province for three paper mills with the resource on the Island. His idea was to use the resource in Labrador. Now, it has gone too far. We are in a state now where we are strapped for fibre resources. Now, the government has to step in and make sure that a fair deal, a fair agreement, has been made for the people of Labrador so they can get jobs in their resources, particularly in the forestry resources in Labrador, and not only the forest resources in Labrador but all the resources. The minerals down there, too, have to be utilized to their maximum potential. The maximum amount of jobs have to be delivered to the people of Labrador with the maximum amount of benefits to each community and each person who needs a job, who needs to make a living dealing with our resources.

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we utilize our fishery resources too. In rural Newfoundland, in my district particularly, we have a really big resource pertaining to the mussel farming industry in my part of the district. My district delivers approximately 70 per cent of the produced mussels in the Province. We need to do something to ensure that we would enhance that type of industry wherever the resource is, and to go into secondary processing in that part of the Province. I understand there is a processing plant in my neighboring district there, but it is closed down now. We must assure the people that they have that close proximity of secondary processing to that resource; because, where it is such a big part of that resource in the Province, we need to do other processing right in the area adjacent to where the product is being developed and grown.

We see a lot of our resources that we take for granted, particularly when it comes to our water resource. People do not realize the importance of this precious resource that we have, not only for developing in the way of water consumption by human beings or animals but the potential that water resources have to develop hydro power. If we sign long-term agreements and not acceptable agreements that affect hydro power in this Province for many, many years, then we are going to be in a similar situation that we have today when it comes to other long-term agreements, particularly in Labrador with the Upper Churchill.

Mr. Speaker, I am referring now to a project that could be developed in Central Newfoundland with the water resources pertaining to the Exploits River and the Red Indian Lake area. That water resource is developed by the company. It was developed by the company in the beginning to provide power to our paper mills, and we must ensure that the maximum benefits and profits of that resource are there for the people of the Province and there for the reason it was intended to be there; that is, to sustain the paper-making ability of a paper company which we have in Grand Falls-Windsor today that produces some of the best newsprint in the world. It is third out of the company's group of twenty-five mills, the third highest profitable business in their group.

In order to do that, they have to be competitive, I know, but we still must use that water resource to make sure that the maximum benefits to the people of Central Newfoundland are there with respect to making paper, not with one paper machine but with two paper machines. Number seven and number three must continue making paper long into the future, and a commitment must be made by the company to ensure that everything possible is done to keep number seven machine working so that we can save 250 jobs directly in the Central Newfoundland area. Not only that, but the long-term effect on the closing of number seven would be disastrous to adjoining communities, neighbouring communities, particularly to one community called Botwood. In Botwood, it would be disastrous to the working community down there if number seven closes. The company already said that there would be no more paper shipped at the port of Botwood if they close number seven.

With that concern alone, Mr. Speaker, it gives me reason to believe that the government should jump in now to look at this situation, even in the Premier's own District of Botwood and Exploits.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HUNTER: Could I have leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I should give them all a pen and see if they can mark an X.

Mr. Speaker, that was long enough. I could not stand it anymore. I had to stand up. The Member for Windsor-Springdale motivated me.

We have to talk about Newfoundland and Labrador in the future, and we are talking about resource policy and the resources that Newfoundland and Labrador has. What we should do is, we should draw a description in our minds of Newfoundland and Labrador and look at the vast geography of lands that we live in, and the population of 560,000 or 570,000 people.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is 539,000 now, isn't it?

MR. EFFORD: Five hundred and thirty-nine; well, whatever the population. We will not argue over numbers, but let's talk about the population. Look at the land mass. Look at the pristine environment that we have. Look at the tourism opportunities.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Tories?

MR. EFFORD: The tourism. Look at the mineral wealth. Look at the wealth of our oil. Look at the ocean, the value of the resource in our ocean. Look at the water.

One of the things I want to talk about is the price of fuel. I get a kick out of people talking about the price of gas: eighty-five one day, eighty-eight another day, and that is the continuous topic no matter where you go. I never hear anybody talk about the price of a vehicle that they paid $10,000 for just a decade ago. Today, that same vehicle is $40,000. That does not matter. The price of fuel is gone up to 80 cents a litre and now it is controlling the topic of conversation.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is the price of water.

MR. EFFORD: I was getting to that, the price of water. A litre of water is $1.42 and a litre of gas is 88 cents, and a litre of gas is too expensive to buy. It is phenomenal, the thinking that we have here in this Province. The one thing that we have here in this Province are resources. There is absolutely no reason why we should have the mentality that we are an have-not Province. One of the worst contributors to us having a have-not Province is the mentality and the attitude that we display in our every day talking, and in particular to our young people. Is there any wonder why young people get educated and leave this Province when the topic of conversation is negative, negative, negative on a continuous basis? Tell me one thing in this Province that we talk positive about around the kitchen tables, around the restaurant tables, or anywhere where we have a conversation?

Look at the ocean - and this is one of the resources that I am most familiar with. We had the largest stock of codfish unequaled to anywhere in the world. What did we do with it? We destroyed it. Those of us who participated in the fishery contributed to it. Those of us who sat idly by and allowed it to happen contributed equally as much as those people who participated in the destruction. We all have to take responsibility for it. There is no reason why we should have to have communities today going off to Ottawa - the mayor of Ramea, the mayor of Gaultois -looking for a quota to keep their community alive. I ask the question: Looking for a quota of what? Of crab? That we are going to go on the same track with crab as we did with cod? That every community in Newfoundland and Labrador is going to have a crab plant, and every community or every region in Newfoundland and Labrador is going to have a quota? Well that is what we did with the codfish. That is the reason why Marystown, Catalina, Gaultois, and Ramea are pretty well ghost towns today, because of what we did with the cod. We allowed foreign ships, factory freezer trawlers and those large nets out there that could haul up a ship load in one haul, pick out the small fish and throw them overboard, and grind it up in grinders aboard the boat. There is no reason why any people should be unemployed in Newfoundland and Labrador today if we managed our resources right.

Look at water. We are arguing over bulk water. Nobody is saying what we should be doing with our water. No businessman is investing into it. In New Brunswick today we have ten bottling plants. What do we have in Newfoundland and Labrador? With all of the water we have here, with all of the pristine environment, with all of the cleanliness and the purest water in the world, what do we have? One or two small bottling plants that is selling in Newfoundland and Labrador alone. There is absolutely no reason why we should not have a dozen or fifteen bottling plants here. There is no place that you can travel in the world - no place in this world can you travel that they do not use bottled water. There is not a city, not a country, not a place in the world where people live, that they do not buy bottled water.

We talk about the price of gasoline at 85 cents or 88 cents a litre. We talk about the price of water at $1.40 or $1.50 a litre. What is the cost of producing a litre of water compared to a litre of gasoline? We cannot see the forest for the trees. The policy that we brought in on fisheries: No fish to go out of this Province to be further processed somewhere else, but if fresh fish came out of the ocean and went directly to the consumer, you should do it. You would be crazy not to do it. It is no different on any other product. If it is to be processed somewhere else outside of the Province: no. It is to be processed, bottled, canned or whatever here in this Province, but if it is to go directly to the consumer then it is a different thing altogether. By not doing it you are losing out. You have to have an open mind going into business. You cannot be restrictive on businesses. You don't tie the people hands so that they cannot manufacture or cannot produce.

Government's responsibility is set in policy. Government's responsibility is maximizing the resources for the people of the Province and getting the revenues on it. You talk about taking the taxes off gasoline. Well, yes, take the taxes off gasoline, close two or three hospitals, stop plowing roads, stop paving roads -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Where are you going to get the money if you do not charge taxes? Where are you going to get the taxes out of 540,000 or 550,000 people if you do not have it on products? So it is absolute nonsense. You cannot have it both ways. You either want the services or you do not want them; and if you want them you have to pay for them. If there is a magic tree or a magic wand out there - that somebody is not going to collect taxes and wave a magic wand or has a pot at the end of the rainbow and is going to get these dollars to provide all the services that people are demanding, then tell us how to do it. I have not seen any magical wands yet. I have been in business for seventeen years and I have been in politics for sixteen, that is thirty-three years. Everything I had to get I had to work for. Every dollar I made I had to provide services to my family or things that I wanted to do. It did not come from any magic wand. Government is no different. Government is like a business.

MR. J. BYRNE: Go out to Port de Grave (inaudible) an election and say that.

MR. EFFORD: I have said it all the time. That is the reason I have been elected five times. I tell the truth!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: I do not hide behind a cloud! When we built the harbour in Port de Grave at $6.5 million, I told them that came from taxpayers dollars.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: When we paved every road out there, that came from taxpayers dollars. I never hid it yet. And everything is paved out there, by the way. Every road.

AN HON. MEMBER: Every road?

MR. EFFORD: We are resurfacing some of them now.

You cannot have it both ways. You tell the people and the people will believe you. But if you go on with this nonsense: we are going to take away the taxes of gasoline, we are going to open more schools, we are going to build more roads and we are going to open more hospitals. What utter nonsense! You cannot fool the people anymore. If you do not tell the people the truth they will just laugh at you and talk behind closed doors.

Mr. Speaker, if we utilize the resources that we have here in this Province there is no reason why we cannot employ and provide the needs of the people in this Province. We have more resources per capita, and I say this very seriously, here in this Province than any other part of this country. Seriously! More resources per capita than other part of this country. What we have to do is ask the question: Why are we in the position we are in? There is the question. There is the question that we have to find an answer for. The policy is derive the maximum benefits out of the Province. Stay away from this political nonsense - as my poor old dad used to say: blindfold the devil in the dark. As I was saying, going on with these misleading statements and telling the people: Now, we will drop the taxes on gasoline; you vote for us. That is nonsense! You cannot do it. There is no government, regardless of your political stripe, who can drop taxes and at the same time provide services.

Go over to the Health Sciences Hospital, any day in the week, and look at the lineup of people going in there; look at the need for new equipment; look at the need for more nurses; look at the need for more doctors; look at the need for more special care. Where is it going to come from? There is only one way: somebody has to pay to pay the bill. There is no reason in this world why we cannot be able to provide the services of the people utilizing the resources that we have here in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, when the Member for Windsor-Springdale got up and talked about resources, I know what he intended to say. I know what his intention was but he just could not get it out the right way. The one thing that I would suggest in your policy platform that you put forth in the future: don't tell the people of the Province that you are going to take away taxes and you can provide the services. When you do up your Blue Book be honest with the people of the Province and tell the people the truth. Yes, you have to pay taxes. Yes, you will provide services, and you cannot have it both ways.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I want to say a few words on this topic here today, but the first one I want to address is the former Minister of Fisheries and the comments that he just made. Now I know we cannot use the word hypocritical in this House, so I won't; but I am telling you one thing, what he is saying now we heard it all before: Where are we going to get the money? Now just listen to some of the comments that he made. You answer me, Madam Speaker, what is being said here today and what way the spin is being put on it. He was saying that the people in the Province, in my mind, are not paying enough for gas; not paying enough for it if you compare it to what people are paying for water.

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

MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: I would not use the word hypocritical, Madam Speaker, but I will give the member leave to use it on himself if he wishes to do that.

Seriously, I never, ever, said we should be charging more money for gasoline or more taxes. What I said is we cannot afford to decrease the taxes if we are going to build roads and provide health services, education, and the needs of the people. So, if you cannot understand what I am saying sit down and be quiet!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Continue.

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

What he said over there is contradicting himself again. He stood up and made the comparison between what is being paid for gas in this Province and what we are paying for water in this Province and other provinces. He said we are paying more for water, therefore we are not paying enough for gas. That is what he just said, I say to you, Madam Speaker.

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

MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: I was comparing the value of water compared to the value of gasoline; $1.42 for litre of water and eighty-eight cents for a litre of gasoline. Can't you get that through your mind?

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

It is obvious today to see why that man is not sitting in that chair right there. Why he is not Premier of this Province.

Now, Madam Speaker, lets get on with it. He also said that he has worked for everything that he has ever earned. If you want to extrapolate that out: Are you insinuating that the people in this Province do not work for what they have, I say to former Minister of Fisheries?

Here is the point that I want to make and what I am getting to. I heard it before so often from him, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, all of them on that side of the House, talking about our policies. He says here today: We cannot cut the taxes on gas. Where are you going to get the money? Where are we going to get the money? You are going to have to close hospital beds, going to have to close down schools. He did not say in the last election, when we had our policy manual out there and we talked about cutting the payroll tax: It can't be done! Going to close schools; going to close hospital beds. What did they do? Within six months they had the payroll tax cut on their very first budget.

Then we had in our policy manual that we would cut income tax by five points. We made this statement. It cannot be done! Ridiculed and laughed at. The whole gamut from that side of the House. What did they do when they got in the next time around, in the next budget? They cut the income tax.

MR. SULLIVAN: Jack, they took our manual and put a red cover on it.

MR. J. BYRNE: Exactly. What they could have done is take this policy manual and put a red cover on it, as the Opposition House Leader said. To make it worse, the face that this administration has -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Just listen to this now. The face that this administration has - the Premier of the Province stood up in this House of Assembly and said to our leader: What we are going to do is have all your policies used up by the next election and you will not have any left. Now, that is what he said. That is what they are running on. That is the gas in their tanks. That is the kind of stuff that they are getting on with. The former Minister of Fisheries has the gall to say: Where is the money coming from, and he is talking about resources? I will talk about resources. I will tell you about resources, Madam Speaker.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) places like the Murray Premises.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, I do not want to get on that. I have a list.

Here we are. Where are we going to get the money from? I will tell you where we are going to get the money from. Just think about this now - and they have the gall, the former minister -

MR. E. BYRNE: If they had to operate the same way that Stockwell Day has, and what they have cost the province, every Cabinet minister over there would be a pauper right now. They would all have second and third mortgages on their house.

MR. J. BYRNE: Alright.

Let me tell you this: you talk about money and the wastage of money, and where are we going to get the money? I am up to over $100 million wasted by that group.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, I am so glad you brought it up. Where is the Steel Report? What about the Steel Report, I say to the former Minister of Fisheries? If you want to talk about Sprung, talk to a member on that side of the House. If I were you, I would talk to a member on that side of the House. If you want to talk about Sprung, I will get on to that. I do not mind talking about it. I was not here. There were 300 jobs created for two years on account of $20 million. It was something where the magnitude may have been in question, but it was a noble effort.

When we talk about the Liberal government, let's talk about the cottage hospitals. Let's talk about Trans City and $5 million and not one job created - not a job - in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is 25 per cent of Sprung right there. We have Atlantic Leasing Limited, another $4 million. Legal fees is another one. The Cabot 500 Corporation, another $600,000. Andy Wells, another $600,000.

Let's see what else we have on the go: other legal matters, Tors Cove Excavation, $1 million and not a job created. (Inaudible), another legal matter, let me see.

MR. E. BYRNE: Jack, (inaudible) those pieces of junk they just bought.

MR. J. BYRNE: Don't get me going on that, for the love of God.

Here we have a tender - no tender - we did not have a tender. How much? One-and-a-half million dollars on equipment that was purchased, and no tender. The City of St. John's would not even buy it. It was five years old, all kinds of repairs done on it.

MR. E. BYRNE: The officials did not even contact the city to find out what kind of shape it was in.

MR. J. BYRNE: There it is. Your officials did not even contact the city to see what shape it was in and what condition it was in, and all these other things. The former Minister of Fisheries gets up and says: Where are we getting the money?

Let's see what else is on the go with this Administration. Let's talk about the Ahelaide, let's talk about the ship down on the docks for two years, $700,000, another $2 million or $3 million spent on it. We do not know how much more is going to be spent on it to bring it up to Canadian standards - not a job created.

Let's talk about the Apollo. Every time I drive down the waterfront and look at that, I cannot believe my eyes. I almost get sick to my stomach.

MR. SHELLEY: A Liberal billboard

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, a Liberal billboard is right. That is not finished with either, yet, I would say.

We have a ferry down there that is chock full of asbestos, and we were told, in this House of Assembly, that there was no asbestos in it. They have the gall to get up and say: Where are we getting the money? Criticizing us and our policies here, after adopting 50 per cent or 60 per cent of what we are putting forward. They are void of ideas over there - not a click, not a clue, do they have on that side of the House. No wonder, when the Premier gets up, or the Minister of Finance gets up, or anyone gets up to answer a question, we do not hear this [heavy tapping on table]. We hear this [light tapping on the table]. That is what we hear. There is no support for the ministers over there. They have the gall to get on their feet and criticize us on this side of the House. Well, the time is coming. The time is soon coming, I hope -

AN HON. MEMBER: The tide has gone out.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is right.

MR. LUSH: Hope is the operative word.

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Government House Leader, he knows what is on the go.

Now, let me see here. We have this Administration now, talking about flip-flops, talking about money, the Premier comes in within a few days or weeks and talks about Voisey's Bay - an issue.

I ask the former Minister of Fisheries this. We talk about our resources. We had the Prime Minister of this country make a statement last week that there is deal close on Churchill Falls, and the Premier of this Province, the Minister of Mines and Energy -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) Lower Churchill negotiations.

MR. J. BYRNE: We will get into that in a minute now. Well, $10 million - plus, the big show with Mr. Bouchard, with Mr. Tobin in Labrador. A million bucks on a news conference, no jobs created, another million. Ten million on the negotiations for Churchill Falls, no jobs.

MR. E. BYRNE: For who?

MR. J. BYRNE: For who is the question, for who?

MR. E. BYRNE: For whose benefit?

MR. J. BYRNE: For whose benefit, is right. It was all for the benefit of one Mr. Tobin, the Premier, the former Premier of the Province at the time. We have this going on here in this Province, and this guy over there has the gall to say and the face to say that they even question our policies. It is utterly ridiculous. I mean, it is unreal.

Now, as I said, the Prime Minister made a statement last week that the Premier of this Province knew nothing about, the Minister of Mines and Energy knew nothing about, and we are talking about a major resource, I say to the former Minister of Fisheries, the Member for Port de Grave. There was a deal at hand. It was very close. Now, who is running the show for this Province? I want to know, who is running the show? Is it the Premier of the Province and his ministers, or is it the man who left here and went to Ottawa? Is that the man?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: If we were, we would not be in the mess we are in, I say to the member. Not likely.

Now, another issue. We talk about our resources. We talk about the major plan, the master plan a few years ago of this Administration, the Liberal Administration, to privatize the parks in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Another brainwave, Madam Speaker. What happened? Half the parks did not open up, some of the best parks in the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I did not try to sell igloos to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that is for sure, I say to the former minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: I did not try to seel igloos down in the States.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Don't I? Oh, that is what I do.

The parks privatization was the shambles. You know it, and most members on that side of the House know it but they will not admit it. There were parks privatized and were not opened up. There was one up in River of Ponds up in the Northern Peninsula, one of the best parks in the Province, privatized, dismantled, not even opened up. Shameful. The Minister of Tourism at the time was the member for that area and he let the park be dismantled. The question then, you have to go back to say: Let's make some connections. Who got the park? He got two, this individual. Were there any connections to any Liberals?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I suppose there were not. I can name names and tell you exactly where they were, and the park closed down. Another brainwave.

Talk about resources and rural Newfoundland. The Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island got up. Get this now. The Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island got up and said rural Newfoundland is struggling. Now, rural Newfoundland is struggling. The first thing came to my mind, why? Well, let's look at some of the major initiatives of this Administration. The park proposition was one. The other brainwave was last summer. What do we hear? Relocation. Job relocation out of St. John's to all over the Province, to rural Newfoundland.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) $35 million (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: How much?

MR. E. BYRNE: Thirty-five million dollars.

MR. J. BYRNE: Upwards now of $35 million, and this started out, Madam Speaker -

MR. E. BYRNE: Two Sprungs in one location, that was ill-conceived and badly timed.

MR. J. BYRNE: Seven million. That was what the cost was, they told us, the government. Now it is $35 million. I am hearing words like $10 million to $14 million for renovations to a certain building, to relocate some people out of St. John's. Not one job created, and they were going to be relocated to rural Newfoundland.

Now, let's look at rural Newfoundland: Gander, Grand Falls, Stephenville, Marystown, all rural Newfoundland. None out to, say, Baie Verte, or none to -

AN HON. MEMBER: St. Anthony.

MR. J. BYRNE: - St. Anthony, places like that, real rural Newfoundland. All they were doing was centralizing, Madam Speaker, centralizing the services and trying to sell that to the people of the Province as a major initiative. Done on the back of a napkin, as far as I am concerned, somewhere.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: On a golf course, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Say that again?

MR. LUSH: Gander is a metropolis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, there you go. I do not know if the Government House Leader is trying to be sarcastic or facetious or whatever, but he is saying that Gander is a metropolis.

I know one thing: if the initiative was to put jobs in rural Newfoundland, it is certainly not happening. Look, Madam Speaker, at the expertise that has been lost. Look at the ads in the weekend paper, in The Telegram, and look at all the jobs being advertised. People are not moving. Now, what is happening to rural Newfoundland? Where is the big -

MR. E. BYRNE: How many more nurses and doctors could be put in rural Newfoundland for $35 million?

MR. J. BYRNE: That is a good point. The Leader of the Opposition asks: How many more nurses, how many more doctors, how many more roads could be done, how many more teachers could be in the school system, how many more schools could be built for $35 million? Now, we are up to something like $135 million, and the former Minister of Fisheries has the gall to talk about Sprung; $20 million, 300 jobs, two years. They are talking about $135 million, not a new job in the Province, and they have the audacity to make that comparison. They should be ashamed of themselves. They should resign en masse. As a matter of fact, after hearing this today, I hope the Premier sits back and reads this and realizes the shambles and the mess they have made of this Province and calls an election. That is what they should do, and let the people decide on their record. Shame!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: So don't get up, I say to the former Minister of Fisheries, and preach to this side of the House about where we are getting the money. Now, that is $135 million right there and that is not even having to look hard.

Now, let me start talking about the Auditor General's report. Forget that, and let's start talking about the court cases and the people who have sued this Administration for wrongful dismissal. Fourteen or twenty, I think, settled out of court two or three weeks ago. There are some of the figures; fourteen or fifteen or something like that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nineteen.

MR. J. BYRNE: Nineteen - okay, maybe it was - who settled out of court. Now, how much, Madam Speaker, was that, that we don't know anything about yet?

MR. E. BYRNE: We didn't hear a Ministerial Statement on that today.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, we didn't hear a Ministerial Statement on that.

Madam Speaker, what about - could I get some water?

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: You are drying up.

MR. J. BYRNE: It will take a while yet, I say to the Vice-Chair of the PAC, it will be a long while before I dry up, I can guarantee you that. I have been on this side speaking for four hours.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: You haven't got an idea. If you haven't got a drink, you haven't got an idea.

MR. J. BYRNE: Do you want to hear a few ideas? I think I just put a few ideas in your head.

I don't know if I should make the prediction, but I would think after hearing what I say today - and he is a new member, he is newly elected, and he was elected because the Member for Port de Grave helped him out. I asked the Member for Port de Grave today how his back was. Can I say what the response was? Do you mind if I say what the response was? I asked you today how your back was and you gave me a response. Can I say it?

MR. EFFORD: I told you it was still bleeding.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, there you go. He said it was still bleeding. One of the people who caused that bleeding is the Member for Trinity North.

MR. SHELLEY: The man who put him there.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Port de Grave put him there. I was out campaigning in that election and I know what that fellow was up to, the Member for Port de Grave. You didn't get elected. You were a factor, I say to the member, a very small factor. There is the main factor over there, the Member for Port de Grave. He got you elected.

MR. SULLIVAN: You made some promises out there, didn't you, John?

MR. J. BYRNE: He did, and he wants some ideas.

What I was going to say is that basically when all this sinks in to the new member, the relatively speaking new member - around this time last year, was it, around April last year? - when it all sinks in and he understands, he will decide that he picked the wrong party and he is going to come looking to this side, before the next election. I would predict that.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't want him, do you?

MR. J. BYRNE: I never said if we would take him or not. All I said is he was going to come looking. That is what I said.

Anyway, let's talk about our natural resources. I can go back. I will go back to the old fishing admirals on the barrels, sending out salt cod. That is how far back we can go, talking about what was given away and sent out of Newfoundland and Labrador. They make the decisions here, controlled from on high, over in England, wherever. That wasn't bad enough, then around the turn of the century we got the railway, and what did we give away? We gave acres and acres and acres, millions of acres of land, for the railway. Then we got the iron ore going, and what did we do then? Iron ore shipped out of the Province in bulk, in Labrador and on Bell Island. Then we got Churchill Falls and we had the fishery. We can go on for hours and hours on each one of these.

The fishery: what happened when we joined Confederation? The fishery was controlled by Ottawa. Again, abused and given away.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Atlantic Accord.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Atlantic Accord! If you have been listening to this side of the House you should be enforcing the Atlantic Accord. That is what you should be at, not trying to turn a blind eye to it and letting them do what they want. That is what this Administration is doing.

The forestry, Churchill Falls - let's talk about our resources. Now we have a chance, and I kind of - I don't want to have to do this, because it gives me cold shivers, to kind of agree with the former Minister of Fisheries. We have our water now here in the Province which is going to be a major commodity, worldwide, in the very near future. The demand is going to be unreal, and that side of the House: give it away, give it away in bulk. Let's get a cent for a ton or something of water; a cent, and bring it back and we will pay $1.50 for a little glass of water.

We have Voisey's Bay. We have White Rose. We had the member, the Leader of the Opposition, bring up a question today about White Rose to the Minister of Mines and Energy. From what I heard here today it is hard to believe that the minister is on top of anything with respect -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mines and Energy. I am agreeing with the Member for St. John's South. The problem is trying to get you guys to understand it and to comprehend it. He was the man who started this three or four years ago and made an issue of it. Again, par for the course, Madam Speaker, ridiculed, laughed at, and now everything comes home to roost, doesn't it? Right again. This side of the House right again, I say to them.

MADAM SPEAKER: May I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Madam Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MADAM. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: No leave. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am sure that they learned something here today if they paid attention.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It is indeed a pleasure to get up today and speak in this debate, because I heard a lot of nonsense being talked about this afternoon from that side of the House.

It was interesting. I was out in my district the other night, and as I was driving back on the Trans-Canada Highway I was tuned into the Open Line program. Just before I got to Roaches Line, the hon. Member for St. John's East came on and talked about the problem with the price of the gasoline and the price of oil in Newfoundland and Labrador, the tax on gasoline, the road tax, the HST on the tax and the road tax. He said: we should cut it, cut it out, get rid of it. Get rid of that tax because it is a -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not what he said.

MR. BARRETT: Oh yes, he said it. Yes, he did. He said, we should cut the tax, cut the road tax, get rid of it, get rid of that road tax. I was driving over the Trans-Canada and I said: Very good, we maintain 9,000 kilometers of road in Newfoundland and Labrador. I said: I can't waste the opportunity, I have to call in and ask them which 9,000 kilometers, when they form the government, they are not going to plow.

MR. J. BYRNE: A point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I would just like to make this statement: that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation should understand the difference between get rid of something and to reduce. There is a major, major difference.

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. BARRETT: The hon. Member for St. John's East said we should get rid of the tax, the road tax on gasoline. I called in and wanted to know if that is the policy of the PC Party, because I assume when we hear members calling into the Open Line programs and they are talking about various policies, we assume that they are representing the PC Party, they are representing the leader of the PC Party and they are representing the Party policies. So I was wondering - and he did not call back to indicate to me - I was wondering if he ever went beyond the overpass and realized the massive number of roads.

This weekend I was in the Exploits district and in the great district of Lewisporte looking at some of the conditions of some of the roads. As I was driving along this weekend, I was saying to myself: Now, which one of those roads, or which one of those communities, is the PC Party going to cut off and not plow this winter, because they are going to do away with the road tax, the tax on gasoline. I want to remind hon. members -

AN HON. MEMBER: That all went through your mind as you were driving?

MR. BARRETT: Yes.

We realize that the road tax in Newfoundland is very high, but we have more roads per kilometer than any other province in Canada. So we do pay a large amount in road tax, no doubt about it. I can tell you, when you go down to the James Towns and the Winter Brooks and the Pacquets and the Woodstocks and all these of the world, and you see that they still have gravel roads in their communities and are looking forward to pavement. The people of Whitbourne are looking forward to getting a resurfacing done from the Trans-Canada in because the road is in rough state.

I visited a community in Labrador, the week before last, in Norman Bay, where there is not even a road in the community. The kids cannot even ride a bike to school because there is no road. All there is, is a path through the community.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: I can tell the hon. Member for Labrador, if he is not familiar with Labrador, I can describe Norman Bay to him in detail. I know he is from Labrador, but he knows nothing about Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: And, Percy, that is after fifty-one years of voting Liberal.

MR. BARRETT: After fifty one years, seventeen years of Tory government and all those years of Liberal government, they never had a road in the community. I was very, very happy to be able to deliver to the chairman of the local service district a cheque to be able to build a road in that community this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: The kids in Norman Bay, for the first time in their lives, will be able to drive their bikes to school on a road. For the first time in their lives they will be able to go to school on a bike.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: A major accomplishment.

MR. BARRETT: A major accomplishment.

We are talking about the Conservative Party in Newfoundland. They are talking about how they want to reduce the road tax and they do not want the people in Norman Bay to have a road.

AN HON. MEMBER: No road.

MR. BARRETT: No road in Norman Bay. They do not want the government to build a road to Pinsent Arm. They do not want to do the local roads in Mary's Harbour and all those other communities on the Labrador Coast. No! No! All we can hear talk about from this Tory Party, and I think the Member for St. John's East - when I was driving in, I said: I think that will be the new philosophy of the PC Party, that no other place exists in Newfoundland outside of St. John's. To start with, they are going to eliminate the road tax and they are not going to plow or maintain any roads in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

The next big issue of the PC Party, and it came out at their convention, one of the big plots of the Leader of the PC Party, is they want to reduce the number of seats in the House of Assembly from forty-eight to thirty.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. H. HODDER: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Madam Speaker, I cannot let the member communicate an absolute inaccuracy. What happened was one delegate from the Premier's district to our convention wrote a resolution - I was chair of the resolutions committee, so I know what I am talking about - in which he made that suggestion. That suggestion never made it to the floor of the convention and was not even debated at the convention. So, for that member to get up and say the Leader of the Progressive Conservative party is espousing that particular comment is ridiculous. He knows that is wrong and he should not be misleading the people of this House and should not mislead the people of this Province.

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. BARRETT: No, there is no point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. member is very, very sensitive, because we know that the policy and one of the platforms of the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador is that they are going to reduce the number of seats in the House of Assembly from forty-eight to thirty. It is a big issue out in rural Newfoundland right now. People are saying: Boy, isn't this ridiculous, what the objective of the PC Party is going to be?

Do you realize that there is going to be one member only for the Burin Peninsula?

The other objective of the PC Party is that they will reduce the number of Cabinet ministers. My understanding is that the Leader of the PC Party has said that -

MR. H. HODDER: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I just want to point out to my honourable and learned colleague over there - supposed to be learned anyway - that when Joey Smallwood left government after so many years there were forty-two seats. During the PC administration it went up to fifty-two seats. It was during the Liberal administration it went from fifty-two seats down to forty-eight. The only government to reduce the seats in Newfoundland and Labrador's history of all the Legislature was a Liberal government.

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. BARRETT: I am glad that the hon. member brought that topic up. I am glad that you brought that topic up because I recall the debate in the House of Assembly - the hon. Member for Waterford Valley, if he would keep quiet he would learn something.

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: You might learn something. The hon. Member for Waterford Valley, if I can recall - if I go back to Hansard I could probably even get speeches that he delivered in this House of Assembly - when we were talking about reducing the number of seats in this House from fifty-two to forty-eight, they were on their feet suggesting that we would reduce the seats even further. They were talking about forty-four. As a matter of fact, I believe they brought in a Private Members' Resolution, if I recall, to reduce the seats to forty. That was the policy of the PC Party. So it is not since the new leader got elected. This was your policy. Most of the members that are sitting over there right now, when there was a debate about reducing the number of seats in the House of Assembly - and I know that the Member for Ferryland was on his feet talking about reducing the number of seats.

MR. SULLIVAN: I believe that. I probably presented the resolution.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, you presented the resolution. You were talking about reducing the number of seats in the House of Assembly.

So that is a new policy of the PC Party. The PC Party was talking about reducing the number of seats which means that the hon. Member for The Straits & White Bay North - there will only be one member on the Northern Peninsula. If you reduce the number of seats to thirty there will be one member for the Northern Peninsula.

I want to get back to the resource development. I want to talk about one of the big issues that the PC Party is completely against, and that is the Gisborne Lake proposal.

AN HON. MEMBER: Be careful.

MR. BARRETT: Be careful, be very, very careful.

MR. J. BYRNE: You will have to resign if you (inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: Yes. If an hon. member has to resign because he supports an industry for his district or her district, then everybody in this House of Assembly should resign, I would say.

It is interesting to note, that we talked about resource development, we talked about royalties. We talked about a Newfoundlander and Labradorian, a business person in Newfoundland, who had a proposal on the table, who went to great lengths and did a great environmental assessment of a business proposal, did an extremely costly environmental study and had a proposal to utilize the water out of Gisborne Lake for a major industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, who had a proposal - we were talking about a $32 million business investment in this Province; no government money whatsoever, no Sprungs. It was not a Sprung Greenhouse by any means. There was no talk about putting government money into an industry. It was talking about an investment. A private entrepreneur from Newfoundland and Labrador, a fine outstanding business man who has contributed a lot to Newfoundland and Labrador, had a proposal in to put a major resource industry in the town of Grand Le Pierre on the Burin Peninsula, and a bottling plant. The proposal included bulk shipment of water and it also included a bottling plant.

When you talk about misinformation: I listened to the Member for St. John's South day in and day out get up and misrepresent what was going on, misrepresent what was happening with the Gisborne Lake proposal, going on the open line programs with half truths, and was very, very, very careless with the truth. He talked about us shipping water to Montreal to be bottled which was absolutely bologna. It had nothing to do with a proposal to ship water to Montreal to be bottled. Why would you want to ship water to Montreal to be bottled? There is lots of water in Quebec to be bottled. They would not want water from Newfoundland. He was talking about sending bulk shipment of water to parts of the world where water is a great commodity. They do not want it in bottles. They want it in a bulk form.

As the hon. Member for Port de Grave said, if we talk about our fish industry and we are talking about sending live fish out of Newfoundland because that is what the industry and the market wants, but we are not going to send it all out like that. We are not going to send all of our water out in bulk.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: We were talking about a $32 million proposal to put a major docking facility in Grand Le Pierre, a pipeline from the community of Grand Le Pierre into Gisborne Lake. In addition to that he was going to put a bottling plant, and in addition to the bottling plant there was going to be a plant to make the bottles themselves. It was a very comprehensive proposal, a very comprehensive industry. He was talking about 120 jobs. A $32 million investment that would have provided 250 person years of work in the construction of the bottling plant, the pier and the pipeline.

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

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

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

Just for my own benefit. I wonder if the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, in talking about the bottling plant and the major investment, if he might explain? While he was on CBC Radio talking about the benefits, at the same time the former Premier canned the issue because of the concerns that were out there publicly. Could he explain why there is just a divergence in opinion? Why the government of the day -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I am asking a question, I say to the Minister of Finance. It is my understanding you have to be in your chair if you want to talk across the House.

Why is there such a difference in opinion? What happened during that time? Again, it is just a question.

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. BARRETT: Obviously, there is no point of order.

One of the reasons why there were such confusions is because we had people like the Member for St. John's South who was on the airwaves with misinformation and being very careless with the truth.

I was saying that the proposal for Gisborne Lake was talking about taking water out of Gisborne Lake -

MR. H. HODDER: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley, on a point of order.

MR. H. HODDER: Madam Speaker, we have to try to abide by some kind of parliamentary procedures. Accusing another member of this Legislature of being careless with the truth is indeed trying to do through the backdoor what you really should not do at all, and I think that would be ruled to be unparliamentary. It is casting aspersions and intention, which is unparliamentary and unbecoming of a minister of the Crown to refer to another member of this Legislature in these kinds of terms. I would ask Madam Speaker if you would rule in that regard and ask the minister to withdraw these disparaging comments.

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

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, on a point of order.

MR. REID: The hon. member opposite just talked about there has to be some rules and regulations here, but I watched him this afternoon and rose on four or five points of order that were not points of order. All he is doing is disrupting the proceedings here in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MADAM SPEAKER: I ruled there was no point of order.

MR. BARRETT: What I had indicated to the hon. member was that the hon. Member for St. John's South was on the public airwaves saying that the water was going to leave Gisborne Lake to be bottled in Montreal. If that was not a misrepresentation of what the whole proposal was about - I can assure you that the hon. Member for St. John's South never read the proposal about Gisborne Lake and never understood the proposal about Gisborne Lake. He was caught up in this NAFTA -

AN HON. MEMBER: He never had anyone to read it to him.

MR. BARRETT: And never had anybody read it to him either. He was very, very careless with his information. He never read the proposal to start with. I would like for the hon. member to admit this afternoon that he never, ever, looked in detail at what the proposal for Gisborne Lake was all about. He never read the proposal or neither did he have anybody read it to him. Right now we are talking about if the Gisborne Lake proposal had gone through. Right now we are talking about the Burin Peninsula of Newfoundland that is going through a rough time. There would have been 250 people right now, as we speak, working on the dock, the pipeline, the bottling plant and the other infrastructure that would have to be put in place in Grand Le Pierre. It would have been a great economic boost for the Burin Peninsula. But, the hon. Member for St. John's South, who never, ever read the proposal, was on everyday: Hi Bill, Hi George, Hi Bas - because Bas was on in those days, I think. He went on there with misinformation.

We heard the same sort of situation the other night. When I was driving in over the Trans-Canada the Member for St. John's East was calling in and saying: Eliminate the road tax. It is the only way we are going to bring the price of gasoline down. We are going to have to eliminate the road tax. Just calling in with a little bit of information for people -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: The hon. Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne will have his opportunity to speak in this debate. He can get up at any time and speak. We all know where he stands when there is an issue that faces his constituents. We all know where you stand. You would not get up in your seat, when I was here the last time. When the issue of the divided highway through Whitbourne was a major issue he sat in that seat and never even spoke on behalf of his constituents.

MR. H. HODDER: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, there are certain tolerances we have in the Legislature. One of them is to be patient and all of that kind of thing, but when this minister stands up and looks across the Legislature and says that now he is all in favour of the Gisborne Lake development. If my memory is correct, and I want the record to show this today, because he stood and supported the government's legislation which, in essence, cancelled the whole bulk water. Now, he cannot have it two ways. He is now a member of Cabinet. Is he telling us that at that time he did not support the caucus decision, the Liberal government's decision? Because when Division was called, and the record will show in Hansard, he stood in his place and voted with the government's proposal to cancel all of the bulk water shipments and proposals that were being discussed at that time -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Could the member conclude his point of order?

MR. H. HODDER: The minister today is being inconsistent, a flip-flop. In fact, he is spinning around so fast we do not know which side he is on. He stood in his place and voted against the very thing that he is - in fact, he voted for the principles being put forward, at that time, by the Member for St. John's South. He was one of his supporters.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I say there is a point of order here that the minister is inconsistent. The record will show that what he is saying today is inconsistent with his actions some months ago.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. BARRETT: The hon. Member for Waterford Valley is - I don't know what he had for breakfast this morning but whatever was in his Corn Flakes is pretty sharp. He keeps interrupting. He is getting up on silly points of order all the time.

The hon. Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, there is no doubt where this member stood on Gisborne Lake. There was no doubt whatsoever. This member publicly told everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador where he stood on Gisborne Lake. He told everybody. He told this Caucus, told the Premier, the former, former Premier, where he stood on Gisborne Lake. There is no doubt whatsoever, and the public record is there. You can go back to Hansard when we debated the legislation. I said that the Premier was wrong in terms of his decision at that time, and I still say that the former Premier was wrong.

Unlike the hon. Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, when there was a major issue that was going to eliminate 120 jobs in his district, and his colleagues all around him came in here with petitions, he sat in his seat and never opened his mouth. He never opened his mouth to support the people of Whitbourne, Markland, and those communities there. He was prepared to give up 120 jobs in Whitbourne that have the highway divided -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: I say to the Minister of Transportation, that to ask me about a situation where the government, at the time you were asking, did not even have a plan. Even to this day I am not sure, minister, if there is a plan for the completion of the road along the section that we are talking about. When you talk about getting on my feet, I certainly will get on my feet and speak for the people of Whitbourne when I see it necessary, but I will not be goaded into getting up and speaking just for the sake of speaking.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: I will say to the minister again, let's stick to the issue of today and let's deal with the issue of today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. BARRETT: The people of Whitbourne and Markland tell me that the hon. member is ill-informed and don't know what is going on. He just proved what they are saying in Whitbourne and Maryland, that he doesn't know what is happening in his district.

MR. TULK: You are absolutely right. I was there for a meeting last week (inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: Yes. He does not know what is happening with the highway in Whitbourne he said. A major decision in his district and he does not know what is happening. That is why they are saying in Whitbourne and Markland that he does not know what is happening. You should go out and start representing your constituents.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, I take the minister to task. I never said that. What I did say is that at the particular time that you are referring to there was not a specific plan on the table, in this House, or ever, that was going to be looked at as the construction took place. That is what I said minister.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TULK: Just to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

For a gentleman who said that he was not going to be goaded, I think he has been goaded and goaded, to the point where every time the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation speaks he has to jump up.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. minister's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I sat here all afternoon listening to a bit of a debate on resources and, in particular, on fisheries and aquaculture. Of course, a lot of the people who were doing a lot of the talking did very little in the way of fishing over the years. Although they were talking about a $1 billion industry annually in the last couple of years in particular here in the Province, I guess the comments here this afternoon are sort of typical of the problem that we have in the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador. A lot of the people who do a lot of the talking about the fishery, unfortunately, have not had much time in boats.

I see the former minister is back. I knew he would not want to miss my comments, so he hastened to get back in to listen to what I had to say.

I listened to the former minister, and I listen to the minister from time to time, talking about some of the issues in the fishery here in Newfoundland and Labrador. I listen to them talking about how productive our industry has been over the past number of years in particular. At the same time as I listen to it, I wonder where the department's strategy has been and where the department's strategy is today for the further development or the continuing development, or any vision whatsoever for the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I am, of course, in talking, just looking at my own district and in particular the northern part of the Province, the Northeast Coast. I look back over the past five years in particular, and I see the development of a shrimp industry on this coast. While I look around at the development of the shrimp fishing industry, the shrimp processing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, where the shrimp is being caught, where the shrimp is being landed, and I look at where the shrimp plants are actually built, I suggest that we have not had much of a strategy for developing the processing sector in Newfoundland and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: What? (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: What? I have been in the boats, Sir, and I have been involved with the fishery.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I listen with great interest to the hon. Member for The Straits & White Bay North. It is a very interesting speech, but I am just wondering. Recently, I was at a conference in Labrador and he spoke at that conference. He is also the critic for Labrador. He said at that conference that he had to admit that he knew nothing about Labrador. I am just wondering now, is he coming from the same knowledge base on the fishery as he is coming from issues in Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would suggest to the Minister of Transportation, the Member for Bellevue, that he did not hear me say I knew nothing about Labrador. I will tell him here in the House today what I told him outside the House today, that I spoke in response to the statement of the Minister for Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, that I grew up part of my life in Labrador. My mother was born in Labrador and lived in Labrador, my father taught in Labrador for about ten years, and a lot of my family still reside in Labrador. I have spent a lot of time in Labrador. Ever since I left there at the age of seven, I have been back just about every year since. I have landed a good bit of fish in Labrador over the years. I tell the Minister of Transportation that I have forgotten more about Labrador than he will ever know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: I would also tell him, Sir, that after seventeen years now since I graduated from high school, and three years before I graduated from high school, shoveling ice on a wharf, car pooling, driving a forklift, and the last seventeen years in various capacities in the fishing industry, from the depth of a boat, from the end of a dip net out to Bell Island, sculling on cod bags, to sitting with the fishermen's union, the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, in my past three years as a skipper of a boat, and here today as the critic for Fisheries and Aquaculture, that I have forgotten more about fish than he will ever know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I think I might have touched a nerve with some members on the other side of the House when I said that there was not much of a strategy for the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador. I guess that is understandable. Considering they have been the government for the past twelve years, you would understand a bit of a problem, but let me

point out why I say that, Mr. Speaker. I look around at where the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, that is right. We will see who is Liberal on that side of the House before the next election.

Mr. Speaker, I should clarify my comments on the lack of a strategy, I guess, because today we have shrimp plants operating in the Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: What did you say?

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

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Bonavista South, on a point of order.

MR. FITZGERALD: I wonder if the Member for Bay of Islands would like to tell the House about the phone call he made to a certain individual sitting on this side of the House as to what his intentions might be in a few weeks time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will try and carry on with the debate, I guess, Mr. Speaker, and point out some of the places where our fishery strategy, if indeed we have one, is lacking. The former minister spoke about it and I have spoken about this from time to time over the past couple of months with the current minister. Today, as we speak, we have thirteen or fourteen offshore shrimp fishing vessels fishing in Canadian water, fishing the Canadian stock, as the minister knows. Did I say foreign? I didn't mean to say foreign, if I did. Offshore factory freezer trawlers that are fishing in Canadian waters landing northern shrimp. Of course, a lot of that, as the minister said, is going to the market. As the former minister said and as the current minister knows, what we have here is a case where some of the fish is going to the market in a somewhat unprocessed state. That is understandable to some extent because the market requires fish from time to time in various product forms. However, roughly 20 per cent, I would suggest to the House, of that shrimp is industrial shrimp.

I was in Iceland - you know, I haven't been confined to Gunners Cove all my life, I have been around a little bit. I have actually caught fish in Iceland and I have actually caught fish in Nicaragua, so I have been around a little bit. I have also caught shrimp off the Northeast Coast. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, while I was in Iceland three years ago, almost at this time, I guess it was, I toured a couple of shrimp plants there, three or four shrimp plants. One of the shrimp plants that we were going through one day was processing industrial shrimp. I suspect some members of the House would know that a great deal of the shrimp that goes through Icelandic plants comes from vessels like the Arctic Prawns and the Ocean Prawns and maybe the Northern Eagle and the Northern Osprey, but certainly Canadian vessels that are fishing Canadian shrimp in Canadian waters that are landed in Canadian ports, to some extent. Some of it was landed in Greenland ports and Icelandic ports, whatever, other ports outside of Canada, but the vast majority of it was landed in Canadian ports, and a vast majority of that was landed in Newfoundland ports.

To get back to my original point, our fishery strategy is lacking. I don't know why this is. Maybe somebody can point out to me why this is the case.

MR. EFFORD: You told me that you know more about the fishery than I will ever know. You have forgotten more than I will ever know. You tell us why.

MR. TAYLOR: I don't know why. There is a provincial policy, Mr. Speaker, that says that fish landed in Newfoundland is processed in Newfoundland. The former minister actually spoke about it when he was up about an hour ago talking. He talked at length about it. I would like to know why, and I have asked the present minister why that is the case.

MR. EFFORD: But you know why.

MR. TAYLOR: Just a minute now. There are a couple of reasons why, and there are a couple of things that can be dealt with. To say that it can't be dealt with is to throw up your arms, the same, I guess, as they do with a lot of other issues in the fishery in this Province.

That 20 per cent of the industrial shrimp that comes ashore here goes right on directly to Iceland and the reason it goes there is because of a tariff. I know why it goes there. That is what you are going to tell me, I guess. It goes there because there is a 20 per cent or 25 per cent tariff. It varies, depending on the volume that we put into the market, on Canadian shrimp or Canadian fish products going into the European Union. I know that. But we have a processing policy here in Newfoundland that says that fish landed in Newfoundland is processed in Newfoundland. So why can't we say that shrimp landed in Newfoundland is processed in Newfoundland to the offshore fleets, the same as we say it to the less than sixty-five foot fleet? That is what I would like to know. I guess we are scared that they are going to run across the Gulf and land in Nova Scotia. I suppose the former minister or the current minister is going to tell me that there is where the problem is. What I would suggest: How come the federal government, the late, great, Brian Tobin, who is off to Ottawa now - how come there is nothing being done to deal with the import tariff that the European Union has on our fish products? That is what I would like to know.

I know that we cannot forced the European Union into changing their policy, not easily anyway. Maybe we can over time. I ask the question: Why can't we enforce our processing policy here across the board? If we cannot, why can't the federal government institute an export tariff on unprocessed fish going out of Canada to the Europe Union, and see if we can deal with it that way? I do not know if it can be done, but it is a question.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, there are other issues there. We have lump roe here in Newfoundland. There is a fish plant in Englee and not a thing to do. There is a fish plant in Twillingate and not a thing to do today. I don't know what it will be in a couple of weeks time. There are many fish plants around this Province.

On lump roe, for example, it goes to the European market again unprocessed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) too many fish plants?

MR. TAYLOR: Too many fish plants? That is what the former minister said a few minutes ago, that there are too many fish plants. Did I say there were too many fish plants? Did you hear me say there were too many fish plants?

Perhaps this evening, if the Member for Bay of Islands hasn't anything to do, he can pick up Hansard and see what I actually said here this afternoon on how many fish plants we have in the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: What kind of language is that over there anyway?

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I certainly did not suggest that there were too many fish plants, and I never said there were too few fish plants. There are fish plants in this Province, and it comes right back to my point that if we had the 20 per cent industrial shrimp that is now going out of the Province unprocessed, to be processed in the Province, I am sure it might help the viability of some of the existing shrimp plants. If we had something that would deal with the fact that we have lump roe going out of the Province on an annual basis, unprocessed, with a bit of salt thrown in a barrel and shipped off to Europe, to Montreal, to wherever, unprocessed, I know this kind of stuff cannot be dealt overnight; but if we decided that over five years we were going to get to a point where a certain amount of this was processed in the Province, we would be able to give some of this communities in this Province a chance to get their plants reopened, or to increase employment in these places.

It is clear that we do not know where we are going with the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador. Yes, we can get up and talk, and I can talk here today about the $1 billion industry. I can talk about landing 520,000 lbs. of shrimp last year; and talk about fish and crab and all of that; and vessel replacement and that, but the problem that we have in the industry here is that we have knee-jerk reactions to particular problems that develop from time to time, and we do not have a clear strategy for where we want to go with the harvesting sector or the processing sector in the Province.

We are here today in this Province talking about a potential 20 per cent increase in the shrimp quota off the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. At the same time that we are talking about a 20 per cent increase in this quota, we have no strategy for the very fish that are going to come ashore if we increase that quota.

As the minister, the former minister - I cannot help it - says from time to time about vessel replacement, many people in the industry talk about vessel replacement and question the rules and regulations that we have to -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: I do not know, Sir.

MR. EFFORD: You do so know!

MR. TAYLOR: I would ask, Sir, what we want to do. I would like to know what we would like to do with the -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible). How do you know that?.

MR. TAYLOR: Sir, I cannot help. I am not Mr. Richard Cashin's keeper. I do not speak for Richard Cashin. I speak for Trevor Taylor and the people of The Straits & White Bay North right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: The former minister, the Member for Port de Grave, can call -

MR. SULLIVAN: He ran for their party (inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: That is right.

Anyway, I cannot answer what Mr. Richard Cashin says about vessel replacement policy. The problem that we have today is that there is nobody providing a reason why we should change vessel replacement policy, other than we would like to have a bigger boat for safety purposes. Well, that is fine.

MR. EFFORD: That is not correct.

MR. TAYLOR: Okay, it is not correct. If it is not correct, then tell me why we need to change it. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the former minister, the Member for Port de Grave, says that we should change vessel replacement rules. There are many people in the industry who say - I am not saying we should or we should not. I think there are -

MR. EFFORD: Should we or did we?

MR. TAYLOR: If you would listen, Sir, you would probably hear what I have to say. I sat down and listened to what you said all afternoon, Sir. I have listened to you for seventeen years and now I have my chance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: And before I am finished, you will have seventeen years of listening to me!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: The hon. member should sit down and think about the years that he was on the FRCC, when it took the FRCC fifteen years to make up their mind as to whether seals did or did not eat fish! You were on the FRCC, and it is only now today they are convinced that seals do eat fish!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, thank you.

Obviously, like I said, I have forgotten more about the fishery than a lot of people in this House will ever know. I would like to point out to the Member for Port de Grave that the FRCC was not in place for seventeen years. It is not -

MR. EFFORD: I made presentations for the FRCC (inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: The Member for Port de Grave said that it took the FRCC seventeen years, I believe he said, to make up its mind if seals eat fish. I recall a second meeting that I sat on the FRCC - I forget the name of the hotel in Halifax - where we discussed seals and we issued a paper that fall on seal consumption that was maligned and chastised by many people in the Province, in the scientific community and elsewhere. The FRCC, while I was on it, was consistent year after year on making statements on seals, and the need for a reduction in the seal herd. If he does not believe it, I can get the reports and he can get the reports that say it. I understand the member's frustrations about seals. I understand and share them completely, but the problem with the statements on seals, they have been from DFO science, not from the FRCC and not from the industry.

MR. EFFORD: I will tell what the FRCC (inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Well, you can get up on another day perhaps and say it.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I do not know if we are gaining much by going down through history. I am talking about the future because that is where I plan to spend most of my time. What we need to do today to deal with the industry that we have been discussing is to make it better for the people who are left in it and the people who are going to make a living from it years down the road. We have been questioning cod quotas in the past couple of weeks in this House. I rose on a couple of occasions and asked questions to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo - do I have that right? I apologize if I have not - on cod quotas and this government's position on cod quotas.

MR. SPEAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: One minute left, sit down and be good. Right on.

As we know, there was a reduction again this year in the quotas of cod on the South Coast of the Province. We have very low quotas in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. I guess the question is: What is the government's position on cod quotas when they are at low levels, and how they should be allocated? Because the answer is very important to the small boat fishermen of the Province, and is very important to the small communities that the small boat fishery depends upon. Certainly, I would suggest that, at low levels, quotas should be harvested by the small boat fishermen.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I think you gave me one minute. I am not going to bother looking for leave. I do not want to drive the Member for Port de Grave's blood pressure any higher than it already is, so thank you very much and I will sit down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave, by leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, we are on concurrence. As I understand, unless the rules have changed -

AN HON. MEMBER: We are not in Committee.

MR. TULK: Yes, we are. We are in Committee of the Whole.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, (inaudible).

MR. TULK: We are in Committee of the Whole, as I understand it. Am I correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you are not.

MR. TULK: We cannot go back and forth here?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, (inaudible).

MR. TULK: In concurrence, you cannot go back and forth?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Okay, good enough.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has not recognized the Member for Port de Grave, because in concurrence debate you have one opportunity to speak. The member has had his opportunity and no leave has been given.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have listened all afternoon with a great deal of interest and amusement at some of the discussions that took place here.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak a little bit about the resources today, too, but I am going to stick to basically transportation and I will keep it to the Labrador section of the Province. I do not know if you know as much about transportation in Labrador as you do about everything else, but maybe I will give you a little bit of information on it.

Mr. Speaker, if we bring ourselves back about ten or twelve years, we had one way to get across Labrador and that was by air. I want to talk a little bit today about the value of the money that this government has spent. We have heard a lot from the other side about the money that government has spent that has not have been of any value. Well, I want to say to you in this particular few minutes that the money that this government has put into the Trans-Labrador Highway is very beneficial; if not to some of the people on the other side, it has certainly been to the people of Labrador. That is what I want to talk a bit about, Mr. Speaker.

Ten to twelve years ago, the people of Labrador had one way to get across the total land from Labrador West to Goose Bay to the Coast, and that was by air. That was it, and snowmobile in the winter. Mr. Speaker, in 1995-1996, a lot of people were requesting that funding be put into a major drive to get the Trans-Labrador Highway finished, which would connect up at least Goose Bay with Labrador West and the rest of Canada. Mr. Speaker, in 1997, when this government made a deal with the federal government to get $340 million to construct a Trans-Labrador Highway -

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. member, so I ask hon. members to keep the noise level down.

The hon. the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe it is not worth hearing, Mr. Speaker, but I am going to continue. In 1997, this government signed a deal with the federal government for the expenditure of $340 million, two ships, to see the construction of the Trans-Labrador Highway and also to continue to provide coastal service and marine service to the rest of the people in Labrador who would not avail of the Trans-Labrador Highway.

I have to speak a little bit about what the Member for Labrador West said in this House on April 2. I just want to put that in context a little bit. He said that building the Trans-Labrador Highway was like starting the Trans-Canada Highway on the Island portion of the Province. Building it from Port aux Basques to Grand Falls, and then from St. John's to Clarenville, was a waste, was not worth it. Well, let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the $60 million that was spent in 1997 and 1998 on the 500 kilometres of dirt road between Goose Bay and Labrador West, I can assure you, has been a great benefit to the people who live in that area and also to the people who do business in that area; because the money that was put into the construction of that highway improved the highway so much that instead of taking twelve to fifteen hours to drive, we could now drive that highway in five-and-a-half hours, which is a huge improvement. It also improved the situation as far as tractor trailer traffic providing goods and services to the area. It reduced the cost because it reduced the wear and tear on the vehicles when the road was improved. If people do not understand that, they should take a drive on a tractor trailer truck between Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Labrador West. I can assure you that when you reduce the wear and tear on the vehicles, it will reduce the cost of the goods and services to the people who us that. I can assure you that the benefits to those people, contrary to what the Member for Labrador West might feel about it, is greatly appreciated and the $60 million was not wasted. It was a good investment and it continues to be a good investment.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we did not stop there. We went down to the Labrador Straits and indicated to them that Phase II of this particular development for about $120 million would see a road access similar to what we got in Labrador West to Goose Bay, to construct a highway between the Labrador Straits and Cartwright. That started two years ago, and we will see this year the tie-in of Charlottetown, Port Hope Simpson and St. Lewis along with Mary's Harbour, Lodge Bay which is tied in now.

I can tell the Member for Labrador West that if he does not think that is of any benefit to those people down in the area, I would suggest he go down there and have a look.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Because certainly, Mr. Speaker, by the time this section of the highway is finished next year, he can go to Cartwright even and then ask the people in Cartwright if they think that this is of any benefit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, the expenditure of this $120 million is a big investment and a huge investment and a great benefit to that area, not only for the traffic but also for the same reason as the Labrador West to Goose Bay route has improved the economy. The tractor trailers are going to be able to travel that road. They are going to be able to take the goods and services. They are going to be able to take the surplus. They are going to be able to take the product out of that area that currently has to wait for ships. They are going to be able to now load and go at any point in time. Mr. Speaker, with the new shrimp plant in Charlottetown, with the other fish plants in the other communities, this is going to be a huge improvement to the way that we can move the product from the place where it is produced.

I did hear the Member for Cape St. Francis earlier this afternoon speak about the Apollo.

MR. J. BYRNE: Don't go there.

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, another good investment. In case he has not been that far north -

MR. J. BYRNE: I have been there. (Inaudible).

MR. McLEAN: - I would suggest to him that he talk to the people on the Labrador Straits to see if that is an improvement to what they had from the other ship that they used to operate. That expenditure from this particular allocation is of a great benefit for the people in that area. It will also improve the whole service all the way from Cartwright right down when that highway is finished. Mr. Speaker, when you put a ship like that on, it improves the tourist capacity as well in order to move tourists up through that area.

MR. E. BYRNE: Minister, is all of that boat open now? Is all of that boat open for everyone to bunk anywhere they want (inaudible)?

MR. McLEAN: The boat? The Apollo?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes.

MR. McLEAN: Is it open?

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) two-thirds of the ship not accessible to anybody?

MR. McLEAN: My understanding is they are not going to use the rooms because it only an hour-and-a-half crossing. It is only a straight crossing and they do not need that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order.

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

The minister indicated that his understanding is that all of that boat was not being used because there was not enough traffic or something. Correct me if I am wrong, but when the Apollo was announced, extra capacity that was going to be used to facilitate the number of tourists, could he tell me why two-thirds of that boat is still not accessible to passengers or crew today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That ship was designed and contracted on this particular service to provide a service that it is providing. It is a great improvement to what it was previous with the other ship.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: What we are being told by the people in the business is that in four to five years, when the whole road is finished up to Cartwright, we may have to look for another ship that has a bigger capacity. We may have to look at another port. All those kinds of things are very positive in terms of what this government is doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, along with the improvements that this highway is doing for the Coast of Labrador we are also considering improvements that we can make to the other areas that are not going to be serviced by the road. All the north coast is still going to have to have shipping. We want to provide ships that will be suitable for that particular service and improve the service to a great deal.

The other communities on the south coast that are not going to be serviced by a road will also require a ferry service to be connected to that. That is what we are doing right now, dealing with finding the appropriate ships and finding the appropriate docking facilities. That is what this investment that this government is doing, is providing those positive things that will see improvements to the shipping and also the movement of goods and services on the Coast of Labrador.

The minister just mentioned forestry to me. Forestry in Labrador; the resource is there. There is lots of resource. What we have to do is find the right way to do it. This government has put in place a number of initiatives that will provide the right way of doing it. We have a number of initiatives already in play along the coast, and also in central Labrador, to ensure that this forest industry is developed in the best interest and the most value to the people who live there, which is the people. We are continuing to do those kinds of things that will improve the lifestyle of people in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I could talk about mining. I could talk about the fishery. I could talk about the Lower Churchill. There are all kinds of those initiatives that this government has worked on and is continuing to work on, to ensure that we utilize the resources in Labrador to the best interest of the people in Labrador and the Province.

In Goose Bay alone, representing my district, we have increased the amount of low level flying. That is the prime product of that area. We always had the British, the Dutch, and the Germans. Last year we were able to attract the Italians to do their low level flying. This year we are going to have the French Air Force as well. We continue to try to attract other militaries so that they can utilize the air space that we have. That is, I believe, the way that this government has moved forward.

Also, the development and the institution of the new department really focuses on the fact that Labrador has a great lot of potential to support this Province, to support the economy of this Province, and continue to grow as we move through the next few years.

I will end on the note of the land claims. The land claims is another huge issue that this government is taking a very positive approach to dealing with in a very positive way so that we can, at the end of the day, when the land claims are settled, it will be, again, in the best interest of the Aboriginals, ensuring that they benefit from these agreements, that the non-Aboriginals will not be, in any way, adversely affected or impacted by these agreements and that development can move ahead in a very positive way, such as the Voisey's Bay development, the forestry developments, and the dimensional stone, which is another big issue on the north coast.

Mr. Speaker, these are a few comments I wanted to make in a positive way to show what this government is doing in the Labrador portion of our Province to ensure that we are moving in the right direction.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise too and add a few comments to the debate that is taking place here today. I would like to first address some of the statements made by the minister as he just spoke and some of the things that he has taken out of context, to a large degree.

It is not that it is a waste of money for the road work that has been done. What I said is that the road needs to be connected. If you are going to look at a Trans-Labrador Highway; Trans-Labrador Highway does not mean roads with a 200 kilometer gap in the middle. That is not a Trans-Labrador Highway. The Trans-Labrador Highway to me, and to the people in Labrador that I talk to, talks about a Trans-Labrador Highway where you can drive from Labrador West, right across Labrador to Happy Valley-Goose Bay, down the coast and across to the Island portion, if that is what you want, and hopefully, someday, drive up through Quebec from that south coast, Straits area, as well.

I would also like to say to the minister that I noticed the RNC officer was sitting there when he was speaking. I would advise him to be very careful because five-and-a-half hours from Goose Bay to Labrador City, a distance of over 500 kilometers, I want to advise the minister that the speed limit on that highway is 70 kilometers an hour. You should be very careful.

Mr. Speaker, the money that the government has put into the Trans-Labrador Highway - we all know, and I do not think there is any disagreement in this House, that the highway is long overdue. The only way to travel throughout Labrador, at the present time even, is by airplane. That, as the members here from Labrador and the people who live there know, is very, very expensive. A road is necessary. It is needed, and it can be an all year round road. As some of the pundits said, would not be able to be possible, but I think since the road has been put through from Labrador West to Goose Bay there are very few times during the year that that road is closed due to storms or lack of snow removal. It is possible to have an all weather road that will be open twelve months of the year. As I said, the connection between Cartwright to Goose Bay is a very critical part of linking up the Trans-Labrador Highway. Right now there is no funding allocated to complete that section of road. The former, former Premier, Premier Tobin at the time, said that the Province would come up with the money to complete that section. So far there is not even an environmental impact assessment done on that section, and it goes through some pretty delicate territory that will need a lot of study before road construction can take place.

In talking about transportation. In Labrador there is also another mode of transportation that is used for approximately five months of the year, and that is the ferry service from Goose Bay to Lewisporte. I might point out to the members, that last year was a complete disaster when the ferry service was supposed to start. The Sir Robert Bond, the principle job of that ferry is to provide transportation between Labrador and Lewisporte. Last year was a complete shamble. That boat was not ready until well after a month when it was supposed to go into service. The problem which prevented that, to my knowledge, was known about well in advance but corrective action was not taken. That cost the traveling public and this Province a lot of money because a lot of tourists booked that ferry well in advance, in February month, only to travel from distant destinations, drove all the way across Labrador to find out that the ferry was not operating as scheduled. Many of them turned around and drove all the way back again. That was their first experience to our Province and I can tell you, the people I talked to who did that, it was not a great experience. I do not expect to see them back again this year.

The people from Labrador who were traveling back to the Island portion of our Province incurred additional costs as a result of extra hotel bills because of not being able to get their vehicles at the same time that they arrived at their destination. I understand, and I know, that some of these expenses were picked up and paid for by the operators of the ferry service, but that did not happen in all cases. So there are a lot of transportation issues in Labrador to deal with. The minister, in making statements that it was a waste of money, it is not. The road connection that is done now is very important to the people of Labrador. That the road is extended into their communities is very important.

I can understand what that road link means to them because for the first twenty-three or twenty-four years that I lived in Labrador West, the only option that we had to travel outside the area was either fly or put our vehicle on the train a week in advance and then take the train to Seven Islands, a trip of twelve or fourteen hours. The road link has certainly changed our ability to be able to travel outside of the immediate area in a very positive degree.

The minister also, when he was speaking earlier, talked about the number of initiatives that are taking place in Labrador. He spoke specifically about mining and about the Lower Churchill issues related to that. He is right. That was an initiative that was taken. Unfortunately, there were only serious discussions held during election times. Once the election was over, we have not heard many new thoughts or new initiatives generated from their perspective on these issues from that point in time. His new department, that will be situated in the Happy Valley-Goose Bay area - it will be interesting to see whether or not the minister extends that office with representatives in other areas of Labrador. Because to put it in Happy Valley-Goose Bay is almost as remote to a lot of areas of Labrador, because of the geographics and because of the connections, than it would be if it were on some part of the Island.

There is a lot of work to be done regarding transportation, regarding issues pertaining to Labrador. I look forward to the day when the road link will be complete, when people will have the ability to travel across Labrador and on to the Island portion of the Province, or vice versa, on a road that will be up to standards, opened year round, and will provide the ability for people to transverse back and forth.

I conclude my remarks with that, Mr. Speaker. I know there are others here who are trying to get an opportunity to speak. I will allow them to do that.

Thank you.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to say a few words on concurrence debate on resources. It was interesting, I say to members opposite, to listen to my colleague, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, get up and demonstrate the great knowledge of the fishery; to hear him talking about the places that he has fished; to hear him talk about the different sectors of the fishery that he took part in. While we all stand here sometimes and talk about things that we heard other people say and talk about things that we have seen, it is pretty interesting when you have a fellow like that who can get up and talk about his hands-on approach. How he grew up in Labrador and how he took part in the fishery as a fisherman and demonstrated great skills and knowledge on his ability to be able to go and share his knowledge with other countries. He went to Nicaragua and took part in a training program in order to teach people in other countries his skills and his knowledge of the fishery. It is certainly rewarding to have a member of his caliber here in the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: When we talk about resources, I guess the first thing that comes to mind is the topic that we have all heard many times. I suppose the saying is how we can be in such desperate shape in rural Newfoundland and Labrador with so many resources. So many things -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Absolutely, I say to the member. It was obvious today when he talked with you back and forth in the House, when he set you straight and let you know what his knowledge was.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: The minister's knowledge of the fishery was that he happened to get into a fishing boat that came across from Woody Island to Garden Cove one day and got the smell of fish on him. That is about his extent in the fishery, I say to members opposite.

There are a lot of people here in this House who know a great deal more about the fishery than I do, I can guarantee you that, and I am the first one to admit that. Like the member talked about the ceiling today. She was talking about the ceiling this and the ceiling something else.

It is an industry that has provided great opportunities to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and I guess a lot of people in this Province are waiting with anticipation and with a great amount of fear, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, in what will happen tomorrow at the Delta Hotel when we see a dissident board of directors looking at possibly taking over a company in this Province which has provided great opportunities to nine communities, if we want to single them out separately as to where they are directly involved, and into the whole fishing industry, because it goes much further than the nine communities where this company has a presence. It goes to the heart of the whole fishing industry, and a lot of people are watching with great anticipation and with great fear. Fear of the unknown of what might happen tomorrow once the election takes place by allowing the shareholders of the present Fishery Products International being allowed to elect a new slate to the board of directors that will ultimately decide the future and the direction of that particular company.

I always talk about my involvement with Fishery Products International. I talk about it via basis of me and my knowledge, having first-hand knowledge of getting up in the morning and putting on my rubber boots and going to work with Fishery Products International. First it was Nickerson's back in 1979, I think, was the first year that I went to work with Nickerson's. Then, when FPI was born back in 1984, I think it was, and it was the culmination of eight or ten other companies, then the group known as the Nickerson Group became part of Fishery Products International and at that particular time I went to work with that company, and I must say that it was always a company that included their workers, that included the people who got up in the morning and went to work. I do not know if I ever heard the President and CEO of Fishery Products International, when he talked about how well the company was doing or he talked about his involvement with the company without mentioning the people who were all part of making that company a success.

I know not everybody is in favour of what is happening with this particular company. A lot of people are on the outside looking in, who were unfortunate enough to have lost their jobs, and I think of communities like Charleston in my district. I think of communities like Trepassey and any one of probably another dozens different communities that had their fish plants closed, that are probably saying: Well, thank God, something is going to happen here. Maybe we will have another shot at this.

It is much bigger than that. It is much bigger than who is the person who is going to be the Chief Executive Officer of Fishery Products International. It is all about a business plan. It is all about people being informed. I remember a few days ago when we met with Mr. Risley and Mr. Crosbie and Mr Rowe. It was a situation that I raised a concern at that particular time in anticipation of what was happening, and those people telling us what their intentions were of taking over the company, and the reason why they were doing it. Nobody could tell us or show us, I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, what their business plan was. I have always been of the opinion that if you are going to do something for me and if it is going to be positive for me and if it is something that is going to be positive for this Province, then tell me what it is. If it is a good business plan, if it is something that we can compare, if it is something that we can look at and say yes, this will work, there would be no fears. There would be nobody coming out and saying, this is not allowed to happen. Because the people I talk to, Mr. Speaker, want to go to work. The people I have talked to are looking for a job. It is not a situation where somebody is happy because they are working eight weeks or ten weeks a year in order to qualify for EI.

Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader looks and nods his head. I think it is time to adjourn debate here. I am sure we will get an opportunity to carry on this discussion at another time, maybe tomorrow, and continue with my views and my thoughts on some of the things that have been brought forward here in the concurrence debate of the Budget.

With that, I will adjourn debate and allow the Government House Leader to direct the proceedings.

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

MR. LUSH: I move the appropriate motion, Mr. Speaker, that the House concur in the concurrence debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

Is it the pleasure of the House to concur in the Resource Committee?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their cooperation and advise them that tomorrow we will be carrying on with the concurrence debate, social policy.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.