The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, I would like to welcome to the gallery today the former member for the district of Conception Bay South, Patricia Cowan; and Mr. Jim Hearn, former chairperson of the Newfoundland and Labrador School Boards Association.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I would also like to welcome the former member for The Straits & White Bay North, Chris Decker, standing in the gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House at this time to congratulate the Community Youth Network in the Trinity-Conception area on the opening of their centre in Harbour Grace. The SPLASH Centre - which stands for Students Positively Learning, Achieving, Succeeding, Helping - was designed by young people, for young people, and also will provide transportation for the youth of the area to and from the facility at no extra cost.

The centre has a kitchen facility, fitness room, study area, computer room with Internet access as well as services such as youth counselling, peer tutoring, career counselling, and a mental health worker.

The centre was created for young people up to the age of eighteen and their involvement grants them input into any decisions made regarding the operation of the centre. The steering committee of the centre has twenty-five members, twelve of whom are young people. Other members of the committee come from the RCMP, social workers, educators, as well as people from Human Resources and Development and Human Resources and Employment. This facility provides young people with the opportunity to find outlets for their energies and gives them a sense of responsibility in that the facility is theirs to utilize how they see fit.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all members of this House to join me in congratulating the Trinity-Conception Community Youth Network, its volunteers, and the youth of the area on the opening of the SPLASH Centre and wishing them great success in their future endeavours.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the sixty-six members of Torbay's Holy Trinity Senior Concert Band and the twenty-one concert band members who make up the Holy Trinity Jazz Band for their outstanding showing in a national competition.

The concert band and the jazz band both won gold awards in the national Musicfest Canada competition final in Hull, Quebec in May of this year.

The national competition involves 8,000 students from across the country.

Both bands are under the directorship of Douglas Vaughan, whose dedication and expertise is unquestionably second to none in the country.

This is not the first time these bands have shone on the national stage. In 1995, both bands won gold in Calgary. In 1997, the jazz band won silver and the concert band won gold in Ottawa. In 1999, both bands won silver in Toronto. This year, they are number one.

In the past year alone, the cost of travel for the bands was $80,000, the majority of which was borne by the parents.

I would like to thank the present and former Ministers of Tourism, Culture and Recreation for their assistance in helping to offset a portion of those costs. It is clearly a sound investment to be supporting and promoting some of the best student musicians in the entire country. They deserve all the support and applause we can give them.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the news team at VOCM on winning the Edward R. Murrow Award for the best news cast in a small market.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: The Radio-Television News Directors Association has been honoring outstanding achievements in electronic journalism with the Edward R. Murrow Awards since 1971. Murrow's pursuit of excellence in journalism embodies the spirit of the award that carry his name. The Murrow Award recipients demonstrate a spirit of excellence and the highest standard for the electronic news profession.

Mr. Speaker, the relationship between the news media and politicians is sometimes described as adversarial but I think there is a realization that we both have a job to do. There is also a realization that when the job is done well society is better because of it.

I ask all members to join with me in congratulating VOCM on winning this major news award.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations to a former municipal colleague of mine in the City of Mount Pearl, Councillor Randy Simms, who was recently elected to the Presidency of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities.

Councillor Simms was first elected to the city council in Mount Pearl in 1989, and was re-elected in 1993, 1997, and in 2001. During those years, he has served as an Urban Director with the NLFM, and from1996 to 1998 he served as the Federation's Vice-President. He currently serves as Chairperson of Municipal Assessment Agency.

Mr. Speaker, President Randy Simms is a founding member of the Newfoundland Chapter of the Bruce Denninston Bone Marrow Society and has been honored as a life member of the Lions Foundation of Canada. In 1999, and again in the year 2000, he was named by District 41 S-2 of Lions as the Lion's Supporter of the Year.

Councillor Simms also serves as Executive Director of the VOCM Cares Foundation and KIXX Country Children's Trust Fund. He has been a long-time member of the local broadcasting community.

Mr. Speaker, the challenges facing municipalities in this Province today are many and diverse. I have every confident that President Simms will be an articulate and forceful voice on behalf of those communities that are a part of the Federation.

I am sure every member of this House wishes President Simms congratulations, and his board every success.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to acknowledge the great work of the Battle Harbour Literacy Council who have just been awarded the Canada Post Literacy Award for Community Leadership. This award honours non-profit, volunteer, and labour organizations that have demonstrated long-term achievement, innovation and organizational excellence in furthering the cause of literacy.

Having been a founding member of the Battle Harbour Literacy Council in 1995, I am very proud of their accomplishments and service to communities in the region. They have made remarkable progress in the field of literacy in the communities of Mary's Harbour, Lodge Bay and St. Lewis. To date, they have published three oral histories, one publication, Twine Lofts and Pantries is currently being used as a text book for a folklore course at Memorial University. The other two publications, Seniors Profile, and Our Time - Our Story features stories and profiles of seniors in the area and are used extensively in literacy programs they provide.

The Battle Harbour Literacy Council continues to expand and thrive in the literacy field. Their board, consisting of nine members from all the communities in the area, works extensively on a volunteer basis. Today I commend them, acknowledge them and their coordinators, Ms Marilyn Rumbolt and Ms Bonnie Rumbolt, for the work that they do in literacy in our Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to recognize today a very important group in our Province, known as the Protected Areas Association of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Protected Areas Association is a non-profit, non-governmental organization dedicated to the establishment of a network of protected natural areas in our Province, working towards the goals of a network of parks and reserves to preserve examples of all thirty-five of the eco-regions of our Province. I particularly would like to recognize a constituent of mine, Ms Laura Jackson, who acts as the executive director of this particular association.

Approximately two weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, there was a fund-raising event at the LSPU Hall, on behalf of the Protected Areas Association, and at that event included the following well-known Newfoundland personalities: Terry Rielly, Dermot O'Reilly, Gordon Quinton, Agnes Walsh, Delf Maria Hohmann, Christopher Newhook, the Cowan Heights Grade V Choir and the Barbara Ashley School of Dance.

Certainly, on behalf of my own constituents - and I am sure it is fair to say on behalf of all of us present - we certainly wish the Protected Areas Association of Newfoundland and Labrador well as it continues its work in this very worthwhile cause.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify statements made recently about the temporary layoff of employees in the engineering division of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation.

This year, twenty-six engineering employees will be laid off temporarily over the winter period due to seasonal shutdown of summer operations. These employees are primarily Engineering Aide II's, Materials Inspectors II's and Engineering Technicians. I would like to emphasize that these are not permanent layoffs. When construction projects resume in the spring, the twenty-six employees will be recalled.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that depending on weather conditions and the nature of the project, it is quite possible some current construction projects may continue into the winter. If this is the case, some of these twenty-six employees will not be laid off and their layoff notices will be rescinded.

Over the past several years, because of the magnitude of road construction projects, it was possible for the department to assign some of these twenty-six employees to winter surveys and other work required to support new projects, such as planning and design work. Unfortunately, we are coming to the conclusion of the $640 million federal-provincial Roads for Rail Agreement, signed in 1988. The new projects still to be done do not require winter survey work, and therefore the need for these crews no longer exists. In the past, we kept employees on when we could but that may not be possible this year.

Seasonal layoffs are an annual occurrence in the Department of Works, Services and Transportation due to the nature of our projects. Mr. Speaker, again I would like to emphasize that these layoffs are temporary and it is possible, depending on weather conditions, they may continue into the winter and they may not be laid off at all.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The Minister of Finance has recently stated that there would be no layoffs due to the restraints. Obviously, this is not so. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation referenced the Roads for Rail Agreement. That is in place for some thirteen years. There are people being laid off, Mr. Speaker, who have been working for over twenty years.

The minister is trying to rationalize these layoffs as being routine, and they are not routine. Many are being laid off for the first time. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is doing himself a disservice to his own credibility by trying to hoodwink the people of the Province and trying to get them to believe that this is routine. It is not, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As late as yesterday, the minister was dismissing this as all rumours and that he might know next week some time what the situation was in his own department. Now he tells us these are seasonal layoffs, but we know that some of the people being laid off have been there for twenty years without any layoff, long before the Roads for Rail Agreement, which the minister is using as an excuse, even started.

Mr. Speaker, even in his own statement he is further confusing the issue by saying that these projects do not require winter work, yet if the weather gets better they will be recalled.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: The minister is further adding confusion to the whole issue, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday in my final question to the Premier, I asked the Premier if the deficit for next year could be $100 million, $200 million, $300 million or $400 million. I did not receive an answer to that question.

This morning on CBC Radio, the Minister of Finance did not deny that the deficit could exceed $400 million next year; and when asked if it was likely, she quite honestly used the word "certainly".

Would the Premier tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador if it is likely that the government will incur a deficit of $400 million next year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, I invite all hon. members back to this Chamber in March when we will lay out the Budget for next year. Just as we did this year, Mr. Speaker, we will indicate, with the very best information we have available to the government at that time, what our sources of revenue will be, what our planned expenditures will be, which will show that there will either be a surplus or a deficit. Mr. Speaker, that is what the budgetary process is all about and that is what we will engage in, in March month, in a debate, a full debate here in this Legislature.

The other point is this, Mr. Speaker: What we are dealing with now is the circumstance in this particular fiscal year where there has been a change acknowledged several times publicly by the Minister of Finance, and again yesterday, that because of an increase for our public servants, that we are proud of - and I am glad now to know that the Opposition concurs with - that caused the deficit to go from $30 million to $60 million. Some recalculations, Mr. Speaker, from the Government of Canada caused the other $20 million, basically.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that in 1984-1985, Mr. John Collins, who was the Minister of Finance at the time, read a statement in the House saying that: We predicted a current account -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: We predicted a current account deficit of $32 million and I am now reporting, as a result of changes, Mr. Speaker, that the deficit will be $82 million.

That is what we are dealing with, Mr. Speaker, being honest and open with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, not dealing with speculation and rumor, and trying to scare people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: We have always put the facts before the people of the Province and we will continue to proudly do so, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Finance for her honest answer on CBC Radio this morning. Unfortunately, either the Premier does not know the answer or he is too embarrassed to say.

Yesterday, in response to one of my questions to the Premier, the Premier said there is no fiscal mismanagement. In fact, he said, "No, that is not the case." Those were your words, Premier. I told him he would hear the term mismanagement over, over and over again in this House.

Today, I would like to provide some examples of some decisions made while he was either a minister, or Premier, and ask the Premier if he feels that these decisions constitute mismanagement?

Mr. Premier, the Auditor General has said in her report that a government agency was actually paying insurance on cars that were scrapped or did not exist and, in fact, was paying insurance twice on the same car. Would you tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador whether that, in fact, constitutes mismanagement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the point that is being discussed, questioned and asked about is this: Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition, in making this particular point, talked about the Auditor General, as he is doing again today, and indicated that the Auditor General had expressed some concerns in her report. That happens to be a fact. It does indicate in that report that there are some concerns - I am glad that they are laughing, because - just as the Auditor General, in every single report from 1971 to 1989, expressed concerns. More so than concerns, look at 1974. Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER GRIMES: You can laugh.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: In 1974 - and the point is this - the Leader of the Opposition then tried to suggest that the Auditor General does not trust government. That has never been said by the Auditor General. The concerns raised in the last report were about accountability for outside agencies like hospital boards, school boards, and the university, and the fact that their reports should be tabled in the House.

Listen to the language, Mr. Speaker, from 1974.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, much more seriously than talking about concerns that outside agencies do not table their reports, in 1974 there were concerns about irregular payments, irregularities related to capital works, irregular charges and needless expenditures of public funds.

Mr. Speaker, I hope we can pursue this line of questioning further because it does deserve some more comment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to take his seat.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was in kindergarten when that first example was given, so I cannot remember, I really do not know, but I assume that the fact that he did not answer whether it was mismanagement or not is a yes. Another unanswered question.

Mr. Speaker, the government has paid $567,000 for flying lessons that were never used. Mr. Premier, does that constitute mismanagement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe we can refer to a time a little more current, when the Leader of the Opposition had graduated from kindergarten. Let's try 1986, in which again there were concerns expressed by the Auditor General.

The point I am making, Mr. Speaker, is that every single year there are some concerns expressed by the Auditor General, every single year. It is not an occurrence that happened last year for the first time or for the only time in history; every single year. Let me tell you this: The concerns expressed by the Auditor General were about - and I invite the Leader of the Opposition to read into the record the concerns actually registered - outside agencies not being compelled to file their reports in the Legislature. That was the concern.

Mr. Speaker, in 1986 the concerns were about fees being paid. Listen to this, Mr. Speaker: Not that an outside agency did not submit a report, but fees being paid without proper legislative authority. No authority to pay the fees, and other funds being dispersed without appropriate approvals.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: And in 1988, Mr. Speaker, a whole section in the Auditor General's Report - the last year that the member opposite supported then, and supports now, absolutely supported them, even though, Mr. Speaker, there was a full section about concerns regarding -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to take his seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Premier, you might want to use some of those unused flying lessons because you are flying by the seat of your pants in this Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, when the minister was Minister of Tourism -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Listen to this.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, when the Premier was Minister of Tourism, he abruptly disbanded the Cabot 500 Corporation and breached several contracts. He wrongfully dismissed several employees who successfully sued the government and won approximately $1 million in a court ordered decision.

Would the Premier tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador whether that constitutes mismanagement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, so that we do not lose the point of the question. Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition was trying to suggest that because - and it is a serious point - the Auditor General had written a statement which he took out of context, a statement which he conveniently took out of context - a nice move in a courtroom maybe, a nice move by a lawyer. But, Mr. Speaker, a statement taken out of context and the statement - because I invite the Leader of the Opposition to read the statement into the record - was the Auditor General has concerns about the fact that outside agencies are not accountable enough to the Legislature and that their statements are not tabled in the House of Assembly. That is concern raised by the Auditor General. So, yes, the Auditor General did say there was a concern.

It did not mention fiscal mismanagement like it did in reports earlier. The Leader of the Opposition in his final question yesterday said: The Auditor General does not trust you, Mr. Premier, why should we? The Auditor General has never, ever, said anything about not trusting the government. The Auditor General has always said that every single record that was submitted has been done in accordance with the Financial Administration Act -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - and proper accounting procedures, not the kind of shameful and disgraceful reports that were given when the members opposite, the party that they supported opposite -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to (inaudible).

PREMIER GRIMES: - were in place where it said there were irregular payments and things done without approbation. A different level of concern.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: The shameful action was your firing employees of the Cabot 500 and costing the people of Newfoundland and Labrador $1 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: As Minister of Tourism, do you think your actions constituted mismanagement? Yes or no, Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The issues that were dealt with at that time were done by me personally, acting as a Minister of the Crown with legal advice, which indicated that what I was doing was proper and legal. People challenged that. You would understand that as a lawyer. I accepted legal advice which said what I was doing was right and proper. Of course, we are not allowed to take legal advice now that you are now a part-time politician. Normally you would understand that.

The legal advice was that the action that we were taking was proper and appropriate. It was challenged. They had legal advice suggesting that it was not. It went to court, Mr. Speaker, and the courts ruled in favour of the former employees of the Cabot Corporation. A proper process, but not an action taken with any vindictiveness by the government or any intention to cause any kind of a problem for anybody. They can suggest that if they like, Mr. Speaker, and they will answer for that again in the court of public opinion which is where we deal because we are politicians who deal with the people of the Province, not the legal niceties.

Mr. Speaker, I will not get into issues of whereby the Leader of the Opposition, when he was in private practice, was involved in things like the firewood operation out in Lewisporte that had all kinds of money from the government that was never, ever paid back, Mr. Speaker. So, I guess that is okay and that is good fiscal management, and it is not a problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if I were in the Premier's seat, I would take responsibility.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this year -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this year government signed a long-term lease for a hanger contract in Gander without going to public tender at a cost of $7 million, plus $3million for renewal. No future government can get out of that untendered contract for twenty years if the company exercises its options.

Given the fact that existing facilities were available at less cost, does the Premier feel that this constitutes mismanagement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, all of these issues have been matters of public debate in the Province before. It was an issue in which it was absolutely necessary to make an action to finish a relocation plan that this government is still very proud of, Mr. Speaker, very proud, and does not apologize for and will not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Just like, Mr. Speaker, I expect now that the Leader of the Opposition, as the Member for Humber West, might stand up and say: Is it fiscal mismanagement to relocate the forestry workers to Corner Brook, in his own district, and build a new lab in Corner Brook for $2 million because it makes sense to do so, because the one that is down here in Pleasantville is condemned? Maybe he would like to talk about whether or not that is fiscal mismanagement, to spend some money in Corner Brook as well, to finish a relocation project that we are very proud of, has been very successful, and we would do again tomorrow. We do not have any plans, but we would do it again if it made some sense.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Another afternoon of unanswered questions.

Mr. Speaker, when the government manipulated the tendering process and wrongfully awarded contracts to a Liberal supporter, it had to settle with the rightful bidder for approximately $5 million. Would the Premier tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador whether this constitutes mismanagement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador does not manipulate anything. We make decisions that we explain and defend to the people of the Province as to why we made them, just like why we are building a new lab in Corner Brook, which is going to cost $2 million. Maybe he might like to talk about whether he agrees or disagrees with that kind of a decision, Mr. Speaker. His constituents would probably like to know what he feels and what his views are on that particular issue, because I do not know of any accusation that we have manipulated anything. We have made some decisions and we will defend those decisions, and we will make other decisions and always tell the people of the Province why we made the decision and what we are doing it for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am still at a loss to understand why the government paid out $5 million.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador sold $100 million worth of assets to Friede Goldman for $1. They threw in $2.5 million in cash, and on top of that, the government refused to collect $20 million on a guarantee for breach of contract. To add insult to injury, it failed to put a safeguard in that contract in the event that Friede Goldman went bankrupt.

Premier, tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and tell the people of Marystown, whether that constitute mismanagement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would expect, again, at some point in time that the Leader of the Opposition will say publicly and elsewhere in the Province, exactly what he said in Marystown: that a Conservative government would take back the shipyard and would run it as they did in the glory days. I think it was described, the glory days of the Progressive Conservative Administration, when the government ran the shipyard and lost $30 million, and $40 million, and $50 million annually of the taxpayers dollars. So, I am assuming that the official position of the party, now led by the great entrepreneurial businessman, is that we should, in fact, run a business and lose $50 million a year. That is the kind of leadership we can expect from the Official Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, what we have done is this: We have moved on and focused on the future. We are working with the unions in Marystown. We are working with the community council in Marystown and around the area to look at the future of the yard to secure work so that it can go ahead. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would not want to have an incorrect statement on the public record. To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, Friede Goldman has not gone bankrupt. It has filed for bankruptcy protection under the laws of the United States of America, which I know he knows a lot better than I do. He is shaking his head, Mr. Speaker, acknowledging that I am right this time and he has made a slight mistake.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Finance. The minister announced yesterday that our Province's deficit sits at $80 million. I ask the minister if the deficit could be double that by year-end?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, we have been honest with the people of this Province. As we have gotten information we have made it clear to the public, right from our position on thinking about deferring the tax reduction this year; we talked about the decrease in the federal transfers that we had received. We have been open and honest with the people of the Province. As we get information we are giving it to the people of the Province. Our best information right now is a deficit of $80 million.

Mr. Speaker, we also explained to the people of the Province yesterday that there are two components to our economy: a provincial component and a federal. Our provincial economy is strong. I know that bothers the gentleman across the way, and he would like to tell the people of the Province the sky is falling. Stop spending your money. Go underground. We are not going there. We have confidence in the people of the Province but we are also very dependent on the federal government; and it is that component, specifically, that we are waiting to hear so that we will have the final numbers at the end of the year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: And, Mr. Speaker, it will all be there in the budget in March, as the Premier has identified, when we deliver our budget this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister had been truthful and upfront with only a $30 million. Minister, we are now at $80 million at least, and maybe double. We are going in the hole. If that is not going underground where are we going, I ask the minister?

Mr. Speaker, there are hundreds, even thousands, of government employees working under temporary contracts with this government, whose contracts are automatically renewed from year to year. Some have been here for even twenty years. I want to ask the minister: How many of these employees will lose their jobs when their contracts expire?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the comment the member made in his preamble to the question about being less than truthful about informing the people of the Province.

We announced, early in the House, that the extra percentage that we had provided to the public sector would cost an extra $30 million; in this House last session.

Mr. Speaker, I resent, personally, being accused of being less than truthful with the people of this Province. It shows a level of desperation. I think that is clearly obvious.

What I will say, in response to the question, we have made it very clear in our statement about hiring, that we would look at each job to see whether they were essential to the functioning of government. Our position has not changed, unlike their positions over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister said that there should 't be any correlation between her statement yesterday of an $80 million deficit and any layoffs that occur. In fact, she said in an interview on CBC radio this morning: There are no planned layoffs to address any deficits because we don't know what the deficits will be.

I want to ask the minister: How does she explain the layoffs that are occurring in health care because government told health care boards to cut expenditures?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am glad he did listen closely to some of the things I said yesterday, because there is no correlation. I also would like to have the opportunity to repeat what my colleague, the Minister of Health, said yesterday: We have added money to the health care budgets. In fact, last year -

MR. SULLIVAN: That is why there are layoffs, you are saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: You said we are wasting $100 million.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: You can't have it both ways.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague's question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we have added $50 million to our budget this year. Within six weeks we heard from the boards that they were having difficulty living within an additional $50 million to the budget. We are not cutting, Mr. Speaker, we are asking them to live within an additional $50 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, this is about being realistic. We live in a Province with limited fiscal capacity. On one hand, he is commenting about what we are going to do about the deficit and on the other hand, he has no sense of reality about what is happening in our Province. None, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. Wabush Mines began producing iron ore again this past Monday after a seven week shutdown, but with seventy workers less. Three years ago Wabush Mines projected forty-two years left in the life of the project. Today they are predicting thirty.

In August the Premier met with the union president and made a commitment to get back to him on concerns about problems with high-grade mining. Since then they have been waiting to hear from the Premier. I ask the Premier: What has he done to address the concerns expressed to him, and when does he intend to get back to the union on those matters?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would be the first to acknowledge and agree with the assessment that there are some difficulties in the iron ore mining industry today. The fact of the matter is that 55 per cent of all of the iron ore that is mined in Canada comes out of Labrador West. So, when there is an effect on that industry because of an economy slowdown generally or because of some other specific things happening, it does impact upon the industry at Labrador West, and in Wabush as well.

I agree with the member that there are problems in the industry that unfortunately they, or us, have no control over. What have we done to address those issues? One, we have met regularly with the representatives of IOC and Wabush Mines. I have had several meetings in the past two months, the last one being just a week or ten days ago, from the chief of that organization - IOC - from Montreal to discuss specific problems. What we have agreed - because it is in our mutual interest to do so on behalf of the people who particularly live in that region and on behalf of the economy of the Province generally - to stay in close touch with each other. They have agreed to keep me informed as to the status of the industry and we have agreed to maximum our efforts -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: - with respect to any help we can give to ameliorate anything that can be done in a positive fashion to help the market, but at least we have both agreed that we will meet and elaborate so that the people who work at that industry will know what is happening upfront, and as early as they can. They have agreed -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) and as soon as possible on their employment area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will have the minister know that Wabush is part of Labrador West.

The issue is about proper resource management. We cannot allow high-grade mining to take place and lower-grade ore left for later. I ask the Premier, will he direct an investigation into the mining practices of Wabush Mines to ensure proper mining plans are in place and being adhere to and include the full involvement of the local union and the workforce into this investigation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is important to set the record straight on the issue of high-grading in Wabush because it has been an issue that has been raised by the union. I agree, it is an important issue. To that specific issue, I, again, have met with the people from Wabush Mines; they have assured me. My officials in my department, whom I have asked to look at that issue specially, have assured me. As a matter of fact, I have addressed these issues in an interview with Doug Letto of CBC about six months ago. On all accounts, I have an assurance that there is no high-grading activity taking place in the mining activity in Wabush. There are standard practices in terms of how mining activities take place generally within the industry for purposes of meeting market demand, for purposes of meeting customer specification with respect to certain types of ore that they need in order to fill the orders that they have on their orders books. There are certain types of mining practices that are generally accepted and followed -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: - taking place in Wabush, as there are in other mines in the Province and in that area. Beyond that there is no high-grading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has ended.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rose on Monday, after Question Period, to talk about the rules that we are governed by in Question Period. It is clear under Beauchesne - which is the governing document of rules for debate that govern all of us in this House. It says clearly, "Answers to questions - for the Minister of Fisheries, if he would like to have a look at it, it is on page 123, §417 - "Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate." What happened here today was an abuse of Question Period by the Premier and the Minister of Mines and Energy. When questions are asked in this House they are supposed to be as brief as possible, they are not supposed to provoke debate and frankly, Mr. Speaker, they are supposed to deal with the matter at hand. This is not government's and the Premier's House. This is the House belonging to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: If we, in this Chamber, are not going to be governed or govern ourselves by the rules that are often quoted by the Government House Leader, former Government House Leader, current Premier, then anarchy will prevail, Mr. Speaker. My point to you is this: In future Question Periods could you please advise, at your discretion and on your decision obviously, I say to the Chair, that when the Premier or other ministers are up answering questions, do so by the rules. This place does not belong to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order. I think it is desirable that the Chair rule on this point. We just had an example where the Member for Labrador West asked the Premier about a commitment he made to the president of Wabush Mines' union and the Minister of Mines and Energy got up and talked about meeting with the Iron Ore Company of Canada officials of Labrador West, in Montreal. Is that proper, Mr. Speaker? We would like to have a ruling on that. Is the Premier, who is asked a question, required to answer it or can any minister answer some other question and pretend that they are complying with the rules of the House?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, to address the point of order raised by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi first, because it is quite obvious that when a member asks a question that it is not necessarily the person to whom he or she directs the question who answers. It is the government department, for which that question is appropriate, that answers the question. You can not dictate as to who answers the question.

Mr. Speaker, I was about to comment on Question Period myself. I am glad the hon. member raised the point because the answers given in Question Period are largely determined by the question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LUSH: Now, members can be derisive. They can laugh all they like on the other side but I am one member who sits and listens attentively to the points raised. I listen to all points of order. I listen to every one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, a question may be brief but its answer can encompass the world.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LUSH: We are asking a question of policy, so members cannot then all of a sudden sit down and say, I asked a brief question: What is the government's policy on equalization? What is its policy on Voisey's Bay? and expect a ten word answer. We have to be sensible.

Mr. Speaker, the question that I wanted to raise is this. The questions raised by the Leader of the Opposition today were quite unusual in this House. I have sat here for practically twenty-five years and never heard that approach in my life. As a matter of fact, the rules of this House do not allow it. The rules of this House do not allow that approach.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, this is not a courtroom.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: This is not a courtroom, where a lawyer gets up and interrogates some person in a witness stand for twenty minutes. Questions have to be brief here. If we were all given that kind of leeway, Mr. Speaker, only one person would get on Question Period.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the rules of this House do not allow that kind of questioning where the Leader of the Opposition got up to prove mismanagement by the government and went all over the globe, went all over the globe.

Let me suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that questions are supposed - reading from Beauchesne, I will make two quotes. Reading from §409.(1), "It must be a question, not an expression of an opinion, representation, argumentation, nor debate."

Mr. Speaker, I suggest all of these rules were not adhered to.

Under §409.(3), "The question ought to seek information and, therefore, cannot be based upon a hypothesis, cannot seek an opinion, either legal or otherwise, and must not suggest its own answer, be argumentative or make representations."

Mr. Speaker, finally in this representation, Beauchesne, page 410 - to prove that kind of interrogation, to prove that kind of detailed question, cannot be permitted in this House.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is now a politician and he must ask questions and adhere to the rules like all of us here in this House, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: There have been lawyers in this House before, Mr. Speaker.

I quote Beauchesne again §410.(8), "Preambles to questions should be brief and supplementary questions require no preambles." The hon. the Leader of the Opposition had a preamble every time.

The final sentence which tells us that you cannot use the approach that the Leader of the Opposition used, is §410.(8), "Supplementary questions should flow from the answers of Ministers." They should flow from the answers, Mr. Speaker, and not an interrogation.

Mr. Speaker, the final point of order I want to make is in Beauchesne again, pointing out how the questions were out of order. The Leader of the Opposition asked the Premier a question when he was in a former portfolio. Mr. Speaker, we know that is completely out of order. A question cannot be asked of a minister in a previous portfolio.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition was entirely out of order in practically all of the questions that he asked today, and specifically and certainly with respect to the approach that the hon. gentleman used in Question Period today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the rules of debate are clear and the Government House Leader conveniently, I say, conveniently has left out one section that he has skipped over in the rules. Let me read it. It is also in §410.(5), where Beauchesne says clearly, "The primary purpose of the Question Period is the seeking of information and calling the Government to account."

Mr. Speaker, every member, including the Leader of our Party and the Leader of the Opposition, knows full well that this is not a courtroom; but it is the people's House and the court of public opinion, and people have a right to know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, like the Government House Leader, I have sat in this Chamber, not quite as long as him, but like him I will say this: I have asked a series of questions in my roles in this House, as critic, as former leader, on many occasions in exactly the same way, and this is the first, the very first time in nine years that I saw a Government House Leader rise on a point of order saying that we, in questions, trying to hold government to account - because the current Premier of the Province said yesterday that the only person talking about mismanagement was our leader. What he did today was his job. He was holding you and your government to account!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me say this, too: If we are going to adhere to the rules, then let's all adhere to them equally.

Let me say this to the Government House Leader and to the rest of the government: When it comes to holding government to account, we will do so and we will not fail in our responsibility to the people of the Province in doing exactly that!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Government House Leader has long experience in this House, and when he quotes from Beauchesne and suggests that the questions being asked must be specific and asked for information., he is exactly describing the question of the Member for Labrador West when he asked the Premier about a meeting that he had and when was he going to get back to the person who he was speaking to. A very specific and direct question totally in order, absolutely nothing wrong with it except the fact that the Premier did not answer the question. The Minister of Mines and Energy answered a completely different question, or made up his own question and answered it, talking about a totally different subject.

Mr. Speaker, if the rule is going to be applied, it has to applied properly to both sides of the House, and not just in the words of the Government House Leader.

MR. SPEAKER: I will hear the hon. the Government House Leader and that is the final submission.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, again we will deal with the question first raised by the hon. the Leader of the New Democratic Party. The answer to that is simple. Again, quoting Beauchesne, §420, "The Speaker has stated, ‘Of course, the Chair will allow a question to be put to a certain Minister; but it cannot insist that that Minister rather than another should answer it.'." So, Mr. Speaker, that should solve that.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to holding the government accountable, asking questions to hold the government accountable, nobody is suggesting that it ought to be otherwise. Nobody is suggesting that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: I have sat on that side of the House and I know what one is supposed to do. What I have raised in the House today is that the questions must follow the rules of this House. What I have said is that the questions of the Leader of the Opposition were clearly not in order for Question Period; that the questions advanced by the Leader of the Opposition today, his style defies all of the rules of this House. I made, also, the point of order that one question specifically that he directed to the Premier about a previous portfolio was out of order.

Mr. Speaker, I argued that the process was out of order; plus, a specific question was out of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There were, I guess, a number of points of order raised. There were four points of order that I detected in the comments that were made by the people who made the submissions. I will deal with the first point of order that was raised. I believe it was the one on the length of the answers.

There is no doubt that the Chair has reminded members and has brought members' attention to the fact that questions should be brief; but answers, likewise, should be brief. On several occasions today the Chair had to interrupt the ministers who were replying to answers because their answers were rather lengthy. Now, I have asked members to consider their answers, to consider their questions, and to, I guess, try to keep them within a reasonable time frame. I have suggested a minute to a minute and twenty seconds. I have researched this in other jurisdictions, and in most jurisdictions there is a time limit placed on a question and an equal time limit placed on a answer. I am asking members to judge themselves accordingly. I want members to have some leeway in asking questions and some leeway in answering, but if it requires that I set a time limit then I am prepared to do that on questions and answers.

To the second point of order, I believe the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi raised a point of order that the question was not answered by the appropriate minister. I just want to remind him that questions are directed to government. Government will determine who answers the question. That is not a point of order.

The hon. the Government House Leader raised two points of order, I believe: One, that all questions today that were asked by the hon. the Opposition House Leader were out of order. He mentioned specifically one question that was directed, I believe, to the Premier about a previous portfolio. That question certainly would have been out of order. A question must be within the administrative competence of the government. The minister to whom the question is directed is responsible to the House for his or her present ministry and not for any decision taken in a previous portfolio.

The other point of order that he raised, that all questions were out of order, I will take that under advisement. I will certainly review the Hansard, review the submissions that were made, take it under advisement and report back to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: It is Private Members' Day. We will go directly to the private member's motion.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by reading the motion which I am putting forward for debate today.

WHEREAS research and development is an important factor in the economic development of this Province; and

WHEREAS there is funding available through various federal programs to promote research and development;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly supports efforts to access research and development funding for the advancement of economic development in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, some would ask: Why bring a motion like this forward to debate in the House of Assembly? The motion may seem on the surface to be motherhood, something that goes without saying, something everybody would agree with. Up until a few months ago, that might have been true.

When I brought this motion forward earlier this week, members of the Opposition were saying they would pass it without debate, and indicated that they, too, would support it; but I think it is important that we bring forward this motion today and that we debate it fully. The reason I say this is because of the politically-motivated comments of the Leader of the Opposition -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: - the confusion that has been created by his irresponsible comments. Normally the support for a motion such as this could be assumed, but in the current circumstances I think it is important that we debate this issue.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: I would like to say to the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis that I am entitled to speak here today. You were not allowed to speak during Question Period.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

The hon. member who was just on his feet referred to me, on this side of the House, as speaking to that individual. I was making a comment to the former Premier of the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

Mr. Speaker, I made a comment across the House to the former Premier of the Province, not the hon. member who was speaking, and I ask him to withdraw his comments.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, may I continue?

Back in September, I was appalled and amazed to hear that the Leader of the Official Opposition wanted to turn down federal funding, federal funding that would help advance the economy of this Province.

Newfoundland and Labrador has huge research and development needs, a point which was repeatedly raised during our Jobs and Growth consultations. If we do not access federal funding, the benefits will flow to other provinces of Canada.

Health care funding comes from another source, namely from the Canada Health and Social Transfer program. It is obvious that the Leader of the Opposition has a lack of understanding of how federal funding works, or he is trying to play politics with this very important issue.

Emerging new economic opportunities in the Province must be supported by enhanced public and private sector research and development. Members need only look to the recent past to realize the potential benefits of such funding. I bring to mind the federal government's commitment when they wisely invested in research and development activities related to Newfoundland's offshore oil resources. As a result today, we have a thriving industry. I would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition: Is he suggesting that the economic wealth and employment growth this industry is creating in not worth the funding that got it kick-started?

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, perhaps more so than the government of any other province, has been emphasizing the need for more health care funding, but the Opposition's position is not about health care, it is not about Inco, and it is not about Voisey's Bay. It is about playing politics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: The politics of opposition, opposing everything. If this is the kind of obviously politically-motivated actions we can expect from the Leader of the Opposition, then I shudder to think what might come next. There is a time, I say to the hon. members, when politicians, no matter what party they represent, should put aside political bantering and start to think about the best interests of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: I am very disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition has decided not to take a responsible position on this, and many other issues besides. I am disappointed that he has chosen to continue to play politics with the issues of today. I am sure that the people of this Province expect more from those people who elected them.

It is incredible, that the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition would actually refuse federal investment that is so critical to the continued economic development of this Province. The Opposition, instead of being critical of federal spending here, should be encouraged that the federal government is considering an increased role in meeting the Province's research and development needs.

Mr. Speaker, Inco has applied for federal funding under the Technology Partnerships Canada program. The goal of this program is to encourage economic growth within Canada through strategic investment in research, development and technology. Funding support is available for industrial research, prototype or pilot development, and studies in support of projects. The federal government has budgeted to invest in this economic initiative. As of October 31, 2001, Technology Partnerships Canada had invested in 136 projects across Canada. The program has injected $1.6 billion into Canadian technology innovation and created in excess of 30,000 jobs.

What did this Province get? Well, Newfoundland and Labrador, quite by contrast, has accessed only $5.9 million of the TPC funding.

AN HON. MEMBER: If they had their way, we would get none.

MR. SWEENEY: I am sad to say, yes, that is probably the case.

They have created ninety-two jobs. Our Province has shared in only 0.4 per cent of the total investment and only 0.3 of total job creation. Money not used in Newfoundland has gone and will not go to any other program area. It has supported and will continue to support technology innovation in other provinces. For instance, in Ontario there were in excess of 14,000 jobs created; in Quebec, in excess of 11,000 jobs created. The program has funded projects led by a variety of companies and, I might add, they include wealthy multinationals just as Bombardier, Dow Chemicals, and Falconbridge. Such companies typically have the internal resources for long-term research and development. They invest large sums to explore new technology options and bring the most promising to the brink of commercial application, creating badly needed jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the global economy is becoming increasingly technology-based. To compete effectively, our Province must look to the future, invest in leading-edged technology and train our people to work within it. Stakeholders from all sectors sent a strong message during our Jobs and Growth consultations. Research and innovation drives industrial and economic growth. R&D, research and development, figures prominently in the Province's Renewal Strategy for Jobs and Growth.

The federal government, as well, has placed increasing emphasis on technology innovation, providing supports and incentives across sectors as diverse as agriculture, shipbuilding and aerospace. Technology innovation is advancing Canadian industrial and economic growth. Newfoundland and Labrador must participate or be left behind.

The proposed pilot facility that Inco is talking about would establish the world's only hydrometallurgy test plant here in our Province, creating a global centre of excellence for mining technology. I do not think any person, any of the people we serve, would turn their backs to that.

Development of Voisey's Bay, using a design-confirmed hydromet processing facility would put us on the forefront of new technologies; because with one innovative move, others follow quickly. We have to be cognizant of the message we are sending out there. The pilot plant itself would train some 200 people in chemical, process engineering and metallurgy, contributing to the Twenty-First Century workforce of this Province.

A pilot hydromet facility for the Voisey's Bay project would not be a concession. It would be an enhancement to the project. Take the example of the National Research Council's Institute for Marine Dynamics. Established in St. John's in the early days of the Hibernia project, this facility attracted large scale public and private investment that advanced resident petroleum technology capability. It jump-started the Province's offshore oil and gas industry. The Institute for Marine Dynamics has tested and refined and confirmed design processes not only for the Hibernia but for Terra Nova and other potential offshore bases. It has also gained an international reputation for leading-edge research, and research and development that includes everything straight to racing yachts. They are in demand. Clients from around the world compete for design confirmation and environmental modeling services.

We talk about the hydromet facility. The hydromet facility could evolve in the same way, providing research and development for other projects within and outside of this Province. It could provide innovation, education, and employment opportunities far beyond the Voisey's Bay project. It could also establish valuable research and developmental infrastructure. In additional to the mining and processing facilities that would be put in place for the full-scale project, there is no reason I can think of to oppose Inco's application for continuing with this project. As a matter of fact, I think there is every reason to support it.

Mr. Speaker, having made these comments, I look forward to hearing from others in this debate, especially the Leader of the Opposition. I would like for him to explain his position - his position today, anyway - tell us where he stands on this issue, and tell us why he said what he did on this issue back in September.

I also look forward to hearing from the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's. Maybe he, too, can explain his position. Maybe he can explain why playing politics is more important than representing the people who elected him.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very, very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to the private member's resolution today. I do have to preface a few opening comments, however. I came prepared today to talk about the: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly... - and it bears repeating, because he did not repeat it, because the spirit and intent of his motion is contained in the: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly support efforts....

I say to the Premier, you will get all the answers, Sir. If you would sit down and listen, you will get all the answers. Our point of view will be very clear. What is not going to cut it is the shipment of ore from this Province, which is different from the mandate of the 1999 Red Book. That is what is not going to cut it, I say to the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly support efforts to access research and development funding for the advancement of economic development in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, who could not support the advancement of research and development monies for this Province, that would advance many industries?

The Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace primarily aimed his attack at the Leader of the Opposition. The private member's resolution should have read: The anti-Leader of the Opposition resolution - because that is what he talked about.

Let me deal first of all with the spirit and intent of his resolution. Then I want to deal with his comments vis-à-vis the $100 million grant to Inco.

First of all, it is very clear that this party stands in support of accessing research and development money for this Province. As a matter of fact, in the 1999 policy manual we talked about that, that we would aggressively pursue opportunities for research and development in aquaculture, in environment, technology, assisting in new environmental technology associated with waste management, with cleaner water, proper disposal of sewage systems, et cetera.

We even went further. We said in 1999, and it stands today, that a PC government, because of the lack of research and development - not only lack of, in the federal fisheries and science, but the absolute gutting and cutting back of the federal budgets to the point where the DFO scientists today will tell you, and they have told you, the amount of allocations they have for science is not even enough to monitor if there is enough salmon, in many instances, coming back up our rivers. That is how far DFO has limited its own research and development. So what did we do in response? We put forward a notion, a concept, a solid policy which said a PC government will establish a permanent, independent, fisheries research institute to conduct basic research and monitor federal activity by analyzing their data and methods.

Mr. Speaker, we all know the realities of budgets, of political life, both federally and provincially. Here is one reality, when it comes to research and development funds made available through any host of activities - some of the programs that the member just talked about - are allocations made on a provincial-by-provincial basis. This is what he said - and I have the same information, the same statistics - that this year there was only $5.9 million which came to Newfoundland from the Technology Partnerships Canada Program. Now what do you think of $5.9 million? He said it was shameful. He did not tell us what the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology was doing - he is the Parliamentary Assistant or Secretary to that department - to increase that $5.9 million. We did not hear from the Minister of Environment today, or he did not tell us what the Department of Environment was doing to increase that allocation. He knows full well that the reason there is $5.9 million coming to this Province - which is below the average, a little higher than some but below the average - is because of enormous grants to companies like Inco.

There is not a carte blanche statement in the world in effect for any policy - and the member should know this as well - that can say that we support any and all programs, or any and all funding, for any and all projects, no matter what. That is the type of thinking, that is the type of mentality, and that is the type of history that has gotten this Province $6 billion in debt. That is the type of thinking and mentality that has put $3.5 billion debt load on pension funds. That is the type of thinking and mentality that produced chocolate factories and others that did not work. When we talk about research and development projects, absolutely, we support the spirit and intent of this agreement, but we exclusively reserve the right to pass our judgement on each and every project.

Mr. Speaker, I happen to have a list today of the companies which received money from that program. I do not see many Newfoundland and Labrador companies on it: $24.9 million to Messier-Dowty Inc. - that's not a Newfoundland and Labrador company; CaseBank Technologies Inc., $3.2 million; SemBioSys Genetics Inc., $5.5 million; World Heart Corporation, $9.98 million. I am not taking away the fact that these are worthwhile projects. What I am saying - and I can provide the list and table it for the member - is that there are not many Newfoundland companies on it. The question is, why? Why shouldn't there be? The answer is simply this: because we have not been aggressive enough.

The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, I would like to see the tabling of all of the requests that his department has made, or had made, to this fund. I would like to see a tabling of all of the requests that this minister in the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology has made to another program for smaller businesses under the Industrial Research Assistance Program. What the shame is here is that a member stands up on the government side and admits we only have $5.9 million, and it is not good enough, but now the Leader of the Opposition - this motion is not about research and development money it is about an attempt - which they believe somehow - to embarrass the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of our party, and ourselves. It is not going to happen because our policy on this was well thought out, driven by consensus at a caucus table and publicly articulated, and here is why -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Here is why we have taken the position. First of all, who gave Inco $100 million? The federal minister - they applied for it, but who is considering giving Inco the $100 million? The former Premier, now federal Industry Minister. I am just stating some facts. You are welcome to stand up in debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, I'm going to, don't worry.

MR. E. BYRNE: Great, we will look forward to your debate for the Province.

In all honesty, when you take - and I have the file here - every comment on Voisey's Bay that Inco officials have made, every public release, every statement by the Premier, every statement by a minister, every statement by a member in this House, they are here. This bears mentioning, in 1996 it was not a hydromet facility we were talking about, it was a full scale smelter and refinery. The chairperson of Inco at the time, Mr. Sopko, said: The Voisey's Bay find is so rich, so vast, such a find that it is the jewel in Inco's nickle discovery or nickle supply that the cobalt and cooper alone will pay for a full scale refinery and smelting complex, and the nickle in the ovoid essentially will be pure profit. That was said publicly, Mr. Speaker. Now, when the Leader of our Province puts out a release that was generated, discussed and debated to the people of the Province about why Inco should get $100 million, it was based on that.

Let me ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology this: Do you think you are going to get more than $5.9 million for other companies if Inco gets $100 million because you said that is going to Newfoundland? Where is that $100 million going to end up? How far ahead would we be if we had half of that to put into other industries? How far ahead would the aquaculture industry be? How far ahead would the operation in Ramea, for example, and the seaweed investment that they have made in promoting and marketing that around the world? How far would we be from that point of view?

Mr. Speaker, it is clear, our leader will speak to this motion. He will speak to this motion in this afternoon's debate, but I want to say this - this was a speech that he made in the Clarenville Chamber of Commerce, September 26, 2001, after the fact: "If the federal government wants to invest in research and development - and I'm all for research and development - then let it provide money for projects that would not go ahead otherwise or for companies that cannot afford to expand and innovate as they need to do to compete." That is what he said. We stand by that, each and everyone of us!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: "Let the government invest $100,000 in each of 1,000 companies so they can grow and diversify and compete and employ Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in high-calibre enterprises." That is what this Leader of the Opposition said. Do not take him out of context today when I am around or any member of this caucus is around, and we are pleased you raised this issue. Just in case you did not hear it, he said: "But do not invest that $100 million in Inco to build the facility they promised and can well afford to finance out of their own deep treasury." This is a company whose annual sales were two-and-a-half times bigger than our provincial budget last year. "Imagine, on a regional basis, if 20 companies in this district alone received..." in the Bonavista-Trinity area alone, received $100,000 each. What could that do for the economic stimulation of rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has just indicated - keep talking, Eddie, he said. He has no worry about me holding him to account. We did that on many occasions before. We will all do it when necessary.

The point is this: When it comes to the Voisey's Bay file it is very clear what people already know about him. They know this: That this is a government that campaigned on a promise. That the former Premier of this Province went before the mikes the night he called a general election and said: I respectfully ask for your vote to continue the job, to finish the negotiations. Who do you wish to negotiate for you and finish the job on the Voisey's Bay file and the Lower Churchill file? Where are those files today?

He also said, repeatedly, as did many other members in this House - and like I said, we have it here. In one statement he actually said that the smelter, the mine, the refinery, all of it, has to run concurrently, and if it does not, it will not go ahead. He said, and I will quote: In other words, it must be a full-meal deal. In their own Red Book, he talked about: Not an ounce of ore will leave the Province - in this House, about concentrate. It will not leave, not a spoonful, not an ounce. That is what he said in the Member for Ganders' headquarters during the election - reiterated it up until the time that he left.

What people do understand, I say to the Premier, is when the Minister of Mines and Energy stood yesterday in this House and said, with the straightest face possible: that there are only two outstanding issues: The movement of ore, and for how long. Sooner or later, if that deal proceeds, you will be judged by it, as a government. That's fair enough. You will be judged. I say to the government, you have no mandate to do it; none whatsoever. No mandate, and you know it.

Mr. Speaker, let me say in conclusion, with respect to this issue in terms of research and development; our party has no trouble supporting research and development. We have not, in any way, shape, or form, ever been against research and development, but we will say this -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) press release since I got here.

MR. E. BYRNE: What is that, Mr. Minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: That you are not against (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to research and development -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave, just for a second.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank hon. members.

When it comes to research and development our policies are clear, our history is clear, but we exclusively reserve the right to judge those projects where they get funded on a case by case basis because if we did not, it would be irresponsible not to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is an important issue, and the previous speaker, the Opposition House Leader, began and concluded his commentary by trying to suggest that the Opposition will vote for this particular motion because they have no problem at all with research and development. I am glad to hear that. As a matter of fact, it is in the Blue Book as one of the things that the party opposite supports. It is right in there as part of the mandate. I am assuming, unless they have changed their mind about that today, it is still part of their policy.

Mr. Speaker, he is trying to be too cute by half, as is the whole group, with respect to - then speaking for his fifteen minutes about Voisey's Bay while saying that this particular motion has nothing to do with Voisey's Bay. Everybody knows that it has everything to do with Voisey's Bay because the only specific request that we have before the Government of Canada today, from a company that is hoping to do business in Newfoundland and Labrador, is Inco with respect to Technology Partnerships Canada.

We have a real request that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has not made, but a company has made because they would like to develop a newer, more environmentally friendly, more economic, more efficient, more energy efficient technology, for use in this Province. While it is true that not all of that $100 million will get spent in Newfoundland and Labrador - because it is research and development - the benefits of it are the fact that it might be able to let us go ahead with a project sooner, rather than later, and then we will get all of the benefits, Mr. Speaker.

The rule issue is this, there is no difference between the Opposition - and I have heard it stated many times - and ourselves. As recently as today, there is a letter in The Telegram from the Mines and Energy critic saying our mandate, with respect to Voisey's Bay, is to have the ore turned into a finished nickle product in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is exactly what we are trying to accomplish. There is absolutely no fundamental difference of opinion between the Opposition and the government, with respect to that issue.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of things, just for the record, in this debate. I believe that the Opposition will acknowledge with speakers in debate - and I hope the Leader of the Opposition is one of them - recognizes that when a specific request is made to the Government of Canada under the Technology Partnerships Program, that whether or not that is granted the money that is asked for is not available for health care; it is not available for education; it is not available for small business support; it is in a program base.

There is nobody over there who was in a former government - nobody that actually has run a government - but they have been in the Estimates. They have challenged governments. They do understand that when budget headings are put there the Auditor General suggests that if you say you are going to spend the money on research and development - guess what you are supposed to spend it on? Research and development. You cannot present a budget - and one of their favorite people seems to be the Auditor General. The Auditor General says that if you say you are going to spend so many billion dollars on health, you should spend it on health. If you say you are going to spend a couple of billion dollars a year on research and development, guess what you are suppose to spend it on? Research and development. It is not available for other uses.

There are other budget items for health care. We have managed to get the health care budget increased but it is still not enough, and there is no difference of opinion between ourselves and the Opposition that more money is needed from the Government of Canada to the Province for health care. The same thing for post-secondary education; the same thing for social services; the same thing for child welfare, and all of the other things that they can help and assist us with under the National Child Benefit and so on.

Mr. Speaker, that party who obviously lives and dies by everything that the Auditor General says, would clearly understand that an amount of money voted for research and development cannot be spent for something else. Guess what? It is going to be spent somewhere in Canada for research and development.

There is a direct request before that particular government from a company that hopes to develop a project here, saying: Would you grant us some of the money like you have for Bombardier, like you have for other major corporations, so that we can develop a new technology completely in-line with the criteria which says for environmental technologies? The funds are for the development of sustainable alternatives, pollution prevention, pollution abatement, pollution remediation. This process is to create less pollution than traditional technologies. Also, under the industrial component; for developing new processes or in bringing about significant improvement to processes to make them more efficient. That is what the money is for and that is what the request is all about, and the Leader of the Opposition has said: Do not grant that request. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has said in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Leader of the Opposition's recommendation to the Government of Canada is that there is a request that you are going to give $100 million to somebody for research and development. You are not allowed to give it to anybody else for health care, education, or small business development. It is nice to talk about all that but this $100 million is going to be given to some company or corporation to meet the criteria for better environmental technology or better processes to make something better today than it has been in the past.

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, the same program has been used in the past for cable TV, which the Leader of the Opposition would know something about, because cable TV has developed many new technologies over the years, and several of the companies have applied to this program and have been granted money so that they could have better cable TV today than they had the last time. So, that is okay. I heard no objection about that, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure we will not.

We have had the Leader of the Opposition say that federal money for Newfoundland and Labrador is good any time. It was on Open Line just a week or so ago. Get federal money in Newfoundland and Labrador because Senator Rompkey had said: I do not believe what I have just heard. For the first time in my thirty years in politics, Senator Rompkey said, we have a Newfoundland-based politician say to the Government of Canada: You have money in a program but do not spend it on a company that might do something in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The first time in thirty years it has ever been said, Mr. Speaker. It has been said, and there is no way to deny that has been said.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to make sure we do not wiggle out of this today, I want to move this amendment. I am sure the Speaker will rule it in order. The amendment will be, in the resolution - and everybody will understand why, even including the Opposition - the amendment, to make the point, is this, because we will have a standing vote on this at the end of the day to see who is for and against it:

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly supports efforts to access research and development funding for the advancement of economic development in this Province... - which the Opposition House Leader has said they absolutely will support, have always supported it. Now, he said, on a case-by-case basis we want to examine it. We want to reserve that right. So reserve the right to also support or deny support for a resolution that will continue, by amendment, moved by me, seconded by the Government House Leader, that will say: ...such as research and development funding for hydrometallurgic technology.

Mr. Speaker, now speak to that motion. That is the amendment that I have moved, seconded by my colleague, the Member for Terra Nova, the Government House Leader, just as an example, because they are for research and development. It does not change the intent of the motion, but even the Opposition House Leader has said: That is what this is; this an attack. This is not a debate about research and development.

It is a debate about research and development. It is calling the Opposition and all of us to say: Do we stand for this or not? Or are we going to be very selective and explain why it is that research and development is okay for cable television, research and development is okay for other sectors, research and development is okay for a multinational, wealthy, deep-pocket corporation like Bombardier, because that is how Inco has been described in Clarenville, I understand, by the Leader of the Opposition, that they should not need any money because they have so much money of their own so do not give them any. I guess Rogers Cable did not have any money either when they got some research. They do not have deep pockets, I guess. So, Mr. Speaker, you have these particular issues.

Let me mention one other thing, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will speak to this. Let me mention one other thing. In Clarenville, the Leader of the Opposition went talking about Inco and Voisey's Bay. He did say this, Mr. Speaker, because the record is clear; we have transcripts. He did say, in the reference that the Opposition House Leader said, that they do not need the money. They have deep pockets and our position is that we will demand processing. We will demand processing or there will be no mining lease.

A week later now, here in St. John's at the Board of Trade, there were some words added: We will demand processing if it is economically feasible. If it is economically feasible. Now, Mr. Speaker, some people might not pay much attention to those words but I do, and a lot of other people will because they will be reminded that in one case there was no qualification, that the Opposition will say we will demand processing, period, end of sentence. A week later, in a speech to a different audience in a different town, the demand is: Processing if economically feasible.

Mr. Speaker, what is the position? Is it, there is going to have to be processing anyway? Because the second one would lead you to believe that if Inco says it is not economically feasible, then they will not demand it.

They really do have to make up their minds, come clean, and stand firm and clear, just as today we are asking everybody in the House to stand firm and say: Look, there is a specific request before the Government of Canada. It is before the Government of Canada related to an investment program, a research and development program that they will spend, are mandated and must spend, on research and development because the Auditor General for Canada will condemn them if they take the money that they put in a budget and said they were going to spend on research and development and spend it on health care. As laudable as that is, they will be condemned by the Auditor General because, if they were going to take the money and spend it on health care, they were supposed to say so in their budget. They were not supposed to mislead the people that there was going to be a billion and some-odd dollars for research and development but we will pretend that in our budget and then part way through the year we will switch, we will change our minds, and we will spend it on health care, or we will spend it on education, or we will spend it on small business development, which is the plea of the Leader of the Opposition: Why don't we take $100 million and give it to a bunch of small companies?

Well, there is a program for that too, Mr. Speaker. There is a program for that in the Government of Canada. It is not research and development. It is small business development, and they do it through a whole group and series of agencies. There are companies in Newfoundland and Labrador that apply for it and avail of it every single day of the week.

All we are saying is that with this amendment, and I will ask if you will rule it in order or not, just as an example, we ask this Legislature today to support the private member's motion so proudly put forward by the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace and just add, as an example, that we all support efforts to access research and development funding for the advancement of economic development in this Province, because this surely will. Because if the Voisey's Bay project gets developed and if we get full processing of nickel ore to finished nickel, which is what the Opposition say they stand for, and which is what I know we stand for - there is no doubt on this side of what we stand for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: We stand for a finished nickel product.

If this research and development can help and assist in that project happening sooner rather than later, then the economic development that we are talking about - because we are looking to support access to research and development funding for the advancement of economic development - if the research and development works, there will certainly be a great deal of economic development in Newfoundland and Labrador sooner rather than later. Otherwise, I guess we will hear the Opposition suggest why it is that they are now ready to say they will demand that it be finished to a nickel product if it is economically feasible. Because those are the words that were said here in St. John's to the Board of Trade by the Leader of the Opposition, wanting everyone to think that he is a reasonable - that he is not unreasonable - businessman. As a matter of fact, he used that phrase in his speech, that he is a reasonable businessman.

Is he reasonable, which means that Inco can do just about anything if they say it is not economically feasible? Or is he going to make the kind of demand that he said in Clarenville, that only if it is a finished product, whether it is feasible or not, is it going ahead. Because those are two completely different stances.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The House will now take a short recess to look at the amendment and to determine whether or not it is in order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has reviewed the amendment in consultation with the Clerks of the House and we deem the amendment to be in order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Just in this circumstance, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of everybody: When the House recesses on occasion, like we have just done, is that an automatic ten minute break or just when the bells ring that everyone is supposed to be here? I just wondered for clarification.

MR. SPEAKER: I am advised by the Chair that the ten minute rule applies only on Division and that with members - we were ready to start with a member of the Opposition in the presence of the House and we were just in the process of sending someone out to the official Opposition to ask him to come forward.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Fair enough. Obviously there was an oversight made. We were here in a timely fashion, but we were of the understanding - so fair enough. I appreciate the comments by the Government House Leader and those made by the Chair.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to the motion made by the member for Harbour Grace on an important issue related to the expenditure of public money in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I listened to the debate and I was disturbed by a number of things that I heard, particularly the member himself indicating the amount of expenditures of this revenue, this funding by the Government of Canada, and the very small amount of research and development money that is spent in the Province. The information supplied by the member, in fact, underscores this particular point, that this Technology Partnerships Canada program had a $1.6 billion investment of which less than one-half of one per cent of the total was spent in Newfoundland and Labrador.

What is even more astounding, Mr. Speaker, is that of the jobs created by this program, over 30,000 jobs, well, guess what? Nearly 26,000 of them were created in Ontario and Quebec. So in access of 80 per cent of the jobs created by this research and development program were created in only two provinces, and the last time I looked Ontario and Quebec, between them, do not have 80 per cent of the population of Canada. Mr. Speaker, we have a great deal of disparity here.

I note the Minister of Government Services and Lands, who used to be the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, say that is their equalization program. Mr. Speaker, the equalization program is one program that operates, or is supposed to operate, to the benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador and other provinces for a time. It does not operate that way and it does not operate properly. If the minister is saying that the equalization program is for us and the research and development program is for them, I have to disagree. I hope that is not what the minister was saying when he was saying that it is their equalization program.

What I want to say, Madam Speaker - I see a change in the Speaker - I do not want to see this continue and I think we have to ensure that we get a proper share of the benefits of this program and other federal programs. It is astounding that we now have less than one-third of one per cent of the jobs from this program created in the Province of Newfoundland, and yet the minister responsible for this program is the former Premier of this Province, who is the Minister of Industry, Trades and Technology. That I say, Madam Speaker, is a shame and a disgrace, that this Province gets so little of that money.

Madam Speaker, what I was shocked and surprised about as well was the words of the Premier, when the Premier talked about the hydromet process and the fact that an application was before the Technology Partnerships Canada, that this was the only application from Newfoundland. Imagine! That is what the Premier said: The only application there. What I want to know is: What is this government doing to promote research and development in this Province if the only application is from Inco, an Ontario company?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Where was the minister of Industry, Trade and Technology out promoting research and development in this Province? Where? Where is that coming from, Mr. Speaker?

MR. MATTHEWS: We will find out in a minute.

MR. HARRIS: Well, the Minister of Mines and Energy, who should know the difference, says we will find out in a minute. His Premier just said that there was only one application, only one.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: That is not accurate.

MR. HARRIS: It is not accurate. The Minister of Finance says it is not that accurate. Well, I will leave it for the Premier to correct, and the people who read Hansard, and the people who watch television, to decide whether the Premier said it or not, and let the Premier decide whether it is accurate or not, or someone else answer for him. I am sure the minister will have an opportunity in this debate to tell us how many applications and how wrong the Premier might be.

I was disturbed to hear to the Premier say that

MS BETTNEY: On a point of order, Madam Speaker..

MADAM SPEAKER (Ms M. Hodder): A point of order, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I feel that I must rise on a point of order to address some of the comments that were just made about the fact that in this Province this is the only application that was made. That is not correct and that is not what the Premier said. The Premier said it is one of the applications that are in, and we have many applications in.

Madam Speaker, I should just point out, as a point of clarification, that Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic have many applications in and many of them are with private sector companies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Of course there is no point of order.

The Speaker heard what the Premier said and people will have to judge for themselves whether what the Premier said was that it was the only application there or not.

Madam Speaker, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador needs to have more research and development.

PREMIER GRIMES: A point of order, Madam Speaker..

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Yes, Madam Speaker, to make sure that there is no confusion or misunderstanding: if I did use the word only in my address then, as I have always done in this Legislature, if I have made a mistake, I apologize. I do understand from the minister that there are several applications. I will tell you one thing, Madam Speaker, there is only one that everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador knows about and it is this one with Inco about R&D for hydrometallurgic technology. Everybody knows about this one. I can't wait to hear the Leader of the Opposition talk about it today.

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I appreciate that the Premier has made a mistake and wishes to acknowledge that. That is what we would expect him to do, Madam Speaker, but I think the point is still made properly by the Member for Harbour Grace that the number of jobs that this Province receives, based on the amount of the total investment of Industry Canada, is minuscule and the percentage of our share in Newfoundland and Labrador of those jobs is minuscule as well.

I am glad to hear that there are more applications, but obviously to date there has not been more success. There has not been more success than we have seen to date that we should have. We should have at least 2 per cent or 3 per cent of those jobs, based on our population, and perhaps more than that based on our need and based on the fact that, in this Province, we do have, in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, advanced technologies. We do have advanced industry. We do have industrial development that can benefit from research and development funds, and we do know that with research and development comes more jobs because you get a higher level of technology, you get a higher level of productivity, you get a higher level of exports and profitability, and you can make your economy grow faster and better with higher paying jobs. It is an area which, I would submit, has been sadly neglected by this government and previous governments, and something that has to be corrected.

I have to say that whether it is the motion, which is almost a motherhood motion, I suppose: BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly support efforts to access research and development funding for the advancement of economic development in this Province.

Madam Speaker, of course we would, but we wonder what those efforts are. We wonder what those efforts are of this government. It is not the government applying to Industry Canada. It is Inco applying to Industry Canada, not the government. Certainly, if Inco applies to Industry Canada to get money, we would support it. Of course. Any company that wanted to do research and development in this Province is entitled to apply and access the money and carry out the research.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: All we are talking about here is: Are companies entitled to carry out research and development in this Province? Of course they are. Whether it is Inco testing out a particular process, or whether it is an aquaculture firm, research and development to a new product or a new strain of an aquacultural product or a new biotechnology product, research and development is important and it should be conducted. Whether it gets turned into products or whether it actually becomes a process, that is another question. That is a different question that has to be answered by someone else in a different forum; but I, for one, am not going to object to money being spent on research and development, provided it is something that is deserving of research and not just a flim-flam project or a way for a corporation to get money for their coffers.

I do have to say, Madam Speaker, we are talking about Inco, I suppose. The subtext of this motion is about Inco, and we have heard the Premier say a few things about Inco that have kind of surprised me in the last couple of days. The ore is worth nothing in the ground, I heard him say the other day; the ore is worth nothing in the ground. I somehow remember a couple of years ago that Inco spent $5 billion to acquire the rights to mine that ore. It may not have gained the Province very much when Inco gave somebody else $5 billion to acquire the rights to it, but it was certainly worth a lot of money, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, there is another point I do want to address. We are talking about the processing of Inco ore and the processing of nickel. I have to agree with the Premier on a particular point because I happened to read the same speech that the Leader of the Opposition gave to the Board of Trade. It was on their Web site; anyone could read it and see it. I happened to hone in on that very same phrase, and I have to say to the Leader of the Opposition that I have a serious concern about that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: - the phrase that: nickel will only be required to process if it is proven to be economically feasible.

He said that, and I do not know if he knew about the argument and the debate that we had in this House last year about the Iron Ore Company of Canada wanting to process iron ore pellets in a pellet plant down in Sept-Iles. The debate that went on for the last two or three years in Labrador West and in this Province as to whether or not this government was going to permit Inco to build a pellet plant in Sept-Iles, and not in Labrador West, was all about a clause as to whether or not it was economically feasible. This government took the position that the pellet plant in Labrador West was not economically feasible, and therefore they allowed that to be built in Sept-Iles and ship ore out of this Province to be processed in Sept-Iles.

This government allowed that on the basis that they were bound, they said, by words that said that they had the right to do that if it was not economically feasible to do it in Labrador West. That was what hung this government in that particular situation.

I do not agree with them. I think that the Member for Labrador West and the committee for Labrador West were right, that it was impossible for this company to prove that it was not economically feasible to do it in Labrador West. I say that those are dangerous words to put in a document and a contract when you are dealing with the likes of Inco or IOC or the Australians or whoever owns IOC at the moment. Those are very dangerous words.

I said to our convention - it did not get the same publicity as the members' opposite convention in Labrador West because we did not have the levels of intrigue, Madam Speaker. We did not have federal leadership campaigns going on, on the floor of our convention. We did not get the same kind of coverage, but what I did say - our entire caucus was there, and I have to say proudly that the entire caucus was behind me as leader of the party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: I said to our convention that we have to be very careful that the position - if they are going to criticize, if the Tory Party is going to criticize the government on Inco, we have to be very careful, because their position looks surprisingly like the position of the Liberal government on the question of IOC and the issue of whether or not there should be a pellet plant in Sept-Iles.

I have to say that I agree with the Premier, it is a very incautious statement made by the Leader of the Opposition, and I am sure that he will explain to the House what he meant when he said that, when he gets an opportunity to speak.

I do have to say that this motion, obviously - and I think anybody who reads this motion in the context of the debate in this Province today knows that this is kind of a loaded motion, it is attempted to be a loaded motion. I see it, Madam Speaker, as an opportunity for us to say: Yes, we do want research and development to take place in the Province of Newfoundland. What happens to the product of that research and development is something that is another question. That is another question for another time.

The real concern that I have is that there is not enough research and development going on in Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not think that this government is making enough effort to ensure that we have our fair share of research and development money from Industry Canada. We do not have our fair share of other monies from other programs in Canada. I think that is underscored by the statistics put forth by the Member for Harbour Grace, that 80 per cent of the jobs from research and development go to the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec and very few, ninety-two out of 30,700 jobs, to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, just for one minute to finish?

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: Leave granted.

MR. HARRIS: That is the important point that can and should be made today in this debate. Certainly we support the notion, certainly we support research and development in Newfoundland and Labrador, but I want to say that we have to have more research and development in Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to this motion this afternoon, but before I do so, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the Leader of the Opposition into his seat and to say to him that I have heard a good many times that he was going to - he has dipped his toe in a few times. I want to tell him that he is now in, full-blown, right up to his neck in water.

AN HON. MEMBER: Over his head!

MR. TULK: He is probably, before too long, going to find himself in over his head, but welcome here anyway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Madam Speaker, let me say that some people in this House this afternoon have said this resolution should not go through the full debate of the Legislature. There is a suggestion that we should put the resolution and get it done with. I disagree with that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Oh, no. It has been around here this afternoon; let's get it done, let's get it over with.

It is a very important resolution that we are dealing with this afternoon, because it points out the need for research and development in this Province if we are going to succeed in this Province and have a leading-edge economy.

It also does one other thing for us. It is an opportunity for us all to stand four-square in this House and say where we all stand on research and development. It is an opportunity for every person here to say where they stand on research and development in this Province.

It is very difficult to know where the Leader of the Opposition is coming from on this issue, and I say that to him honestly and squarely. It is very difficult to know if he knows where research and development money comes from. I have heard him make a lot of statements over the years, but I have to say to the Leader of the Opposition that I could not believe my ears. I listened intently, and I apologize to him for a comment that I made on an Open Line show, to Bill Rowe, when I said: He cannot be stunned. I do not believe he is stunned.

I do not believe he is, and I should have never used those words. I do not believe the Leader of the Opposition is stunned, so I apologize to him for that. But he certainly is confused, when he suggests that we should go to the federal government and say to them, for the money that they have budgeted for research and development: You have to give us that health care.

Obviously, the gentleman has to be confused when he says that.

AN HON. MEMBER: You hope.

MR. TULK: I know he is confused. He has to be confused, to think that under CHST we get so much money for health and education, and that somehow or another the federal government is going to reach over into research and development funds and bring it over into the health pot and then say: Here, Newfoundland and Labrador, take some money.

That was the statement that he made on the Open Line shows in this Province. That was the statement that he made. There is confusion every way you look at it. There is confusion every way you look at what the Leader of the Opposition is saying. For example, on the Open Line show on June 7, 2001, the Leader of the Opposition made this point: Well, you know, if Minister Tobin is able to give $1.5 billion guarantees to Bombardier for aircraft contracts, why can't the federal government sit up and help us along with our project - he was referring to the Lower Churchill at the time - and guarantee that?

Then he goes on, on September 18, and this is the confusing part -

AN HON. MEMBER: You are confused.

MR. TULK: No, I am not. I know where I stand.

Surely the federal government is not going to take upwards of $100 million R&D dollars that should be going to health care and education in this Province, and give to a wealthy multinational.

He says, at another point on VOCM Open Line, on September 19, 2001: It is always good to get federal money, you know, at any point in time.

If that is not confusion, Madam Speaker, I have never heard it.

Then, he leaves that, so I get on the Open Line show and take a little run at him - only a little run, that is all; I was not insulting to him - only a little run at him, and said: The hon. gentleman cannot be stunned, and he is not stunned. The man is a Rhodes scholar. He cannot be stunned. But Bill, I said, he is confused. The hon. gentleman has to be confused because surely he knows that you cannot take money out of the research and development pot federally and move it over into health care.

Then he goes down and he speaks to the Federation of Labour and he says: Did you hear that Beaton Tulk, talking about how I should not be saying research and development money will go into health care? He says: Why doesn't he take $100,000 each and give it to 1,000 companies in the Province?

Well, I have to tell him something. That is not, again, how the system federally works. I do not go up to the federal government and say: Give me $100,000 to give to 1,000 companies. The companies, first of all, have to apply. Does he know that there is a 15 per cent tax credit, which amounts to a grant, for R&D in this Province? Does he know that companies through the NRC can apply for that at any time?

I will accept the kind of criticism that the former Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Kilbride, puts forward, and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. That is the kind of debate you expect in this House. That is what oppositions do. They prod you to do more, and so they should. That is what oppositions do and what they should do, prod you to do more; but to totally misunderstand the system. Then he goes on to imply - I have it here somewhere -

AN HON. MEMBER: You are confused, are you?

MR. TULK: No, I'm not. Don't ever believe it for a minute. I am not confused.

He then goes on to say in his news release - it is here in some of this material, where he goes on to say: you are given the money, you are making it more profitable. Why should we fund Inco, that great company? Doesn't he realize that if the federal government takes some of that money - which he has been saying in one mouthful, goes Bombardier and goes west of Ottawa. If you take some of that money and put it into Newfoundland, put it into Inco's research, maybe that gives the Minister of Mines and Energy, and myself, as the minister responsible for industrial benefits, to go say to Inco: There's more that should come to Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Does he not understand that? If it goes to their bottom line we are going to demand more from them out of their bottom line. Does he not understand that? There is a matter of total confusion.

I have to say to you, the former Leader of the Opposition, the person who is now my critic for Minister Industry, Trade and Rural Development, there was no confusion when he was there. He was not confused. He said in his Blue Book that the PCs will aggressively pursue research and development dollars. On this one point, Madam Speaker, I have to say to him that he is not confused.

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

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

MR. E. BYRNE: It is fine to debate the issue, and I appreciate that, but the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development on many occasions when I sat as Leader of the Opposition, said that I was confused, was ill intent, didn't know what I was talking about, didn't know the process. So, if you want to do it, do it right. If you want to say it, say it right, but don't try to say one thing one moment and something else the next.

That is the only point I want to make for clarification, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

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

MR. TULK: Madam Speaker, I have to say to the former Leader of the Opposition that there were times when he may have been off the mark, but I don't think I ever said to him that there was ill intent. I don't believe, ever, I said that to him. I think he is a very honourable gentleman.

Madam Speaker, let me come back to how important research and development is. Let me try to tell the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon how important research and development is. The Premier brought up about research and development in the cable business and the Leader of the Opposition got all upset. He started to squirm and say: Not me, I put my money in. I am sure you did, but I have to say to him that in the field of information technology, which is part of cable television, there must have been a great deal of public money, not necessarily in your station, but there must have been a great deal of research and development money which went into that industry, otherwise you would have never had, I say to the Leader of the Opposition - and I am proud of you for making a fortune; proud of you. Any Newfoundlander who makes money is not (inaudible) with me, but I have to say to the Leader of the Opposition, that without that research and development money having gone into the information technology industry, that broad industry, it would never have been available for you to make your fortune. I have to say that to you, and that is correct.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: No, I am not being personally critical of you, so don't get upset. Don't take any offense. I want you to stay cool in your seat because I understand you have a reputation for going off the - you know - sometimes, but don't do that. Don't bother that. I am not insulting, not at all.

I will just point out to the hon. gentleman, I will just point out to this House, I was with a group of students this morning, and Dr. Agnus Bruneau, down at the Newfoundland Science Centre; a group of Grade 5 students from Holyrood. Here is the Newfoundland Science Centre going around rural Newfoundland promoting the importance of science and the importance of research and development. Ask them how important research and development is? In terms of the social development of this Province, ask me. We were talking about Marconi and wireless this morning, and how important wireless technology was. I told the Grave 5 students about when I lived in Ladle Cove. When I grew up in Ladle Cove there were no roads, no telephones, no television. The only bit of communication we had with the outside world was a radio with an aerial made out of rabbit wire going out on a pole, and a dry cell battery. We used mostly Eveready. I said they were red and black, I could not say the word blue. They were red and blue, but the blue was on the bottom. My father would not have it in the house if the blue was on top. Let me just say to you, that the only thing that we have in that community - it was a great community to live in, I am not putting it down. It taught you one thing: independence; that was for sure. Let me just say to you, that was - I am a little bit older than the Leader of the Opposition, I was in Kindergarten in 1949.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Yes, and I think you were in before you said you were.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: I do not have much time left, Madam Speaker, but let me just say that today in that community you can be in touch with any part of the world. That is due, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, from research and development, and from research and development using public money.

I think it is important this evening that we put this vote in its true standing vote because I think we have to know where every member stands on this resolution on research and development and, in particular, as it relates to the project in Voisey's Bay and the metallurgy industry. We have to know - especially the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, he has to know because his constituents are demanding that he stand up and support them, and that he not fuddle duddle with it, that he not fool around with it, but that he stand up and support them; that he stand up and support them for the development of an industry in their town that can lead them to prosperity. That is what he is asking. So I am looking forward to his vote. I am looking forward to his speech. As a matter of fact, if he wants to stand up and speak, I am going to ask the Government House Leader if he would concur with the Opposition House Leader in that we stop the clock for him to stand up and speak so that the time does not run out. I am going to put that to him. I am going to put that to this House, that the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, that the clock not stop him from speaking (inaudible) we stop the clock.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I have been a long time waiting for the opportunity for this debate in the House of Assembly, and I certainly welcome the opportunity to say a few words.

As I listened today, and over the past several months in this Province, I remembered something that my mother told me a long time ago: You can never get in trouble if you tell the truth. So I am going to start off with that.

Madam Speaker, I have told, what I believe, to be the truth since day one of negotiations that began on Voisey's Bay. Since day one, I have encouraged the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and Inco to go sit at the table; whatever it takes, go sit at the table. I was very disappointed when negotiations broke off. We need to be talking because we cannot go anywhere unless we are at least talking. I encouraged them from day one, to go sit at the table. I encouraged them from day one to try their best to reach an agreement, to bring that agreement to the table so that both sides can agree with it and feel comfortable with it, on both sides.

Thirdly, Madam Speaker, I have encouraged the government to take that deal to the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador before they sign it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Madam Speaker, we have a Private Member's Resolution here today concerning research and development funding and we can paint it, you can colour it, you can stand up and you can jive it - I say to the minister - anyway you like, we all know what is going on here today. It is concerning $100 million for Inco to do research and development funding. Am I against research and development funding in the Province for Inco or any other company? No, Madam Speaker, I am not. What I am against is as much as a dollar going to any company in Newfoundland and Labrador before they put their plans on the table so we can find out what is going with them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: I have a company in my district, Madam Speaker, that is approaching both levels of government, the provincial government here in this Province and the federal government in Ottawa. I have company in my district who is looking for, give or take, $100,000 to start a business in one of our small communities. What does the government ask - which I do not have a problem with - of that company? To give a five year cash projection; to give a five year plan before they can look at giving you $50,000 to start your business. They are asking for a five year plan. On the other side, we are asking to give $100 million to Inco and we do not know what the plan is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: The same government is asking us to do that. They are asking me, as a representative of a district in this Province, to stand and support funding when I do not know what the plan is.

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a few questions, if I could. I have asked these questions before and neither the Minister of Mines and Energy, the Premier, or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development is willing to answer it. Will the $100 million that Inco is looking for going to be spent to build modules for the pilot plant in Newfoundland or are they going to be built in Ontario and Quebec, and shipped here? A fair question, I say to the minister.

Where is the guarantee from Inco that if the pilot plant does not work out that the modules will not be shipped back to the mainland when Inco feels like it? Is there a guarantee against that? Fair question, again, Madam Speaker.

Where is the guarantee that Inco will build a processing plant in Argentia if the pilot plant does not work? A very important question, Madam Speaker. We are talking about unproven technology.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: We are talking about unproven technology and we are asking to go test it. I want to know what happens if that does not work? A fair question, what happens if that does not work? Is there an ironclad guarantee that we will have a full smelter-refinery complex? With that question, Madam Speaker, I would like to go back, because the same people who are on the other side of the House were the people who stood here in this House, who went out on the roads and the wharves and the streets of this Province and brought forward the concerns of the former Premier, Mr. Tobin. I would like to quote Mr. Tobin's words, if I could, who was the Premier of the day: We will not - these are the words of Brian Tobin and you supported him when he came down here -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: You all supported him. The words of Brian Tobin: "We will not be getting a fair return if we do not have a smelter-refinery complex. If we ever accept the notion that ‘build the mine now and we'll get the smelter-refinery later', later will never ever come."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: I ask another fair question: who is flip-flopping now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Madam Speaker, another question I have yet to have an answer for: How much ore does Inco want to ship from this Province to Sudbury, Ontario while the pilot plant is being built and the ore is being tested? How much? No answer.

Do not tell me, Madam Speaker - and I say to all hon. members with total respect - do not tell me that the people of the Province do not want an answer to that one before you sign the deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Another question I have yet to have answered - and I don't see anybody jumping up with the answers, Madam Speaker. Another question I have yet to have answered: Where is the legal guarantee, one that can be backed up, not one you signed in Marystown, one that can be backed up?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Madam Speaker, where is the legal guarantee that we can stand on, to ensure the equivalent amount of ore is returned to this Province, if that is that case that ore is shipped out? Where is the guarantee for that? I have yet to receive an answer for that one, Madam Speaker.

Another question I have to ask that I haven't got an answer for: Will Inco have a way to tell us in five years time - this is a very important question, Madam Speaker, because what we are talking about here is something for the short term and we are talking about something for the long term.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I say to the Minister of Fisheries, you wanted to hear what I have to say. I sat down and I listened to everybody else speak and I ask for the same courtesy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Several people in this House have played petty politics with this issue. I am not about to do so.

Another question I have, which is a very important question, I say, Madam Speaker: Will Inco have a way to tell us in five or six years time that due to the fact they shipped ore out, a very important point, due to the fact that they shipped ore out of this Province and the pilot plant did not work- it is not feasible in five years time to build a processing plant in Argentia. A very serious question, Madam Speaker, a very serious question. What happens if the pilot plant does not work? I am not talking about short-term gain here, I say to the Minister of Industry, Trade, and Rural Development. The people in Placentia and St. Mary's are not looking for something short term. We are looking for something long term, therefore, we need guarantees. If we have learned nothing in this Province, we should have learned from our mistakes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Madam Speaker, Inco said earlier, if the pilot plant does not work out, we will use the next best technology. What is that? I would like to know what it is. I would like to know the next best technology, how many jobs the next best technology will guarantee us. I would like to know what the next best technology is. Madam Speaker, I would like to know what Plan A is, let alone say what Plan B is going to be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear

MR. MANNING: Madam Speaker, there are some major concerns we have here, and instead of trying to sit down here in the House of Assembly and bringing forward a resolution or bringing forward a debate here where we can ask the questions that need to be asked - the Leader of the Opposition was on his feet yesterday asking some of the same questions I have asked here. We cannot get answers from people who are sitting at the table, who are doing the negotiations.

Madam Speaker there are only a handful of people in this Province that know exactly what is going on at the table and that is understandable. There have to be negotiations. It is a business deal with a company, Mr. Speaker, and there have to be negotiations. I am saying to you: how can the government, how can the minister, how can the Premier, how can the Minister of Industry Trade and Technology who has been here a long time, Mr. Speaker, how can he ask us on this side of the House, how can he ask the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, how can he ask the Member for Placentia and St. Mary's to sign a blank cheque?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I believe, and I am sure that many people in this Province believe, that what we get upfront from Inco, we will get, what we sign in the deal on the dotted line in the beginning is what we will have. We will not be able to go back to Inco in five or six years time and say: Sorry boys, we made a mistake. We will not be able to do that. We are down now in Marystown saying: Sorry, we made a mistake. It is too late now, Mr. Speaker, and that is why it is important -

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

It is now 4:45 p.m., and I believe at 4:45 p.m. the hon. member who introduced the resolution has fifteen minutes to conclude.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: There have been a lot of requests for `by leave' when members are speaking, and certainly we do not want to stymie debate but, as we indicated before, when we give leave of the House the hon. member should be very cognizant that we are just doing it for a very short period for the hon. member to clue up. We will allow a minute for the hon. member to clue up his remarks.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

I have sat here since 2:00 p.m. today, very early in the day, and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation asked me was I going to get on my feet. The Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace brought in his resolution and he wanted to hear from the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development was on his feet and was looking forward to hearing from the minister, the Member - minister later on - for Placentia & St. Mary's. I am trying my best to do that. This is a very serious situation. I thank the Government House Leader for the few minutes to finish up.

Mr. Speaker, am I against Inco receiving federal funding of $100 million or more to assist with a pilot plan? Definitely not. What I am against is Inco receiving as much as a dollar until they tell me what the plans are for the people of Placentia & St. Mary's, until they tell me what the plans are for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, until they tell me what the plans are for future of this Province. That is what I am against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I said a few minutes ago that we cannot go back, we have to look towards the future. This is an opportunity here now to do something right. It is an opportunity to correct some of the wrongs that were done in the past by all political stripes. There are none of us immune from having friends on both sides of this House who have made mistakes that have cost us benefits and money for our children and our grandchildren. We have all been part of that. It is time now to sit at a table, it is time to lay it all on the table, it is time to tell the people the truth, it is time to let everybody know what is going on. When you have a deal, and I say the government, when government and Inco have a deal that they are comfortable with, take it to the people of the Province, explain it to the people of the Province, debate it here in the House of Assembly, give everybody ample opportunity to have their say before you sign the deal, before it locks up the future of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: By leave, for one minute, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: One line. I began my remarks, that you wanted to hear so badly, with words from my mother and I will finish them with words from someone else whom I admire very much, Martin Luther King Jr. These words are: "The time is always right to do what is right."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised a lot of questions. There is no question that he, and the people of Newfoundland, deserve to have an answer to these questions. We can provide the answers to these questions. This is a private members' resolution and one person in the Chamber who is familiar with the negotiations, who has been involved in the negotiations, who would know the answers, would be the Minister of Mines and Energy. I wonder if the hon. members would allow the Minister of Mines and Energy to respond in place of the member. We are not asking for more time, just for the hon. members to allow the Minister of Mines and Energy to respond in place of the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace. It is a little unusual, but if members want the answers we can provide them.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, we certainly do not have any major problems with that. This is an issue that is important to the people of the Province. It is too bad you did not have the fortitude to lay it right on the Table in the resolution, but that is what we are debating.

Certainly we can provide leave for the minister, in place of the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, but certainly be aware - and we need to make this very clear - that also, after the minister speaks, we let the Leader of the Opposition have ten or fifteen minutes to provide his take on it.

The Premier was here today, and other members wanted to hear from the leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh

MR. E. BYRNE: We can provide that leave; that is not a problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: I want it to be clear, and I want to be clear myself in what the Government House Leader said.

This resolution, Mr. Speaker, was designed with the Leader of the Opposition in mind. All afternoon during debate, ministers and members, from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development to the Premier to the mover, have taken direct potshots at the leader.

Now, you have asked for an opportunity. You wanted to hear from the member. Government members said they wanted to hear from the Member for Cape St. Francis. You have heard from him.

AN HON. MEMBER: Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. E. BYRNE: Placentia & St. Mary's, I am sorry.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to get to his point of order quickly.

MR. E. BYRNE: I am, Mr. Speaker, thank you.

Members and the Premier wanted to hear from the Leader of the Opposition, so I wanted to be clear for everyone so everyone understands, that you have denied now the opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to have a few words.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Not to delay this, Mr. Speaker, just simply to say that the Leader of the Opposition has time from 3:00 p.m. until 5:00 p.m., the same as everybody else. We are not denying him the opportunity to speak. We understand that the Opposition do not want the answers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry this afternoon that this debate did not bring about a non-political resolution. I am sorry. This debate this afternoon was brought here for the people of this Province, and at the last minute turned into a political conundrum.

Mr. Speaker, the best interests of the people of this Province have to be served in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Each and every member on this side of the House availed of the parliamentary clock today, to speak. Now, at the end of the day, the Leader of the Opposition sits there in his chair, still has not spoken, and there is no time left for him to speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. The assertion and accusation made by the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace is not correct. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development said, we will stop the clock.

We have asked -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to get to his point of order quickly.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate you asking me that. If government ministers and the Premier can settle down for a moment, I will get to it. Those are the facts of it. We asked leave for our leader to clue up debate on our side.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you didn't.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, we did.

Mr. Speaker, could you please ask the government to please settle down so I can get to my point? Would you like to do that? Thank you very much.

The Government House Leader asked if we would give leave for the Minister of Mines and Energy to speak, because he has been involved in negotiations. We said yes, as long as our leader has ample opportunity after he speaks to give our point of view. You said, no.

The Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development said, we can stop the clock.

I will not stand here, nor will we stand here to a false accusation that he did not want to speak.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: It was the government of the day that denied him leave to do so!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

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

MR. LUSH: As this humble member understood it, we asked for the Minister of Mines and Energy to provide the answers to the questions raised by the hon. member, without affecting the rules of the House, without changing anything other than substituting for the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, as simple as that.

The Opposition House Leader wanted to extend the day by having the Leader of the Opposition speak. Since that is outside of the ordinary rules, we said no to that, Mr. Speaker.

To come back to the point used by my friend, the Member for Bonavista North, about stopping the clock, that was only for the Member for Placentia. Hansard will prove that. He said that if the Member for Placentia wanted to speak, we would stop the clock. That was the only provision, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will hear one quick point of order from the hon. the Opposition House Leader on this particular issue.

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

What the Government House Leader said today is leaving a false impression. Had this government been clear with its motion - they have wasted time by amending their own motion, setting silly political traps to one of the most important issues in the Province. I want to be clear. It was the Government House Leader (inaudible) that denied the Leader of the Opposition a chance to (inaudible)..

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

I ask the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace to conclude the debate.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, again I say that the hon. gentleman had his time today to speak, if he wished.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: In the interest of getting the vote in this evening, are we running at 5:00 p.m. or running at gavel to gavel?

AN HON. MEMBER: Five.

MR. SWEENEY: Five.

I would like to answer the hon. the Member for Placentia -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: Move the motion, please.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the amendment, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division.

Call in the members.

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

All those in favour of the amendment, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Premier; the hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs; the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development; the hon. the Minister of Education; the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services; the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation; the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs; the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board; the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy; the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation; the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment; Mr. Joyce; the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture; the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General; the hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education; the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands; the hon. the Minister of Labour; the hon. the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs; the hon. the Minister of Environment; Mr. Mercer; Ms Hodder; Mr. Andersen; Ms Jones; Mr. Sweeney; Mr. Butler; Mr. Harris; Mr. Collins.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the amendment, please rise.

CLERK: The Leader of the Opposition; Mr. Edward Byrne; Mr. Ottenheimer; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Sullivan; Ms Sheila Osborne; Mr. Fitzgerald; Mr. Hodder; Mr. Wiseman; Mr. Hunter; Mr. Manning; Mr. Tom Osborne; Mr. Taylor; Mr. Hedderson; Mr. French; Mr. Young.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to remind hon. members at this time that Standing Order 7.(2) says, "When the Speaker is putting a question, no Member shall walk out of or across the House, or make any noise or disturbance."

CLERK: Mr. Speaker, there are twenty-seven yeas and seventeen nays.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the amendment carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the resolution, as amended, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the resolution, as amended, carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members.

MR. SPEAKER: Are we ready for the question?

All those in favour of the resolution, as amended, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Premier; the hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs; the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development; the hon. the Minister of Education; the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services; the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation; the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs; the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board; the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy; the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation; the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment; Mr. Joyce; the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture; the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General; the hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education; the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands; the hon. the Minister of Labour; the hon. the Minster of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs; the hon. the Minister of Environment; Mr. Mercer; Ms Hodder; Mr. Andersen; Ms Jones; Mr. Sweeney; Mr. Butler; Mr. Harris; Mr. Collins.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the resolution, as amended, please rise.

CLERK: The Leader of the Opposition; Mr. Edward Byrne; Mr. Ottenheimer; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Sullivan; Ms. Sheila Osborne; Mr. Fitzgerald; Mr. Hodder; Mr. Wiseman; Mr. Hunter; Mr. Manning; Mr. Tom Osborne; Mr. Taylor; Mr. Hedderson; Mr. French; Mr. Young.

Mr. Speaker, twenty-seven yeas and seventeen nays.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the resolution, as amended, carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 1:30 p.m.