May 16, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 25


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, the Chair would like to rule on couple of points of order that were raised yesterday and on Tuesday of this week. On May 13, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy raised a point of order concerning the use, during Oral Question Period, of a comment he had made during a meeting of the Resource Estimates Committee. The minister stated that the Leader of the Opposition left the wrong impression in quoting an excerpt from the records of the meeting rather than the whole passage. It appears, from reading Hansard, that there is a difference of opinion between the two hon. members and that the hon. minister really was taking the opportunity to clarify what he had meant.

This brings me to, of course, preambles to questions and answers. I want to take this opportunity to remind members that preambles to questions are not permitted except for a short explanation before an original question. The Chair has noticed lengthy preambles are creeping into the questions again and the effect of this is to elicit a long preamble to the answer, and the time for Oral Question Period, of course, is then taken up in debate rather than eliciting information. The Chair would remind all hon. members to keep questions and answers brief and to the point.

Yesterday, the hon. the Government House Leader raised a point of order concerning comments made by the Leader of the Opposition during Oral Question Period. The Leader of the Opposition, in questioning the hon. the Premier, said, "My question for the Premier is: Why did he try to mislead the people into thinking that there was going to be a debate in this House on Voisey's Bay...".

It has been held on numerous occasions in this House that to suggest that a member misled the House is not unparliamentary, as one can mislead inadvertently; however, to suggest that a member has intentionally misled the House is unparliamentary and out of order. In this instance, the Chair is of the opinion that the expression "try to mislead" is unparliamentary, as there is a suggestion of deliberation or intent on the part of the Premier. The Chair therefore asks the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw this comment.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: If I am going to withdraw it, I want to make sure he is here to do it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WILLIAMS: I respect the ruling of the Speaker and I certainly withdraw my comment. My remark was certainly no intention to imply that there was any deliberate intention to mislead the House. That remark is withdrawn.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the hon. member.

The Chair would also like to welcome to the gallery today, Mayor Jerry Dean from the Town of Botwood, Town Manger Ed Evans, and Councillor Scott Sceviour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I would like to welcome to the gallery today, twenty-two Grade 8 students from Inter-Island Academy, Summerford, and they are accompanied by their teachers: Derek Dalley and Kim Harris, and bus driver John Philpott.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this House today to congratulate Margaret Burden of Port Hope Simpson, who has been recognized for her efforts to promote recreation in Labrador.

Ms Burden was one of four recipients of awards at the 2002 Newfoundland and Labrador Parks and Recreation Awards. The others were: Charlie Stephens of Mount Pearl, Jim Scott of Gander, and the Grand Bank Lions Club.

Mr. Speaker, Margaret has played a huge role in the promotion of recreation activities in Labrador and she received the Pitcher Plant Individual award. She has worked tirelessly in her efforts to promote and organize the Labrador Winter Games, a very successful event that Labradorians are truly proud of. But, more than that, Mr. Speaker, Margaret is always there to help others, whether it be assisting persons with disabilities within her community or volunteering with the Pottery Therapy program that she has been so committed to.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all members of this House, I want to congratulate Margaret for her award and her efforts to promote recreational activities within my district.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a recently deceased centenarian, Mrs. Ellen Mary Hickey of Holyrood. She passed away peacefully in the presence of her family, on May 6, in her 101st year. As the oldest resident in the town, Mrs. Hickey, with her passing, marks the end of an era certainly for that town.

Born Ellen Mary Webb in Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, she immigrated to this Province as a teenage bride of Lawrence Hickey, a miner who had gone to Glace Bay for work. Making their home in Holyrood, the couple raised two children: son Fred and daughter Evelyn. The family since extended into four grandchildren, eleven great-grandchildren, and three great-great-grandchildren. As well, the Hickey's acted as foster parents to a number of children.

Ellen Mary readily adopted Holyrood as her home taking an active part in all aspects of the community life and certainly was a pioneer, or considered a pioneer, in that particular community. She, as a midwife, provided a valuable service in the time when doctors were not available. Many older residents of Holyrood were delivered into this world by her hands. Young and old alike, Mr. Speaker, have many fond memories of this fine lady.

Recently the town honoured this lady. She assisted Mayor Jim Lewis with the opening of the Crystal Carnival at age 100. She followed current events closely right up until her death, and when asked about reaching 100 years, she replied: If I had known I would reach 100, I would have taken better care of myself. On getting old, she warns that she knew she was getting old when getting up in the morning, the snap, crackle and pop that she heard was not the Rice Krispies.

On behalf of her MHA, Mr. Bob French, myself, I would ask all members of this House to extend condolences to the Hickey family on the passing of their matriarch, Mrs. Ellen Mary Hickey.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ocean Net is an action-oriented, grassroots, non-profit organization founded in Newfoundland and Labrador whose primary mandate is to help reverse the destruction of the world's oceans. Ocean Net has partnered with diving clubs, schools, fishermen, community organizations, government agencies and environmental groups to implement a series of environmental initiatives.

One such initiative is a challenge to all schools, individuals and indeed community groups in the Province to participate in the organization's second annual Oceans Day 2002 Beach and Shoreline Cleanup Challenge. Cleanups are being organized throughout the year but Oceans Day, held on June 8 is the focus.

Ocean Net founder Robert O'Brien, who will lead a team of organizers at St. Phillips beach, believes that this event is a great way to recognize the value of clean oceans.

The goal for this year is to clean up fifty beaches. It will kick off another year of environmental activity by the organization, which now has a five-year documented history of volunteer environmental leadership in Newfoundland and Labrador.

This initiative is an excellent way to bring communities together, and at the end of the day preserve a pristine and beautiful beach for all to enjoy. Ocean Net receives support from various levels of government, both federal, provincial and some municipal and also from the Canadian Wildlife Federation. Newfoundland and Labrador has some of the most beautiful and pristine beaches in the world.

I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join with me in wishing Ocean Net success in keeping those beaches clean and beautiful.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I stand today to congratulate the community centre in Shea Heights who have recently installed the Community Access Program introducing to the community access to the World Wide Web. This gives opportunity to students to research for homework, to parents to gather background information on medical issues and other such research. Mr. Speaker, this is a valuable asset to the community centre in Shea Heights because it opens the doors to the community. Anybody who is not able to have access to the Computer Access Program, to have access. I congratulate all of those involved who have volunteered to ensure that this program was successful.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to make a member's statement.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an individual who has, as of late, received much attention both nationally and internationally, and is a source of great pride for the residents of Twillingate Island, and indeed the entire Province.

Mr. Speaker, the individual of whom I speak exhibits characteristics and traits which are quite common in Newfoundlanders and Labradorians everywhere. Leadership, dogged determination, and the ability to stand tall in the face of adversity - these are just some of the qualities that distinguish this person above all others.

Mr. Speaker, he has overcome serious hardships and difficulties, and has risen to the top of his profession, exemplifying the spirit and tenacity for which Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are known.

Mr. Speaker, the son of Mr. and Mrs. Herbert Roberts of Twillingate, number seven of the Toronto Maple Leafs, Gary Roberts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Number seven of the Toronto Maple Leafs, Gary Roberts is leading the only Canadian team remaining in the NHL Stanley Cup playoffs. I ask all hon. members in this House to join with me in wishing him and his team the very best in their quest for the Stanley Cup.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just like to say two things: Go Gary! Go Leafs!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my hon. colleagues of the results of the roundtable held yesterday on a further 10 per cent tuition reduction at Memorial University, and also to acknowledge and welcome to the gallery: Gilbert Salam, the new President of MUNSU; Liam Walsh and Marcus Penney of the Canadian Federation of Students; Matthew Byrne of the Grenfell Student Union; and Tom Duggan, Vice-President External of MUNSU.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: I am pleased to announce that all parties at the roundtable unanimously agreed that the best way to invest the $3.5 million set aside in this year's budget process is to implement the proposed 10 per cent tuition reduction for Memorial University.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I will be writing the Board of Regents today to request that they consider a further reduction in tuition rates by 10 per cent. The effect of this reduction would bring tuition fees to $2,675 per year, one of the lowest rates in Canada. The reduction will apply to all programs with the exception of the Marine Institute, which already has similar fees to the College of the North Atlantic, and the Medical School where government will ask the Board of Regents to extend the tuition freeze for a further year.

This announcement, in addition to the recent announcement surrounding Student Financial Services in the Province, means that students now have access to one of the most progressive post-secondary education systems in the country.

Mr. Speaker, this will mean that starting this September, not only will students at Memorial University pay the lowest tuition in Atlantic Canada; they will also have access to Student Financial Services that provide: a debt reduction grant program that will eliminate up to 100 per cent of the provincial student loan for high needs borrowers -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: - targeted programs for MUN medical students and Early Childhood Education students; an increased commitment to career and financial counseling; and a flexible appeals system that takes into consideration extenuating circumstances - especially those for single parents and disabled students.

Students, and other stakeholder groups, asked government to allow them to decide how best to invest this money for their education and their future - and we have delivered, Mr. Speaker. This decision will lower the cost of post-secondary education in the Province and help meet the mandate of affordable, accessible and accountable post-secondary education established by this government.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for giving me a copy of her statement before the House opened. I would like to also take the opportunity to welcome the representatives of students here to the gallery today.

We, on this side of the House, are very pleased with the news that tutitions are going to be cut by 10 per cent again. When the Budget was announced we were concerned, because of the way that the minister announced it in the Budget, that there was a possibility that the 10 per cent reduction would not be put in place, that they would look at other ways of reducing tuition costs to students. We all know that the best place to reduce the tuition cost is in the tuition itself, Mr. Speaker. We are very pleased on this side of the House to see this announcement today.

We also certainly are very pleased that the students themselves, the student leaders themselves, are involved in the decision-making process because it can only produce positive results, as we have seen here today.

We certainly welcome the news. Anything that is positive to provide accessible, affordable, post-secondary education to all the students of Newfoundland and Labrador is something that this side of the House will support and agree upon. We certainly look forward to any other good news that the minister may have.

In keeping with that, we just say that there are special circumstances in many students' cases that we look at, especially those who come from rural Newfoundland, who have extra costs - extra costs associated with travel, board, and everything else - that we look at ways of providing more accessible education to those people, more affordable. We look forward to anything positive that will help the students of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement here in the House today, and acknowledge the fact that I did have the other statement the other day but it was not presented to me.

I am glad the students leaders are here, Mr. Speaker, because I want to congratulate them on their unity and solidarity in demanding that the money be used to reduce tuition by 10 per cent, contrary to the suggestions of the minister on Monday in the House, but they were unanimous. I also want to acknowledge that the minister's officials, at that meeting, were very directed in their interest in seeing the money go towards tuition. I want to acknowledge that here publicly today. I think it is a positive step. It is a positive step and a step forward. It leads to progressive policies for students in this Province.

I think we have to start worrying and concerning ourselves now, Mr. Speaker, about the high cost of a medical education in this Province. It is driving students, young medical graduates out of the Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: It is having the effect of driving young medical graduates out of the Province and making it difficult to recruit graduates. Also, we should start thinking about those who have been damaged by the disaster of student aid policies of the last ten years. Something should be done to try and redress those wrongs, Mr. Speaker. The high cost of student debt has led them to be in a serious financial situation. Many of them have been forced to leave the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is difficult to get serious today. Everybody is in such a good mood, the 24th of May weekend coming up. We should actually give the Member for Cape St. Francis a big round of applause for his championing of the cause of trout and we can catch pan-size trout this weekend. A big round of applause for the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has gone from wanting a debate in 1999 when he was minister to not wanting a debate, as Premier, until yesterday when he finally caved in from pressure from the Opposition, from our advertising campaign -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: - and listened to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and said that he would bring a binding agreement to the Legislature for ratification. We need to note, Mr. Speaker, that the ratification is after the fact, it is after the agreement is legal and binding on the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I repeat my question from yesterday, and I ask the Premier: Why would he not debate the terms of the agreement in this Legislature before it is final and binding and enable the Opposition and the people of this Province to make suggestions, constructive suggestions, as to how they might improve this deal for the people of the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to further clarify the position because the Opposition seems to have trouble understanding it. Mr. Speaker, the point is this: everybody involved in the negotiation from the government side - because we do have a mandate to negotiate on behalf of the people of the Province, we are elected to do that - and everybody who are negotiating for Inco understands, because we have been in contact with them in the last little while, now that we have passed over, voluntarily, the right to have a vote - because it is not required by law to have a vote on this issue in this Legislature. We have decided, because of the nature of the issue, to have a vote. They understand fully in the discussions that any agreement we reach with them, that we bring here for ratification, will have no impact, will be binding on nobody, unless it passes a vote in this Legislature. They know that today.

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 need to get clarification because there are inconsistent messages that are coming out.

Outside the House yesterday the Premier clearly indicated that there would be no ratification clause contained in the agreement that was going to be brought before the Legislature. Last night his trusted confidant, the Minister for Human Resources and the Member for Topsail, said: I am not a lawyer, but I believe that 90 per cent of Newfoundland knows full well that if you are going to enter into an agreement that we are going to sign on to, we are not going to take it into the House of Assembly and have it voted on, to be voted down, or take the chance of voting it down without a clause saying that this deal is subject to a vote in the House of Assembly. That is how simple it is. That is your quote.

Mr. Speaker, the question for the Premier is - those statements are completely opposite, completely contradictory, completely inconsistent. Who is right? Is your statement right, Premier, or the statement of the Minister for Human Resources? Which statement is correct?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition, I think, knows this issue entirely and completely. I give him credit for that, absolutely. He knows now, just as he has been doing for the last three or four days, actually for the last several weeks, that his only objective is to try to create confusion here when there is none. That is his whole desire, Mr. Speaker.

Let me repeat again for everybody in the Province. Everyone who is at the negotiating table - where he is not, by the way, because he has no mandate to negotiate for the people of the Province, he is in the Opposition, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Everyone who is negotiating with respect to this issue understands that nothing is binding on anybody unless it passes the vote in this Legislature. They have given us no indication that they need or desire anything in writing to that respect. We have given them no indication that we need to put it there. As a matter of fact, they have told us as recently as today, in our officials speaking to them, that their intention, what they are trying to accomplish, is an agreement with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador so we can proceed with a project.

They are not trying to set up a circumstance where the agreement fails and they sue the government. That is not what they are interested in. Their interest in this case is aligned with ours. We are both trying to do something to let the project proceed. Nobody involved in the negotiations - the only person talking about suing anybody in this issue is the Leader of the Opposition, the same as he does with any kind of issue. If he has nothing else to talk about, he will bring in a totally non-related absolutely unfounded issue -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - and try to tie it into something in which it has no application.

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, the Premier says that I have no mandate to negotiate. Well, that makes two of us, Premier, because you have no mandate whatsoever from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, given the very serious legal consequences for damages that can arise from the failure to have a clause in the contract that it be ratified by the House of Assembly, I ask the Premier: Why would he expose the Province to the risk? There is a very simple, straightforward solution. Will you, Premier, put a clause in the agreement that says it is subject to ratification by the House of Assembly? I need a yes or no.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, again the Leader of the Opposition today would rather stand here and talk about a diversion, about something that has nothing to do with the Voisey's Bay issue. He did touch for a minute on the real issue, because his cohort, the Opposition House Leader, who changed his mind four times in the space of twelve hours as to what they really wanted accomplished and what they wanted to do, spent all last year suggesting to the people of the Province that I personally, and this government, does not have a mandate, and he did touch on that.

We do have a mandate, and we are going to live to our mandate 100 per cent. We hope to deliver a deal, and in that deal there are no concerns whatsoever about anyone suing anyone; because, unless it passes a vote in this Legislature, it will be binding on no one, it will have no impact, in effect, and everyone who is negotiating for us, and everyone who is negotiating for Inco, acknowledges that today, knows that today, and has absolutely no concern about that today.

The only person raising that as an issue - because he does not want to talk about the real issues. He does not want to talk about a framework today. He did not want to talk about it yesterday. He does not want to talk about the deal today. He does not want to talk about the benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador today. He wants to suggest that there is some potential problem which does not exist, because he does not know what his own position is on this particular issue.

We would gladly, by the way -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - suspend the rules of the Legislature again today and have the debate that he called for yesterday, which is the framework of a potential agreement on Voisey's Bay, if that is his wish.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is a perfect example of where we can help, where we are making a constructive comment, quite seriously, based on our experience, based on what we know about contracts. We make a constructive comment here and the Premier flippantly just throws it away.

Mr. Speaker, I am not the only one who is concerned about this. There is at least one member of the Premier's Cabinet who is concerned, which is the Minister of Human Resources, because he says that 90 per cent of the people would have that clause in the contract.

I ask the Premier: Are you part of the 10 per cent? And how many of the rest over there are part of the 10 per cent, Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, let me give a little further information rather than deal with the kind of diversionary tactics that the Leader of the Opposition likes to try to deal with. What we will be presenting, if we are successful, for ratification in this Legislature in full debate, is a Statement of Principles, hopefully, that will be agreed to between the government and Inco, with respect to developing the Voisey's Bay deposit.

Everyone understands - and they were very upset about the language of signing off and signing things, although the Opposition House Leader, on Open Line yesterday, said: What we want is that, after the Premier signs the agreement, we want it debated in the House before it becomes binding. That was his quote yesterday.

We will sign off on a Statement of Principles, Mr. Speaker, and then it will be brought here for debate. Everyone knows that none of it will be binding on either Inco or us unless it passes a vote in this Legislature.

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, my question is for the Premier. Is he telling this House today, that the document that will be executed or will be agreed upon between Inco and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will not be binding on the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador until after it is ratified by the House of Assembly? Because, if that is the case, that is exactly what I am saying and we have a deal. We are in agreement with the process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Let me try to say it again more clearly, Mr. Speaker, and allow the Leader of the Opposition the comfort that he could have had yesterday, I guess, if he had listened to Jim Morgan and stopped playing politics with the issue, because the other great Progressive Conservative in the Province gave him some advice this morning.

Jim Morgan clearly understood, if anybody else didn't. He heard some clips on the news and he clearly understood that this was binding on nobody, now that it is going to have a vote in the Legislature. Unless the vote passes here, this binds nobody to anything. I believe that everybody else here, maybe, except the Leader of the Opposition, was willing to say they understood that to be the case yesterday and the day before, Mr. Speaker.

The issue here is this, and let's make sure we are crystal clear, because I do not want people to be confused about any of it. Let's have the issue crystal clear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: When it comes here, Mr. Speaker, because the Leader of the Opposition says it is an example of us giving constructive suggestions, improving the deal and so on, there is no opportunity in a ratification vote for amendments to the Agreement in Principle. Let's be crystal clear on that. We do not want to mislead anybody. Now I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will stand up and say - because he just agreed to the process and said, we are all for it - if we cannot amend it, what is the point in having a debate?

Stand up and say it, because I know you are going to say it.

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.

My first supplementary for the Premier is: Will you put a clause in the agreement between yourselves and Inco that says that the entire agreement is subject to ratification by this House of Assembly? Will you put that clause in, yes or no?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, let me say again that we are not in a courtroom. That might be a tactic that is useful in a courtroom. This is a parliamentary debate, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: I do not feel obligated to answer those kinds of questions.

Mr. Speaker, I understood the Leader of the Opposition to now, finally, say that he agrees with, accepts and understands, the process that we have laid out. My question is this: When is he now going to say he does not agree with it because there is no opportunity to amend the Agreement in Principle? Because, that is their next position. I can guarantee you, that will be the next position of the Opposition.

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 will ask the Premier again: Does he agree with his Minister of Human Resources - and, as the minister said, 90 per cent of the people in this Province - that you would be foolish to go ahead with a deal that did not have a ratification clause in it? I ask you again, yes or no, Premier? Will you put a ratification clause in the agreement that says that it is not legal and binding until it is voted upon by this Legislature, the people's courtroom, the people's voice?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad today that we have clarified that the Leader of the Opposition now understands and approves of the process that we have outlined, which is: that the government, which has a mandate, will negotiate an agreement, a set of principles, that will later on be turned into legally binding documents by lawyers. He understands that process.

I heard a caller - actually, it was reported to me - who suggested that the way to make sure that the Leader of the Opposition was satisfied here, because he does want to have input, is that, after we get the Agreement in Principle, because we do need the legal work done, that we should hire Mr. William's firm because then he would understand that he is getting some input into it. Maybe that is the answer, Mr. Speaker, because it will take probably six or seven or eight months, if it is voted upon in the affirmative in this Legislature. Right now, I guess, the only person that I can imagine who does not understand that this is not legal and binding on anyone if it does not pass here, the only person who seems to be suggesting that they still do not understand that is the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, there has been no need from the Inco side -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - who were at the negotiating, or from the government side to write down what everyone of us understands is the process in any event, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the policies of the provincial government as they relate to the processing sector of the fishery are leading to instability and uncertainty in the crab fishery this year. Lack of stability, coupled with an inconsistent and unpredictable licencing policy, has lead to tremendous uncertainty in the processing and harvesting sectors. I have had calls expressing concerns about plant production quotas, concerns about the variance between the negotiated and offered prices and predictions of a closure of the fishery.

Mr. Speaker, does the minister have any concerns that the chaos which seems to have engulfed the crab fishery this year could lead to serious problems in the industry, including the possible closure of the crab and/or shrimp fisheries?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I, and every member on this side, always have concerns about what is happening in the fishery. With regard to the price of crab this year, the hon. member opposite knows that we have a Final Offer Selection Agreement in place between FANL and the union whereby if they both cannot reach - whereby if the union puts forward a price that they are looking for, FANL puts forward a price that they are willing to give. If they cannot come to an agreement between them, it goes to an arbitrator and he decides whether it is going to be - if he rules on the side of the union or on the side of the processors, Mr. Speaker, we stay out of that. But, Mr. Speaker, it is a minimum price that is negotiated and there is nothing in any legislation that prohibits one plant owner from going out and offering one particular fisherman or fisherwoman in this Province more than what was negotiated at the table. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we have not signed on to any production quotas when it comes to crab and we made it quite clear last fall that we would not be doing so.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister should know that I was not talking about the Final Offer Selection process and I was talking about the significant problems related to the policies of his department. This minister should know that any problems in the crab fishery have direct and significant impacts on the shrimp fishery. The minister should know that the crab fishery provides the cash flow for the industry to pursue the shrimp fishery.

Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that many in the industry fear a closure of the shrimp fishery again this year with an expectation that it will close down before the end of June?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I am at a loss as to what the question was in that because I did not hear one. He talks about the policies of the Department of Fisheries, that it is having an impact. The only thing that we do is we licence fish processing facilities, Mr. Speaker. If he is saying that we have issued too many, than I ask him why is he knocking on my door looking for another crab processing licence for St. Anthony?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to understand what his licencing policy is when we now have forty-two crab licences and sixteen shrimp licences out there. That is what I am trying to understand.

Mr. Speaker, the minister has had the report of the Inshore Shrimp Panel for over a month now. The report on the cooked and peeled shrimp industry was commissioned by the minister when he finally realized that the policies of his government have led the shrimp industry down the road towards economic ruin.

Mr. Speaker, my question - in case he missed the last one, which he did - so he does not miss this one, this is the question: What does the minister plan to do with the recommendations in the report that he commissioned? When will he review his fish processing licence policy and when will he get off his hands and actually do something with the department that he is the head of?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the hon. member opposite now for a year talking about his plan. The only one issue that I have heard in the platform that he has with regard to processing is to close the Twillingate plant on Twillingate Island. That is the only thing that I have heard categorically from the member opposite, that if he were Minister of Fisheries, the only thing that he would do would be close the plant on Twillingate Island and put those people who are looking for work there this year out of work. That is his platform, Mr. Speaker.

With regard to the recommendations in the panel that we had on shrimp, there were thirty-eight recommendations in that report, Mr. Speaker, and he told me he read them time and time again. He says to me today: Do I accept all the recommendations in that report? Well, Mr. Speaker, there are thirty-eight recommendations. There are only twelve of those recommendations that the provincial Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture can deal with. The other twenty-six have to deal with DFO, FANL and the union, Mr. Speaker, and I cannot speak for DFO, FANL or the union -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. REID: - but I have been, for the past two weeks, in discussion with FANL and the union as to which recommendations we can accept and which we should reject.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Environment. Will the minister confirm that municipal recyclers are having difficulty with tire storage issues, with permits for their storage facilities? In fact, they have not even started recycling yet and most of their problems are due to the fact that government implemented this program before they had the proper procedures, the proper mechanisms in place to ensure that it would be successful.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the project and the policy is still being carried forward. We are still working through some of the glitches, some of the problems that we are experiencing with it, but a number of municipalities are onside. We are working with the contractor to implement the program. In very short time, we will have a further update on the details of the implementation of the program.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

That is the same answer we heard three weeks ago and the program is still failing.

Mr. Speaker, I ask: Did municipal recyclers request from the minister's department or from government that they cancel the contract in part because it was so poorly implemented to begin with?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the critic of the Opposition, what he tries to do most of the time is try to make sure something is not going to work or try to make sure that the issue - he makes it an issue so that it will not work. But, I can say this to the member, what we are trying to do is make this policy work. This is a very good policy. We will be going forward with the policy. We are in discussions with the contractor, and we will work out the problems that we are experiencing. Once it is worked out, this policy will be extremely good for the environment of this Province. So, as we work forward with the contractor - we are in direct discussions with them on a daily basis. We will solve these problems and in very short order we will have the problems worked out and the policy will be carried forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I ask the minister: Is it true that government refused to cancel the contract at the request of the recycler, the contractor, because they did not want to refund the $75,000 deposit, and instead they were hoping municipal recyclers would either be forced to fold their tent or walk away, removing the blame from government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we have tried to avoid having a public discussion about this situation with municipal recyclers because of their own internal problems, which have been in the media. We have been trying to work with them, as the contractor, to work out the problems to have the implementation of the contract. We are in direct discussions with them in the last few days as to whether or not they will be able to continue. We will have a final decision on that very shortly and we will have an alternative plan if that is the case, as we would for any other process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. Now that he has confirmed, as he did yesterday, that the agreement or any agreement with Voisey's Bay would be a tentative agreement subject to the ratification of this House of Assembly, is he prepared to make this a meaningful process and allow a Select Committee of this House to examine the agreement to call witnesses, if necessary, to study the agreement and report back to the House so that we will all have the benefit of a full discussion, full insight, and full scrutiny of any deal that might be presented?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While we are dealing with the question I might ask the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, who was a former law partner of the Leader of the Opposition, to give him his advice about whether or not there is going to be a lawsuit from Inco against the government with respect to this issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: I notice, Mr. Speaker, that the former partner does not share the legal opinion of the Leader of the Opposition.

It is the intention, as laid out clearly by the government - and again to point out that the government has a complete and total and entire mandate to sign off on this particular deal and implement it without any reference to the House of Assembly, without any ratification vote, without any examination by anyone other than what process that we determine ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, what we have - because of the political nature of the deal - agreed to do, because we want exposure and we want full debate, we have decided that one of the avenues that will be used other than public meetings and explanations and explorations of it all over the Province by the government, would be to have a full debate on a ratification vote in this Legislature and that if the ratification vote is successful, the deal will be implemented.

Mr. Speaker, there is no intention of the government to go beyond that with a larger process of this Legislature because there is no requirement to bring it to this Legislature in the first (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Many people will recall, or at least have been told about, the appearance before this House of Assembly, of Mr. John Shaheen. When the financing for the Come By Chance refinery was discussed, Mr. Shaheen was before the Bar of the House being questioned by members on both sides of the House. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that might make the process a little bit more meaningful -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: - that, rather than just a perfunctory vote, will the Premier not agree that proper scrutiny of a deal might require a little more detail than just a perfunctory vote in the House of Assembly?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I repeat again, it is not the intention of government to go through that kind of a process. Mr. Speaker, we have every confidence that, when the Statement of Principles is laid on the Table in this Legislature and provided to every single person in Newfoundland and Labrador who wants to examine it, that they will find their own way to express their views as to whether or not they like or dislike some components of the deal.

The fact of the matter is this, Mr. Speaker: there aren't any amendments to it that can be made in the process. It will be a negotiated deal for ratification. It might make some sense if it was possible to go out and say: Well, we agree here in my hometown of Grand Falls-Windsor that clause 3 should change. But, if clause 3 changes, there is no deal. So, the process does not lend itself to any particular use of that kind of -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: - notion and concept, but the ratification debate will occur in this Legislature and the explanation of the deal and the contents of it will be done fully throughout the Province by the government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne. Time for one quick question.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

It concerns a public meeting that I attended in Chapel Cove last evening, Mr. Speaker, concerning the contamination of water with arsenic discovered six months ago. To date, the officials of your department have certainly done the testing to show high levels of arsenic poisoning and they have been told, simply, Minister, not to worry, to see their family physician and hope that nothing will show up in the future.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: So, I ask the minister: How are his officials addressing this problem? And, will he make a commitment to send out some panel of experts to the people of Chapel Cove that can answer questions, that can allay their fears, that can certainly give them peace of mind -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair asks the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. HEDDERSON: - that their short-term and long-term effects on their health is not going to cause irreparable damage to their health?

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. member, I will say that the medical health officer for that area, it is an issue that Dr. Donovan has been pursuing on a regular basis. As a matter of fact, I learned this morning of the meeting least night. The department was not advised that there was a meeting. I understand it was a public meeting that they called. Dr. Donovan was not invited but she has met with the group concerned. She has offered to be available to meet with them at any point in time. In addition, Mr. Speaker, plans are underway, I am sure, as the hon. member would be aware, to hire a consultant to actually look at the long-term effects of that situation and to work with the population there.

Certainly we, as a department, are concerned -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SMITH: - with the long-term health effects of the people in that area and we are taking appropriate measures to, first of all, give them a level of comfort and try to offer them whatever support they may need.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Before I recognize the hon. member, I would like to acknowledge the presence today of a former member of the House for The Straits & White Bay North, Mr. Chris Decker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would like to correct a misleading statement made by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Mr. Speaker, I have never, either inside this House or outside this House, said that the Twillingate shrimp plant, the licence or the plant, would be closed down by this party. I have never said that. What I have said, Mr. Speaker, is the same thing that the people of Twillingate have said: that if the Member for Twillingate & Fogo was doing his job since 1997 then the people of Twillingate would have had a shrimp plant long ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The hon. member wants to clarify a statement that was made earlier by the hon. the Minister of Fisheries.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

In accordance with the Internal Economy Commission Act, the Chair would like to table the Report of the Commission of Internal Economy for the fiscal year April 1, 2000 to March 31, 2001.

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given

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

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

Yesterday in the House there was a question asked by a member opposite concerning a young lady in Pippy Park who had worked there for the past two years, went to the manager and was told she would not get her job back this year.

Mr. Speaker, I asked the member if he would submit a name and I would certainly look into it. I think it is such an important issue that I want to say that I did speak with the Pippy Park Commission this morning.

I think it is important for people to understand that these jobs that are available are about ten-week jobs. They are for post-secondary students, or those who would be soon post-secondary students. There are approximately fifteen to twenty jobs available. There are approximately 100 applications in a file folder supported by members from both sides of this House of Assembly. These applications go directly to administration. The implication that Mr. Tom Murphy was somehow involved, the Chair has absolutely nothing to do with any of the hirings. The only thing that he would do would be to send any applications he gets to the administrative staff, who are the people responsible for the hiring of any students.

There is a long compilation of applicants. I would also say again, the Chair has nothing to do with it. Interviews are provided to applicants. I think it is important to note, Mr. Speaker, that students are not rehired for a variety of reasons. I think that would certainly be clear in the event students may have worked there in the past and that would have to be factored in. It is not an automatic process. Students are interviewed, and if they have obviously a past working experience, that working experience would have to be incorporated into the decision of hiring.

In fact, I want to add, Mr. Speaker, that the Public Service Commission was called this morning. The hiring practices associated with summer students was reviewed with the Public Service Commission and they fully confirm that process. I want to say again, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing wrong happening here. Again, these aspersions are unfounded, unnecessary and totally inaccurate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Today I rise in my place to present a petition, a very timely petition, Mr. Speaker, that was dropped off to my office yesterday, and it has to do with trouting and the DFO proposed regulation changes.

The petition has 151 signatures and some ten letters. I will read the petition.

PREMIER GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Now that will tell you how informed the Premier is, he says there are no proposed changes.

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

WHEREAS we oppose legislative changes that do not respect our traditions of fair and equal access, conservation and our desire to minimize loss of prestine outdoor space;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to reject the proposal to amend the trouting regulations and to have management of trout by species, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, the first thing I will have to say on this - this petition is a direct result of the proposed changes from DFO to Ottawa that was sent off by the minister, some fourteen pages of proposed changes, Mr. Speaker, and the Premier here now is saying there are no proposed changes. Well -

PREMIER GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Now, he is just getting to the very point that I wanted to make. He says: not for this year. Well, we are not only looking out for this year, we know that you are very shortsighted, Premier, but we look at the long-term. We look at the long-term.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: A prime example of how shortsighted you are, is the answers that you gave in this House of Assembly today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Premier, change your mind one more time. You are used to changing your mind and we will (inaudible) on this side of the House with respect to Voisey's Bay, one more time.

With respect to the petition, Mr. Speaker, DFO has proposed to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

With respect to the proposed changes by DFO to the minister, some fourteen pages, the department did propose that there would be trout (inaudible) only be allowed to be obtained would be thirty centimeters, one foot long, and the maximum would be sixty centimeters, Mr. Speaker, two feet. The Premier is wrong on this issue. The Minister of Tourism responded when I asked questions a few weeks ago, and there was some very quick reaction. We brought it up here on a Thursday and Friday evening there was a reaction that it would not be imposed this year. He even said after that, the representative from DFO has said since then that they are looking at licencing by species. Now, what we will have to do, the people of this Province will have to go out and buy four licences for the various trout: the mud trout, the ouananiche, the rainbow, the sea trout, and also the brown trout. Also, Mr. Speaker, you have to get a licence for salmon.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

Maybe the Premier would want to get up and speak to this. Obviously, he does not know anything about it.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand here today to present a petition as well. The petition reads:

To the House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland;

WHEREAS the road on the Bonavista Peninsula from Route 235 through the communities of Open Hall, Red Cliffe, and Tickle Cove, is in such a deplorable condition that it damages vehicles and creates great discomfort and safety concerns for school children travelling on school buses; and

WHEREAS this road has not been upgraded since it was first paved more than twenty-five years ago, despite serious deterioration;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade where necessary and repave the seven kilometres of road leading from Route 235 through Open Hall, Red Cliffe and Tickle Cove, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is another petition in a series of petitions that I have been bringing forward to the House here to echo the voices of the people from Open Hall, Red Cliffe and Tickle Cove asking that their road be upgraded and paved in this year's capital works budget.

Mr. Speaker, myself and the minister travelled down to those three communities a few months ago. We met with some concerned residents there. As a followup to my visit there with the minister, a group came in and visited the minister and his staff at his office here and talked again about their concerns to see this particular roadway included in this year's capital works budget.

There is a gentleman on that particular road who lives there and has something like thirty truck units on the road hauling fish and storing them, and operates from the community of Tickle Cove right at the lower end of this particular access off Route 235. The school bus travels over it on a daily basis to pick up children in Tickle Cove, Open Hall, and Red Cliffe to take them to the school in King's Cove.

All they are asking for is that there be a beginning made. They are asking for seven kilometres of pavement. Their comments to the minister and their comments to me was: Look, we don't expect to get seven kilometres of pavement in one construction season. We realize that there are difficult times and there are other people who are looking for road work, but we would like to see a beginning made.

Last year there was a promise of two kilometres of pavement on that particular roadway, but because of budget restraints they ended up with something like 400 meters. Four hundred meters of pavement of the seven kilometres that they were asking for. They accepted that, but this year they are putting a plea in to the minister to come and at least make some realistic beginning in order to have some realistic work there of at least four kilometers of pavement done starting in one of the communities and going towards Route 235.

Their request is a simple request. Their request is something that they deserve. They are not asking for water and sewer; they are not asking for sidewalks; they are not asking for anything other than a decent road to drive over. When you talk to the gentleman there who has (inaudible) particular roadway, and look at what he is contributing -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: By leave if I could, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: -when you look at what he is contributing to the provincial coffers, not only him but the other people in those three communities deserve to be considered in this year's capital works budget. I ask the minister if he will consider this plea in this petition, to have some road work done on this particular roadway in this construction season.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition from my district and the central region. It reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the District of Gander and the region serviced by the James Paton Memorial Hospital Humbly Sheweth

WHEREAS it is the duty of the government to provide the people of the Province adequate health care; and

WHEREAS the services of a dialysis unit are increasing daily in many communities of this Province; and

WHEREAS the James Paton Memorial Hospital is a regional hospital, servicing approximately 50,000 people;

WHEREFORE your petitioners are seeking a commitment from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to establish a renal dialysis unit at the James Paton Memorial Hospital;

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, attached to this petition notice is a brief letter which reads: Please find enclosed another approximately 5,700 signatures from the area covered by the James Paton Memorial Hospital from Lewisporte to Twillingate, Fogo to Gander Bay, and all around the loop, including Glovertown and the Eastport Peninsula.

They state: We are looking forward to a positive response and the establishment of the unit in Gander. Yours sincerely. It is signed by Hans Larsen, President of the Gander Lions Club and Chair of the Gander Renal Dialysis Committee.

Mr. Speaker, as I outlined yesterday here in the House when we were talking about the private member's motion, presently in our Province we have 240 people receiving hemodialysis treatments at the various sites around our Province, in St. John's, Corner Brook, Stephenville, Grand Falls-Windsor and Clarenville. There is some capacity left in the western region of the Province and a little bit here in St. John's, but in Grand Falls-Windsor, the dialysis unit has reached it capacity of forty-two patients. Now, patients have to travel even to the West Coast or to St. John's, and now we have approximately twelve to fifteen patients who are already travelling to Grand Falls, and several others now who, because the capacity is all used up in Central Newfoundland, are having to move to St. John's.

We know that the incidence of kidney disease is expected to increase 9 per cent to 10 per cent annually in our Province due to an aging population, and we already know of the high incidence of diabetes.

Right now, in discussions with the Department of Health, they tell me that a renal dialysis committee is now completing a renal dialysis plan for this Province. This plan should be ready by the end of May or early June. I look forward to the department receiving this renal dialysis plan. It is a very high priority in the Central Newfoundland area.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS KELLY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am proud today to stand to present this petition. I will read the prayer of the petition first.

To the hon. House of Assembly, the undersigned residents of La Scie and surrounding communities do hereby petition the House of Assembly to upgrade and pave our roads. The deplorable and unfit conditions of the roads in our area make travelling to and from school unsafe for our children, as well as jeopardize the safety of the travelling public, hurt economic growth opportunities, and betray a lack of commitment to rural areas of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, this is yet another petition I have presented on behalf of these people in my district. To be honest with you, it is not a very proud moment to stand and continue to present these petitions. But, as long as they send them in, I told them that I would present their issue on the floor of the House.

I know the minister knows full well. We talked about it last year, this year, and with his officials awhile ago. It is continuous. To add it all up, to make sure that it is well-known, thankfully, the Premier was in my district last week and did take the time to drive over the La Scie Highway. I was glad to hear that he did, because many Premiers before him took the helicopter and did not drive over it. I am glad he drove over the road.

I also can report, at the same time, that when the Premier was in the district, the people from the depot went on the La Scie Highway and actually put pylons in front of the holes and the potholes that were so bad, to make sure that the Premier knew they were there, so they probably would not go down in them. Mr. Speaker, that is how bad and deplorable it has gotten. In all fairness, the Premier did tell the people in La Scie that it is probably the worst road condition in the Province, the La Scie Highway.

Many of my colleagues here heard me say it time after time, year after year. Yes, we did get a few kilometers of it done two years ago, nothing last year. There are still forty-two kilometers of very poor road conditions.

Mr. Speaker, I make this point again: La Scie and the eleven communities on that road - in La Scie, thankfully this year, and I am glad to hear it, the plant is up and running, a community that has a long history of not just providing for people in La Scie. But, when the La Scie plant works, and that is working on that Peninsula, that helps the entire area and all of those communities on that road. With the fish trucks and the activity, which is the good news part of it for La Scie, here is what they have to drive over: the most deplorable conditions in this Province, probably, when it comes to a paved road.

On top of that, we have the school children, who travel further now than ever before because of all the school reform; from Nippers Harbour, quite a drive, and other communities surrounding La Scie, the safety aspect.

Another point, the gold mine, the only operating gold mine between Hammerdown in King's Point and La Scie, the ore has to be transported. Big trucks over the same road again.

Mr. Speaker, in a nutshell it is like this: That road has to be addressed this year. It has to be a top priority because, simply put, the La Scie fish plant and the only gold mine producing in this Province is in jeopardy of not going forward because of a basic infrastructure that has to be corrected and corrected this year.

Mr. Speaker, the people are tired of talking about it. I am tired of talking about it. It has to be addressed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: It is not urgency any more; it is an emergency. Mr. Speaker, it is has to be addressed this year.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of Labrador West, and I will read the prayer of the petition:

To the hon. House of Assembly, in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled.

WHEREAS in 1998 the Province provided funding for four new MS drug therapies; and

WHEREAS the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program only provides medical coverage for seniors under the Senior Citizens' Drug Subsidy Program and people on income support; and

WHEREAS these drugs are very expensive; and

WHEREAS all other citizens in every Canadian province can receive assistance with high cost MS drugs, using a co-payment system or a sliding scale program but limited to social assistance income levels; and

WHEREAS these drugs can significantly improve the quality of life for people with MS, we the undersigned petition the House of Assembly to direct the government to implement a co-payment or a sliding scale program for these drugs so that people who do not qualify for assistance under existing programs can get financial assistance with these high-cost drugs, as is the case in every other Canadian province.

Mr. Speaker, I have stated many times in the past, both during Question Period, debate on the Budget, debate on health care issues, and by way of petitions, which I am doing today, the necessity of providing coverage to people in this Province who suffer from MS.

As I have said many times, MS is not a disease that they brought on themselves. It is not something that they asked for. It is not something that they achieve through abusing their bodies in any way, shape or form. It is something they were born with and something that they have to live with. Hopefully, some day, there will be a cure. Until then, many hard-working people in this Province find themselves in the position where they have to totally devastate themselves and their families financially if they choose to avail of this drug.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, there are people in this Province today who are not taking these drugs simply because they cannot afford to do so; because, if they did, they would not be able to provide other necessities of life for themselves and their children.

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that this Province adopt a program, the same as every other Province in this country, that will provide some assistance to the hard-working men and women of this Province who are doing their best to provide for their families, but are inflicted with MS and need help in order to get the drugs that are required to make their lives much better than they are without them.

Mr. Speaker, again I say to the minister, I cannot implore him enough, the necessity of doing this, because it is totally disgraceful that people who work hard for a living in this Province have to cash in any RRSPs they may have. They have to liquidate their -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, just to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: They have to cash in any other finances that they have. They have to reduce themselves to a poverty level, both them and their families, in order for this government to step in and help.

It is not quite as simple, Mr. Speaker, as saying that this government cannot afford to do it. The bottom line is that once people devastate themselves financially, then this government will step in and help. What they are asking is that this government show more compassion, more concern, and step in before they have to do that to themselves and their families.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition similar to the ones that we have been presenting in the last several days relative to the development of Voisey's Bay. This petition is as follows, the prayer reads:

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to bring any proposed Voisey's Bay deal to the House of Assembly for full disclosure and thorough debate prior to the signing of any final agreement by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador still have great concerns. At one point today I thought that the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition may have been able to agree on a process. However - and we do acknowledge here the great work done by the Leader of the Opposition to try to bring this process to full disclosure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: We acknowledge the great work done by all the members of this caucus because if it were not for the great work done by the members of this caucus and this party, this deal would not even be brought to the House at any time, even before it was signed, and there would be no public discussion whatsoever. We, on this side, take credit. We deserve the credit for getting the process as far along as it is now.

Mr. Speaker, but there is still a lot to be done. We want to make sure that there is a ratification clause put in this agreement. We want to make sure that there is no possibility at all for there be any legal ramifications, any liability to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador if this particular agreement does not pass in this Legislature. That is all that we want done. We want to protect the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, we have reason that asks the basic question: Can you trust this government to do the right thing? Is there a level of trust between the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and this Administration? We believe that there is ample evidence which shows that this government has not always done the right thing. Lets take the example of Friede Goldman in Marystown, $80 million of valuable assets, paid for by the taxpayers of this Province, were let go for $1; $80 million let go with no clause in the agreement saying that if Friede Goldman were to go bankrupt that these assets would revert to the Province. Now, it does not take a legal giant to be able to say to the government that that clause should have been there. Of course, because that clause was not there we were exposed to losing $79,990,000 -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

MR. LUSH: On points of order re the presentation of petitions. To have pointed out that our Standing Orders have some very firm, strict, clear rules re petitions.

In speaking to a petition we speak to the material allegations and the signature to the petition and the prayer, Mr. Speaker, and there is to be no debate. The hon. gentleman is now speaking about an issue that has nothing to do with his particular petition. There is nothing in it alluding to the prayer. When he is talking about the shipyard in Marystown, it has nothing to do with the prayer in the petition, nothing to do with the signatures, nothing to do with the material allegations. I ask the hon. member - we have been tolerating the petition, but please, keep himself to the prayer of the petition and to the rules and regulations laid down by petitions in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Is the hon. member speaking to the point of order?

MR. H. HODDER: I am speaking to the point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will give the hon. member a few minutes to speak to the point of order.

MR. H. HODDER: There is a point in this Legislature when we must tell the truth. Mr. Speaker, when I talk of Marystown, I am only using that to illustrate the fact of the reasons why the people, who signed this petition, should not trust the government. I use their example only as an illustration of what went wrong -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member is not speaking to the point of order now.

The hon. the Government House Leader is correct, that when petitions are presented to this House - the comments made by members in presenting the petitions ought to be inline with the material allegations that are in the -

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is pointing out that members, in presenting petitions, ought to keep their comments to the material allegations that are in the prayer of the petition and petitions are not an opportunity to debate. It is an opportunity for members to present, on behalf of their constituents, a petition to the House. They have three minutes to do that and they ought to confine their comments to the petition itself.

Orders of the Day.

The hon. the Minister of Environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, if I could ask leave of the House to revert to Answers to Questions because I would like to respond to a question that was presented this Question Period? I want to give an update.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave? Is it agreed that the hon. member have leave to present?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

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

Further to the question that was asked by the Opposition critic as to the status of the tire recycling program, I would like to inform the House of Assembly, and I want to take the first opportunity to do it, that we just had word from the Chairman of the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board that the contractor, MRL, is going to withdraw from the contract. They have just informed us through their lawyer, in the last ten minutes, that they are going to do that officially. I wanted to, at the first opportunity, inform the House that is the case. We will have an announcement on what we are going to do with the program and the further details of that in the next couple of days. We will look forward to seeing the program continue, but I wanted to give that update first to the House of Assembly.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker, to respond?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very unfortunate that this program was implemented without all of the proper infrastructure, without the planning put in place by the former Minister of Environment, the Member for Topsail. It is unfortunate that this program was put in place and set up to fail, because that is essentially what has happened here. This program was put in place. There is a $3 fee being charged now to consumers. That $3 fee is still being charged. There are no tires yet being recycled. Tires are piling up in different places throughout the Province. Retailers are complaining. Previous recyclers, existing recyclers are complaining. Mr. Speaker, it is very, very unfortunate that the former Minister of Environment, the Member for Topsail, has set up a program without doing the proper homework upfront, trying to clean up the scraps later. I seriously have to wonder if this was put in place as a tax grab on the consumers and it was designed to fail right from the get-go.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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: Mr. Speaker, when the minister stood up I was not sure if you called Orders of the Day or not but we had another member who wanted to present a petition. I do not know if it is still on Petitions or what has happened. I am just looking for clarification.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair did call Orders of the Day but we can revert to Petitions if hon. members will agree.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Government House Leader as well for allowing us to revert to Petitions.

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here from the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador:

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to bring any proposed Voisey's Bay deal to the House of Assembly for full disclosure and thorough debate prior to the signing of any final agreement by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

What the people who have signed this petition are asking for is the same thing that we, on this side of the House, are asking for, both the Official Opposition and I believe the members of the New Democratic Party as well. What we are asking for is that government bring a deal to the House of Assembly prior to it being binding on the Province, prior to a final deal being signed with a clause in there allowing us to change any deal that has been brought to the House of Assembly without any legal recourse back to the Province.

What we would like to see, Mr. Speaker, most importantly of all is that no nickel concentrate, no ore leave the Province for processing elsewhere. This resource belongs to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. This resource is a resource that can bring great wealth to this Province, can provide jobs, great employment to the Province. The people of Argentia, in 1996, were promised a smelter. The people of Argentia, Mr. Speaker, many people in that area made financial investments on the premise that a smelter was coming their way.

The people of this Province have seen resource after resource after resource leave the Province as a raw material to be processed elsewhere. What we do not want to see is our resource giving benefit to people outside the Province as opposed to people in the Province. We want the jobs here. If we allow this resource to leave it is going to create employment in Manitoba. No disrespect to Manitoba, but Newfoundlanders need the jobs. Newfoundlanders need the benefits of this resource. If this resource is allowed to leave it is going to create employment in Ontario. My understanding is both Manitoba and Ontario are preparing for our ore to extend the life of their smelters. They are preparing for the employment that our ore will create in both Manitoba and Ontario. We should be preparing for that; not Manitoba, not Ontario. This is our resource. We should be the masters of our resource. If that ore leaves this Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. T. OSBORNE: - we will not see that ore in thirty-five years' time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition as well and I will read the prayer now:

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

WHEREAS the creation of snowmobile trails originated due to the downturn in the fishery, especially on the Great Northern Peninsula; and

WHEREAS the money allocated for the snowmobile trails was meant for primary trails; and

WHEREAS the primary trial system has yet to be completed;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to honour the commitment made to the residents of the Great Northern Peninsula by completing the primary trial system and enhancing the winter tourism potential in the area.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, the snowmobile trails came about because of the cod moratorium and the downturn of the economy in rural Newfoundland. I guess the Northern Peninsula was hit as hard, if not harder, than anywhere else on this Island, and it was the Northern Peninsula that was looked at for potential; because from the Lewis Hills to St. Anthony is great snowmobile country. We saw that as a great fit to what they were doing in job creation, or a way to turn away from the economy of the cod fishery that was there. We had spent a lot in summer tourism, and the need to expand the season was ever so great and was realized; so, it was put in place. The initial plan was from Lewis Hills to St. Anthony, which was a very good idea, but it got sidetracked with politics and whatnot. There was a Premier who decided he needed to buy half-a-dozen groomers and go out there and display and go all over the place.

So the trail had gone really across the Province, which was the old railway bed, versus going from the original intent, which was Lewis Hills to St. Anthony. Today we have some trails system going through there, but the one part that is left out that is not complete is the Northern Peninsula, and that was the originate part of this intent.

Today, where we have stumps in some places up to your knees, and brooks that are not bridged, this area is left out. We cannot go out there and partake in this industry that is taking off in other parts of the Province, like in Deer Lake, the hub that has been developed there, and it has great potential, as we can see from there.

We are being left out up on the Northern Peninsula because they have not commited to any more monies to complete those trails. Until you can go out of there and grub, so that you can go out there and get a small amount of snow and be able to snowmobile early in the season or late in the season, if we cannot go out there and snowmobile at those points in time, it cannot be viable.

I really would like to present here in the House that option, that they would make this a viable operation.

I would just like to point out one more time that I wish that you would consider investing into those snowmobile trails. It is important to the area of the Northern Peninsula.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition here today, signed by residents of St. John's West and St. John's Centre. It reads:

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

WHEREAS Inco Deputy Chair and CEO Scott Hand told the company's shareholders on April 17, 2002, "We hope to be shipping Voisey's Bay concentrate to Thompson, Manitoba, and Ontario as part of an eventual agreement reached with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador" and that "We remain hopeful that the combination of exploration, technology and external feed will enable us to keep those operations productive and competitive for a long time to come"; and

WHEREAS we the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, as owners of the resources of our Province, are worried that our resources will leave the Province, never to be returned;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to bring any proposed Voisey's Bay deal to the House of Assembly for full disclosure and thorough debate by the people who have been elected to represent us before any final agreement is signed by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will every pray.

Mr. Speaker, when the residents of those two districts brought me the petition, they brought it based on information that they are hearing in the media, and based on -

MR. REID: Propaganda, you mean.

MS S. OSBORNE: I suppose the Member for Twillingate & Fogo - I will let Mr. Peter Jones, CEO of Inco, know that he stated here today in the House that what the CEO of Inco is saying is propaganda. Because Mr. Jones did, in fact, say that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is being more flexible than ever in negotiations over the development of Voisey's Bay. He also said that negotiations had certainly moved from the position of the previous Premier, the Premier who was given a mandate to negotiate on behalf of the people, so the people are worried. Mr. Jones also said: Obviously, we want to ship concentrate for as long as possible.

Naturally, the residents of this Province are worried. If the concentrate is going to be shipped for as long as possible, that could mean until all of the concentrate is gone, that none of the resources of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will be used for jobs for the residents.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS S. OSBORNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will clue up. These residents feel that the government was elected on a promise that not one spoonful of ore would ever be processed outside this Province, and they are worried that the government is about to sign a deal that will allow ore to be shipped to give jobs to the residents of Manitoba, and to Ontario.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I was looking forward so much to the motion that I am about to call, I was tempted to call the Orders of the Day much earlier. I wanted to give the hon. members a chance to present their petitions, but I really was looking forward to the next order.

The order, Mr. Speaker, is Motion 1. It appears to me that the Member for Ferryland is experiencing great linguistic imprecision in terms of expressing his support for the budgetary policy of the Province.

That is the motion, Mr. Speaker, Motion 1.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1, the Budget Debate.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to get an opportunity here to have a few words about this year's Budget. I must say, when you speak about this Budget and you look at the deficits, it is impossible to talk about it other than loquaciously and in copious amounts, I might add. It is very difficult but I do want to say, over what time I have left to speak on this, Mr. Speaker, that I want to talk about several aspects of this Budget, why they are not so desirable for the benefit of people in Newfoundland and Labrador. I want to just spend some time at the beginning talking about the financial aspect of the Budget and then, Mr. Speaker, I will get an opportunity to talk about some of the departmental areas and so on, and some of the various concerns related to this expenditure of $4 billion, a public vote, a vote here in the House on $3.5 billion to be voted here in this House. It is a significant amount of money, Mr. Speaker, and to only give casual reference to such a large amount of money would be an injustice on my part as critic for Finance for this Province, and I do not intend to sell it short on my time to comment on this Budget that has very significant implications for the future of people in the Province.

The minister indicated on Budget day, our Province would be seeing a deficit of $93 million. When she was reading that Budget, there were already many, many other expenditures going on that are not spoken for in this particular document that she tabled on that particular day. In fact she has admitted, and she has admitted publicly, that since that day there are other items not mentioned in this Budget that she read from that particular day.

I cannot see why a government, if they have any foresight at all and they know what is happening in our Province, would bring down a Budget one day and then admit within a matter of days, if not weeks - if it is weeks, it is a very small number - and admitted it publicly and carried it in the media that it is higher than we had budgeted; and we have not even approved that Budget today. I have not seen any amendments moved by this minister to make any changes and to change the particular vote here in this House while this Budget is under debate.

What we are going to see, Mr. Speaker, over the next several months, outside the doors of this House, we are going to see special warrants issued. We are going to see special warrants issued for expenditures that they know are going to occur, that they did not bring to this House. To me, that is not fair. It is not giving people up front the full truth.

Mr. Speaker, the projected deficit of $93 million, we knew from day one it was not an appropriate deficit. In fact, I raised the issue a week before the Budget. I asked the minister, in this House, if she intended to basically raid the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund and take $97 million out of that fund to make her Budget look better. She refused to answer that, and I will get to that when I talk on other initiatives and issues here. She refused to answer that, and refusing to answer was an admission of guilt. We found out a week later that the very issue I raised in this House became fact, and that was read and announced, Mr. Speaker, in her Budget a week later, when they knew it was happening. Now, they have been on the defensive ever since trying to justify something they did that is improper, and I will get to it a little later, what some of the major institutions and so on had to say about the improper way they are keeping their accounting and budgeting here in our Province.

That $97 million on top of that $93 million deficit will have given us $190 million they would have had to read in that day in the Budget deficit, not counting other things I am now going to mention. That does not even count, Mr. Speaker, the money that they are taking out of Hydro, the $58.2 million that their Budget did not take out of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro this year. On top of that $190 million I just referenced they are taking $51.7 million in deferred revenues; the sinking fund, $28.7 million; they are taking, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Corporation, $10 million; $10 million in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing; and another $3 million, basically, from hydro, from GIP Co, Gull Island Power Company. That adds up to $300 million.

So, on Budget day, we could have admitted right there on the spot a $300 million deficit. We said that on that day, and the Bank of Montreal just said, on May 8, the senior economist, that $287 million is their actual. So, we were spot on at about $300 million, and they are saying it is not over yet. They are not even counting other areas on an accrual basis rather than the cash basis they are using now. That is an issue I want to get into in a little more detail a little later. I want to tell you that we are approaching deficits in the hundreds of millions of dollars, Mr. Speaker; in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a moment to give leave, for a minute, to the Government House Leader. I think he did want to make a motion there. I wouldn't really want to keep talking until 5:30 p.m., because if I did, we would have to go home, wouldn't we, I would say to Government House Leader? We would have to go home. He forgot to announce that we not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. So, if I keep the floor here, Mr. Speaker, he cannot get up on the floor to do anything any different. Maybe I will not give leave, Mr. Speaker. I will speak until 5:30 p.m., I might say, and then we can go home, because I should not be here to make up for mistakes that they make on that side of the House.

So, I will enjoy my time. I will pass back the little note, Mr .Speaker, and I will take it under advisement a little later on in the afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, we have a $300 -

MR. REID: Do it, Loyola. Do it.

MR. SULLIVAN: No. I am saying, the Minister of Fisheries knows my colleagues. I would like to have a couple of more hours to think about that one, I might add; just a couple of more hours to think on it. At 5:30 p.m., if I am speaking, under the rules of this House and I have been recognized by the Speaker - I only have to sit down under points of order, or privilege of others, not to deal with other issues. I am entitled - if I decide by 5:30 p.m., and the people in the House would like to come back again at 7:00 p.m. and listen to me for three more hours, I will give them that option, but if they do not want to do it, I guess, they can go home and they can enjoy the evening with their families.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Maybe, Mr. Speaker, they can get an early start on the May 24th weekend. Maybe they can watch the only Canadian team left in the playoffs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Even though, Mr. Speaker, it is not my team, it is not the team I cheered for, but it is the only team that is left.

MR. E. BYRNE: Loyola, maybe you should take a ratification vote from the opposite side. I bet they will support you.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will, Mr. Speaker, before I get back to serious talk on the Budget. I will ask the members on the government side if they would like to go home at 5:30 to put up their hand, and I will not give leave. I will ask them if they want to stay all night. If you want to stay all night, do not put up your hand. How many would like to stay all night and listen to me for three hours more? Nobody. How many would like to go home at 5:30?

AN HON. MEMBER: Here.

MR. SULLIVAN: Carried by a vote of 1 to nothing.

Mr. Speaker, their Premier is not here, they cannot make up their mind. They have to wait for the Premier to come back and tell them if they should put their hand up or take it down. There is only one put it up. I will not mention his name. It is not an official count. It is not an official count in this House.

I do not think the Minister of Human Resources and Employment is going to take a chance on putting two hands up after what he said the last day. I do not think he is going to take a chance. He was in an opposing position to the Premier of the Province. The last time a member said that he was not in Cabinet. The last time a member said that - and I will not make reference to who it is. He said: We got sandbagged by the Premier. I will not make reference to who it is. He has never gotten inside the Cabinet door since. I do not know if that is a vindictive response or what the reason is, and I do know that something has happened along the way since.

Anyway, I will get back to Budget debate. When you look at our Budget, and our revenues in the Province, where does it come from? We look at one of the areas that we have been very strong on here on this side of the House, and we have raised it so often that they kept driving up the minimum amount on payroll tax. We have been very strong on that. So, they have gone from $100,000 to $200,000, gone up to $500,000 exemption now. We have been pushing that issue and government had to react and do something to raise that, because a payroll tax, Mr. Speaker, is a tax on jobs. Don't you think that the more jobs are created, the more employment, the more income, the more taxes, the more retail sales tax, HST we are going to get, the more taxes, whether it is automobile licences or whatever it may be, the more luxury items bought, that we are going to take in more revenue for our Province; or whether it is in various other forms of taxation. Why do you have to tell companies in this Province, many of them only small, medium-sized companies, that they have to pay a tax on jobs? It is not a very good way to stimulate the economy of our Province.

The minister has even said before: The reason we are not going to reduce income tax in the promised installment last year is because we cannot afford to do it. She said: Small amounts are not going to stimulate the economy. Well, small amounts add up to large amounts and you have to start somewhere, because it is a progressive improvement. It is not something that you just hit this point in income tax break and it drops over the edge or the economy goes up, it is a gradual thing. The more money into stimulating the economy, the better the response. It is a progressive thing. You know, if you increase A, you get a result in B. It is gradual. An all or none principle does not apply to stimulation of the economy. It is something that is of a progressive nature.

Mr. Speaker, over half the payroll tax in this Province, over half the money that we are taking in in payroll tax in this Province, comes from government itself. In other words, we tax ourselves and we take in the revenue ourselves to spend. That is what we are doing. So, there is money coming out of our pocket and going into the government's pocket. It is a no net gain. It is a cycle and there is no basic increase, I might say, or benefit to the Province by taxing yourself. I just cannot see it.

Payroll tax here is showing as $84.5 million for next year. Out of that, over half of that is coming from provincial and federal sources. Forty-two per cent, I might add, is coming from provincial sources, 9 per cent from federal sources, others, like municipal, 2 per cent, and businesses in this Province, 47 per cent. The money we are taking in now - we could say the payroll tax is roughly $40 million being paid by business and the rest is paid by government. We are taxing ourselves and there is no benefit. That is something that needs to be looked at in the elimination of payroll tax in the stimulation of the economy and jobs. Payroll tax is a disincentive on growth in our economy.

If you looked at, this year, in our provincial sources of revenues - if economy is growing as government is saying, if the economy is so prosperous, Mr. Speaker, the economy is growing so well, shouldn't our own provincial sources of revenues be increasing? Shouldn't we be taking in more provincial money? Can someone tell me why our provincial sources of revenue are not increasing if our economy is so good?

In fact, if they did not rob the Labrador Transportation Initiative, if they did not take the money out of that fund this year, in revenues in our Province, this year, we would have taken in - in fact, we have taken in this year, $57 million less into our provincial coffers than came in last year; $57 million less. We cannot count the Labrador Transportation Initiative because that is going from a fund, a pot, into our provincial revenues. That is to make it look better, make our bottom line look better. You do not fool anybody in doing that, certainly you do not fool the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and you have not fooled the people of Labrador by raiding our Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund.

Mr. Speaker, the growth in our economy: If the economy is growing shouldn't we be getting more money in income tax? They are not proposing a cut in income tax. This year we are proposing to take in $1 million less, from $612 down to $611 than we took in last year. If the economy is growing and jobs are increasing, why are we getting less income tax in our Province, if we did not change the rate and we are not putting it down this year? Why? Why are we getting less? If more people are working, why are we getting less? Because they are getting lower income, our exemptions are cancelling out any taxes they have to pay and there are more people in a lower level of income; more workers, but not more disposable income. I will get to that in another point on what the disposable income is.

I am sure the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs can agree with me on that one. If we are taking in less money this year in taxes than last year, if we are taking in less money this year in taxes than last year, why are we doing that, if the economy is so great?

I might add that in three, I think, of the last four years we have led the country in GDP growth; certainly the third time in five years we have led the country, and we are looking at our employment level as going up. If the employment level is going up, why isn't our personal disposal income going up? There must be a reason for it, I might add. There has to be a reason for it, and there is a reason for it.

I just want to look at what this government has forecasted over the last number of years and what we actually achieved in debt. Mr. Speaker, if you look back at 1999, this government said: We are going to have a $33 million deficit. That is what they said in 1999. That was under this mandate.

MR. BARRETT: What about 1988?

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is wondering about 1988. I will get back to the debt and things back then if he wants me to get back to it. I will give him some statistics and figures to show that, in due course. I will just ask him to stay tuned. I will give him all the statistics he wants but I want to get these valuable points out, I might add, so that government could probably, in the next Budget, come clean.

I will tell you, a PC government will do an accrual method of accounting and they will present in a budget the actual deficit of this Province be it $2 million or $2 billion. It will be presented as a budget on Budget Day so people can know what the real proposed deficit of the Province is. What is wrong with telling people the truth? Is there anything wrong with it? There is nothing wrong with telling the truth to the people of the Province. If it is not good news, and it is the truth, well tell it anyway. Why do we only want to tell people good news? I think we should tell them all news and let them be the decision-makers on whether it is good or bad. Why, in 1999, did this government tell us we are going to have a $33 million deficit and we had a deficit of $187 million? Why did they tell us in the 1999-2000 year that we were going to have a deficit of $33 million and we had a deficit of $269 million? Then he turned around in 2001 and said the deficit was going to be $34 million and the deficit came out to be $350 million.

Now this past year, the deficit, he told us again, was going to be $33 million. Just this year, ending March 31, 2002, it was going to be $33 million, and what do you think it is going to be? When it is all added up and you look at the consolidated basis, the accrual method of accounting - when you look at the assets, liabilities and net position in our Province, what do you think it is going to be for this year? In the hundreds of millions of dollars. I predict it is going to be closer to $500 million than what government budgeted. We will find out this in due course when it is tabled in November and see who will be closes to it. They predicted the year before it was going to be $34 million and it was $350 million. I mean people in the industry, economists and so on, are saying that it is not a true budget. We are not getting the truth. This year they are telling us it is going to be $93 million; in this year we are in right now. It was $33 million last year and we do not know what the final tally is but it could be close to $500 million. Now they are telling us $93 million. Well, obviously it is going to be very, very significant; the deficit for this year.

Mr. Speaker, we have to be very cognizant of our financial situation because the more debt we have - obviously if we do not have the revenues we have to borrow more money. If we have to borrow more money we will have more interest. People are talking about what we put into the health care system the past number of years. The second biggest payment out of the Treasury of this Province goes on interest on the debt. The second biggest payment goes to pay interest on the debt, and that is significant, I might add; up in the hundreds of millions. I think it is about $600 million, I believe, for paying the debt. We spend more money on paying interest on what we owe to the bondholders and into Canada Pension Plan, in the areas where we have gone on the market to borrow. We pay more money to interest on them than we pay into education in our Province. We pay more in than we pay into every single road and ferry service in our Province. More than we pay into the whole fishing sector. This is only a minuscule budget. It is a fraction of the budget, only about one-sixtieth in fisheries what we - to run the department that we pay on servicing the debt of our Province. We can see it is minuscule, it is only a fraction. We pay enormous amounts of money in this Province on paying interest on the debt, and our debt keeps climbing. I am going to look at that in a few minutes, look at what the debt is and it is climbing and the financial implications it has on the bottom line, I might add, of our Province.

Our economy in terms of gross domestic product has been growing, in terms of GDP, but GDP is not an appropriate measure in our economy, and I will take up that in a few minutes. First, I want to say that some of the biggest contributors to the gross domestic product of our Province is, basically, the service producing industry. Now gross domestic product is really the value of the goods and services produced in our country, the total value. If you have a quantity of something and there is a certain price attached to that - you have so many barrels of oil at a certain price and add it up, that is a dollar value. It is the same with any other goods, they all have a dollar value. They are all totaled up, and that is the GDP.

Back in the year 2000, for example, our GDP, the total industry, was about $11.3 billion of which the service industry then accounted for $7.6 billion of that. About 70 per cent in 2000 of the GDP from total industries was in the service producing industry. When you look at, for instance, the oil producing industry today, oil has been the greatest contributor to our increase in GDP but it is still not close to the largest category in terms of contributing to the gross domestic product of our Province. In fact, it is only down less than 10 per cent, basically. Back in 2000 it was less than 10 per cent, in the vicinity of around 8.-some percent but since then there has been some increased percent applicable to the oil industry because that industry has turned out more production. Even though the price has fluctuated somewhat, it is still a significant contributor to the economy of our Province.

When you look at GDP, it is not the most accurate measure in our Province at all. There are other areas that we need to look at, but just to show with the number implied - we will just look at the dollar value. I just scratched these down out of my head, I am sure some might correct it with more specific, accurate figures right to the button, but the number of people employed in the fishery in our Province is in the vicinity of over 20,000 people, and it contributes about a $1 billion in sales to our Province; agrifoods, about 4,000 people and contributes about $500 million to the economy of our Province; forestry employs about 8,000 and contributes about $640 million; mining, about 3,000 and that contributes about $1 billion into our provincial economy; tourism about 25,000 people. There are more involved, basically, in tourism now than there is in the fishery in our Province but we know they are only seasonal, even though the fishery, to a great extent, is seasonal also, and that contributes about $550 million. It is growing. It has tremendous potential and I am going to talk about the tourism sector a little later and the opportunities for our Province. Manufacturing, about 7,000 jobs and $500 million contribution. These are significant contributors, I might add, to our provincial economy. It is important that we, certainly, continue to try to improve, expand jobs in those sectors there and increase employment in the future to ensure the growth of our Province, enable more people to stay home, more money into the coffers of our Province and more money to distribute into health, education and other social areas as well as into infrastructure in our Province.

To give an example, when we looked at the devastation that hit our Province back in 1992 with the closing of the ground fishery, it wasn't a surprise to anybody who has been involved and are familiar with the fishing industry, that has been in decline for some time. This decline was noted in northern parts of our Province much before it hit more southern areas of our Province. Farther up in our northern areas, 2J, 3K and those areas, it started to experience declines in groundfish much earlier, right down from Labrador down to White Bay, Notre Dame Bay, Conception Bay, Bonavista Bay, Trinity Bay and right on through. Even the year the moratorium was announced, in 1992, in the area 3L - off my colleague's district there, the Member for Bonavista South, that is the cutoff point there. It is in his district. We saw a fairly lucrative, in the lower part, the Southern Avalon, the area of my district, we saw a fair amount of cod being caught even the year before the moratorium. It hadn't really impacted as much. They had some good year's fishing and people invested heavy dollars into the fishery that year to gear up again, traps and fishing gear, and then the moratorium was announced. They not only didn't get to fish, but they had spent thousands and thousands of personal investment in it when the fishery shut down.

In 1991-92, UI to this Province was one of the biggest sources of revenue into our Province. There was over $950 million that came into our Province in EI, or UI then it was called back in 1992. That was a tremendous amount of revenue. As the years went on - and I will just make reference to some of the more recent ones. I do not have the accurate figure today but we saw that decline go to $931 million; the following year down to $782 million in 1993-94. In 1995, it came down to $654 million, and today, I believe - someone could correct me on this if I am wrong and I don't have the most current figure. It is more in the vicinity of about $400 million today coming into our Province in EI benefits. Nobody takes great pleasure in saying it is a major source of income in our Province. The best source of income we want to see coming into households in our Province is coming in from employment and from jobs.

We have to accept the fact that we are living in an area of this country where there are seasonal industries. The same as people in Western Canada, the farmers, primarily their income stems from the spring of the year until the fall. In our Province, we are in a seasonal economy. The fishery is a seasonal economy. Certain areas of agriculture are seasonal. Other areas are on a more year-round basis. Because of the seasonality of our employment, we have to depend, during certain parts of the year, on employment insurance or unemployment insurance, as it was called, to give an income to people during the part of the year in which they cannot fish, provided their income is below a certain level. If their income is above a certain level, if it is above - it was, I think, about $39,000. I think it has increased to about $48,000, I understand, before the clawback now. I think it disappears when you get into the sixties. My understanding is, you do not get any EI then because you got to the point where your income is up to a certain level and you are not going to get supported by the EI system. It was a significant amount.

The biggest adjustment came when the fishery closed. When the fishery closed in our Province, we found that people had no income. They did not get the work in 1992 so there had to be a certain program come in - a compensation package came in to our Province - to be able to compensate them. That was the day when things changed in our Province and the future prospects changed and people basically changed their thinking on what we need to do to sustain ourselves in the future.

Then the federal government came down with an income support package. The first one was scheduled to be, I think, for just a couple of months period but it I think it became a five-week period in which they sent a cheque out to basically everybody involved, initially, to get some cash flow going, because their EI had run out since May and this was now July, with no income.

After July, what happened then, a program called NCARP. NCARP was a Northern cod assistance program that allowed people to receive a certain income based upon their previous two years, basically, in the fishery and their income in the years 1990 and 1991. After that program ran out - and this was announced. This ran out in 1994. Brian Tobin was federal minister at the time, then, for this Province, and they came down with a new package called TAGS: The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy. This was a five-year program, basically, that would take it up to May of 1999, in which they anticipated the fishery opening. But, during the course of this, they realized the fishery was not going to open. They realized that the mainstay of the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador since its beginning was not going to be the same any more. From the time that John Cabot came here to this Province and found the waters teeming with codfish, to the following years in which Europeans came here to fish, to be able to dry their catch and take it back, we find that things changed.

There has been a dramatic change in our Province since that. The message was received and people started to realize that we are not going to get back to where we were. So, the economy of our Province, and the point I make reference to here, is that while this was going on, the federal government moved forward to make efforts to make changes, to allow people who were fifty and over at the time - they were prepared, for anybody who was fifty and over in 1992 - to allow them to get out of the fishery. Those people who were fifty would be sixty-two today. If they were fifty-two, they would be sixty-four. If you got to fifty-three you would be ready to retire today; but this Province said, when we knew there was going to be no future, no future back in the industry for a lot of these people, and it was estimated that about fifteen cents on the dollar would cost this Province, this Province said no to the federal government plan because the Premier of the day, the government of the day, did not allow these people to go out of the industry. Where are they today? The people who were in the fifty to fifty-five year age then, where are they today? I speak with many of them on an ongoing basis. People who are in their sixties today cannot get any more than 200 or 300 hours work in fish plants. They have to try to get on a project to get 420 hours to draw $70 or $80 or $100 a week EI, when they could have gone out with some dignity if the Province moved to address the concerns.

My colleague for The Straits & White Bay North asked: Where is the plan in the fishery of the Province today? The federal government made an effort. At least they made an effort. They retired people at fifty-five, they were prepared to do it for people who were fifty, but this government said no. And today, basically, some of them are drawing down on the human resources income of the social services lines of our Province. That is sad, because someone who left school in Grade 6 and Grade 7 to spend their life in the fishery and who had spent just about forty years in the fishery, some close to forty years before the motorium, had a chance now to get out of the fishery. At least get them a survival income - it wasn't great - until they could get Canada Pension and Old Age Pension to be able to survive. They are thrown to the wolves out there today. I talk to some of them on an ongoing basis and there are people who pursued the fishery in every part of this Province in the same category, because there are people in the fishery, there are people at similar ages in every single district in this Province.

What did this Province do? What did this Province do to adjust to the fishery? Did they look at rationalizing the industry from a processing perspective? The federal government made an effort to buy back licences. They spent millions, tens of millions, a hundred million, to buy back fishing licences and to reduce the harvesting effort in the fishery in our Province. What did our Province say? Our Province did not address the concerns in the processing sector. What happens today?

That is why, today, we have the average plant worker in this Province making $50-some hundred dollars from income. Those are statistics that we obtained and they can be obtained from, I am sure, the Fisheries Association of Newfoundland and Labrador and other sources. That is what they make today, and they make another $5,000 on EI, those who can qualify for EI.

What did we do? At the time the minister, and now he is a federal MP, John Efford, said every single one of the sixty-five core plants in this Province today will get access to all licences. I sat at the Marine Institute - he was a guest speaker - and listened. I have heard him in public. I went to the graduation and he was the guest speaker and I listened as he made his statement. He said every single processing plant, all sixty-five, will get access to all licences. They are all on a level playing field.

He started it and he went from, I think, nineteen crab plants to thirty-some by the time he left. Now we are around forty or forty-two licences. What has happened today? What has happened with shrimp? My colleague asked the question. We need some rationalization. For people to be able to do business in the Province today, everybody in the industry today wants to be able to make a profit. They want to be able to employ as many people as they can, but they cannot do this under an environment that is established that does not facilitate doing proper business in our Province. They have relegated this Province down to one industry that you can make a profit at, and that is rapidly declining. That is the crab industry.

This Province did nothing. In fact, it sat on its hands and did not address concerns for a decade; did not address concerns for a decade in the industry. That is why my colleague for The Straits& White Bay North is standing up here saying that we are failing to address issues of concern. We have to do something about it. At least, I would say, the federal government tried. They put hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars into reducing harvesting effort to removing people and buying back licences from the industry, but the Province did basically nothing at all and that is a major concern.

I made reference to the deficit. The very day the Budget was brought down in March, by the minister, on March 21, just a few days before that - in fact that very week, I think - I asked the minster just days before, if not the previous week, about the Labrador Transportation Initiative. She refused to answer and, shortly after the Budget, a newspaper article in April indicated the deficit closes on the $100 million mark.

It brought down a Budget on March 21, telling us that it is $93 million and now, Mr. Speaker, they are telling us that it is now going to be in the vicinity of $100 million, in such a short time, and it is growing. That is not a way, I say, Mr. Speaker, to govern our Province.

I would like to take a few moments to look at where we are on a financial basis in our Province. While the minister spreads the good news stories, I can tell you, it is not all a good news story. If you look at our debt, and I went back and actually looked at the debt right back since the 1950s, but just to get a little more current, back in 1997 - and this is taken from the records of this government, from the public accounts, the figures taken from government, and they are there for all the public to look at - in 1997, our consolidated net debt was $7.434 billion. In one year, 1998, it jumped to $7.664 billion. That is over $230 million added to our debt in one year. We went to the following year, 1999, and we saw it go to $7.81 billion, another $150 million in one year. In the year 2000 it jumped over $8 billion, and by 2001 it jumped to $8.437 billion. Just those four years, the one by which we had the consolidated net debt - and we will get that over the next few months - in those four years, the government's own records, Mr. Speaker, were showing that this Province amassed a debt of over $1 billion; $1.003 billion in extra debt within a four year period. We are waiting to see what the debt of this Province will be for this last fiscal year, the one just past. I am predicting it is an awful lot closer to $500 million than the $34 million that this government forecasted it would be.

Mr. Speaker, we have numerous other areas that are not even reflected in this Budget. The day the minister read the Budget it became outdated, basically, it was no longer accurate, I might say. There was a $5 million expenditure that was acknowledged even in the newspaper in April, and in the media. The minister acknowledged the debt has increased with a relocation that she didn't even budget for. I am not passing judgement, Mr. Speaker, on the merits or demerits of any relocation at all. I am just saying this government knew it was coming and they should have budgeted for it, so we could approve, in this House, the necessary expenditures related to that program. We could do it in a democratic way, the way the laws of the Province say it should be done. We did not do that, and it has not been approved yet. If it happens that it is going to get approved with no budgetary approval, a special warrant issued - and I will get to them shortly, when they should be issued and under what conditions, because it is in the laws of our Province,. it is in the Statutes that are here in this House. We could take them out and read them.

Mr. Speaker, on top of that $5 million, there are about $120 million accumulated deficits run up by hospital boards over the past while. Why does a hospital board run up a deficit? I guess there has to be one of two reasons: Either it spends money that it should not spend, or government does not give them enough money to carry out the programs and provide the services that they want to. Government issued a company out of Ontario, the Hay Group, Hay consultants, to do a report and to tell us how we can save money, how we can become more efficient. What did the Hay Group tell us on how to be more efficient? They said: If you close hospital beds it will save money. I say, whoop-de-do! Now that's a very telling statement.

PREMIER GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I can't exactly hear what the Premier is saying and that may be a good thing, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure, but that may be a very good thing.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible) change his mind again.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if I thought he wanted to get up and change his mind for the third time since yesterday, maybe I might grant him some time.

MR. J. BYRNE: The third time today.

MR. SULLIVAN: The third time today? Oh! Well, he won't get a chance to change it on my leave, I say, this afternoon. He will have to do it like he usually does, outside the House of Assembly. That's what he will have to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No. I would say, we are going to regulate intake, the same as government is regulating intake into the hospitals and the centres in our Province.

The Hay Group told us that: You can save money if you close down hospital beds. Now they are telling us: You can save money if you shut down the Janeway or emergency services with the Health Sciences. This government stood and told us that: No way are we ever going to take away the integrity of the Janeway Hospital. It will always be separate. That is what they told us. That is an issue that is near and dear to me because I happened to work in the hospital system for parts of three different years, over a year in total. I followed it fairly closely and have been actively involved with local health groups. A study actually was done. A project, I might say, was carried on between Denmark and our Province in nursing, a nursing model delivering health in a cost-efficient manner out in the community, and I had an opportunity to be involved to get some insight into the health system from that community prospective too.

We have seen this government promise us that: We are going to shut down the Grace Hospital. They said: We are going to shut down the Janeway Hospital, we are going to redesign, reconfigure in certain ways, St. Clare's Hospital, and we are going to relocate the Janeway in by the Health Sciences. One of the big concerns that people had at the time, Mr. Speaker, was that the Janeway is a separate institution. We cannot visualize young children coming into the emergency of the Health Sciences Centre, into the general hospital, the Health Sciences Centre emergency department. We were told by government, by health care corporations, it would never happen.

Now the Minister of Health, in response to the Member for Trinity North, stood in this House this week and he did not deny that it is an option now to consolidate services at the Janeway with the Health Sciences Centre. That minister did not confirm that would happen. He did not confirm it would not happen. He refused to deny it, which is an indication that it is an option they are looking at, and he made reference to that. It is an option that is being looked at. They are going to look at the total Hay report.

Well, you do not have to go to Toronto and pay nearly half a million dollars to tell people if you consolidate the Janeway with the Health Sciences you will save money. But do people want children and adults frequenting the same emergency department? There is a tremendous downside to that. We were told the integrity of the Janeway will be here forever. That is one of the conditions, I think, that got some public support in spite of a lot of disappointment with the closing of the Janeway and especially a lot of disappointment with closing the Grace Hospital.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at what is happening today across our Province - I have a list here of the accumulated deficit as of a year ago from all the hospitals boards that we have in our Province. The accumulated deficit - now this is not their debt, their debt that they financed and borrowed for. This is just the deficit that is still on their books - it has not been converted into debt - overruns, money, services they gave that they have not got the money to pay for, $97 million; and the ones this year have brought it up closer to the $120 million range. This government did not, in this Budget, budget anything to address the $120 million up to March of this year that the hospital boards have overrun on their budget. They put a budget that did not make arrangements for that.

We have asked the question, and I asked the question to the Minister of Finance in our Estimates on Monday morning: What do they plan to do? She said they were going to meet and discuss it with the hospital boards. Well, there are certain options there, Mr. Speaker. One option is, government provide it. Another option is, tell the hospital boards: Well, you had better take it out of your money this year and cover that. If you do, what are they saying? They are going to say: We cannot even provide the services that we gave last year at this year's dollars. How are we going to take money out of that? One way to do that, there is only one answer to that, reduction of services. They are going to take away certain services. What services would you take away? Which ones are going to be axed? Extra beds closed? Did we shut down hospitals and build others, then, to close beds? We are paying hundreds of millions of dollars on infrastructure in our Province today that is not getting utilized.

What company today would put a $50 or $60 million structure out there that they were not going to use for ten years time? This government, when they made the decision to build the Gander Hospital, should have allocated money to build that one in a reasonable time frame, let's say a five-year period, not dragging it out some ten or twelve years. You have money lying on the dead for ten years. If it was built in a short period of time you could be utilizing a structure. If a business today spent $50 million putting a structure here that they are going to use in ten years time, they would say you are crazy. If you went to the banks to borrow they would not give it to you, basically, unless you had pretty good credit.

The point I am making is not on the merit, because I am not one to decide that. I do not have the expertise to decide that, and I do not have access to information to decide what goes in each area. But, we should have the common sense to say, that you do not spend money ten years in advance of when you are going to be able to use it. That is not very good economics. That is money that is borrowed that we are paying interest on, that we are getting no return on. That is simple, basic, common sense.

Do you go out and get a loan of $30,000 to buy a car, and pay on that loan for ten years but you do not get the car for ten years? It does not make much sense. You are paying interest on $30,000 and you do not have a car to drive, you do not have an asset. That does not make very much sense, I might add.

Up to one year ago, it was $97 million and it has climbed to $120 million. What is government going to do? I would like the Minister of Finance to tell us. She would not tell us. On Monday, in Estimates, she would not tell us what they were going to do with the $120 million. We are into the fiscal year now, Mr. Speaker, we are into the second month of this fiscal year, and this minister has not told us what we are going to do with that money.

Just to look at some of these. That is up to a year ago and I am sure my colleague, the health critic, has the updated list up to this year. Just up to a year ago there was $21 million accumulated deficit by the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. The St. John's Nursing Home Board had $4.9 million. We had Newfoundland Cancer Treatment Research Foundation $3.7 million; Avalon Health Care Institutions Board $6.4 million; Peninsulas Health Care Corporation $9.5 million; Central East Health Care Institutions Board $7.8 million; Central West Health Care $0.2 million - $200,000; Western Health Care was $20.3 million. Grenfell Regional Health Services was $1.3 million; Health Labrador was $8 million; Health and Community Services - that is a community health board - $6.1 million; Eastern Health and Community Services $3.8 million; Central was $3.3 million and Health and Community Services Western was $0.7 million - $700,000, Mr. Speaker. That is $97 million up to last year and the number has grown.

What are we going to do? That is money that is in limbo. That is over $100 million; $120 million, today, that is in limbo out there. It is not counted in the deficit. It is not in the Budget. It is nowhere. But, when the Consolidated Statement is done and we see this shows up in our debt - it will have to show up - something has to be done. I even hear the banks are getting concerned. The banks are concerned with overruns, with their line of credit at the banks, giving this line of credit, unless this government is going to guarantee it. The reason they did not do that is because, when they guarantee it, it goes on the books of our Province and they have to admit that it is a debt. That is why they are not doing it, and that is a very deceitful way of trying to deal with things.

Now, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation asked me a question on the debt. What about 1988? he said. I will give him a little indication, insight, into where we have been from a debt perspective. I preface that by saying it does not matter which government incurred it, whether it was a previous government that incurred some debt, or this government, the facts are here for the record. Just because a government did it doesn't make it right. Sometimes it is necessary to incur debt because you are in a hole and the economy is slow. If things have been so good, Mr. Speaker, if things have been so good and they are so great in this Province, can someone explain to me why we run up $1.5 billion in debt in five years, if things are so good? I say, God help us if things are going to get bad. God help us if things are going to get worse, if we are doing that when things are so good.

Now, the Member for Bellevue, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, wanted to know some previous debts in our Province. Well, back in 1986 - he wanted to know 1988. I will give him 1988. Back in 1988, the public sector debt according to the records here was $4.8 billion. That takes into account the credit on sinking funds and looks at Crown corporations. As indicated, it was $4.8 billion. Today, it has gone way, way above those levels. If we look at the net public sector debt, it is probably going to come out today close to $9 billion. Mr. Speaker, that is not, I say, conducive to a healthy financial situation, because debt has to be paid. Debt has to be paid and we pay a big interest price on debt. In fact we pay, on debt, hundreds and hundreds of millions. Over $600 million we are paying out of the coffers of this Province.

Now, I want to talk a little bit about a few other aspects pertaining to the debt. If the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation wants any clarification, I can certainly go back and tell him what the deficits were and what the debt was in this Province. I have research gone right back into the 1950s if he needs to know, but I will not waste time calculating that. I will indicate that, in our Province, one of they key things is not GDP we have to be looking at. We have to be looking at, basically, our personal disposable income which is very important.

I am going to first outline briefly a comparison between what has happened in the last ten years in terms of dollars in the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and that is why people do not think they are better off. They do not think they are better off than they were. In fact, it has been said that this generation now, we are going to see the change. It is the first time now that their children are going to be worse off than their parents. That is being said. It is the first generation. Each generation in the past, children happened to advance. Society changed, the economy improved, and this might be a generation in which it is not going to happen. Now, I am not an expert to confirm all the indicators on that, but when we look at where we have been as a Province - now the Gross Domestic Products is not indicative of economic growth in all economies. One of the reasons why is because the Gross Domestic Product, if we are an export Province, you are an export country, it is not indicative growth. I will make some reference in a few minutes to why Ireland saw a difference and why other economies that grew saw a difference. I am first just going to touch on the difference between personal disposable income, the income that people have at their disposal personally. That is money in your pockets that you can use. When you look right through the1980s and right in until the 1990s, as we saw the Gross Domestic Product, the value of our goods and services, the quantity times price gives you the total value. As we saw that go up, the Gross Domestic Product, personal disposable income is also going up, right up to and into the early 1990s. Then what happened after that, when we got toward the mid-1990s, we saw the Gross Domestic Product kept going way up and the personal disposable income levelled off, which means - and when you look back in 1990, there was as much disposable income in total in this Province as there was in the year 2000. We had just as much personal disposable income to go out and buy goods and services to drive this economy as we had ten years earlier.

So, we did not have any more money in ten years to spend in this Province when we saw the Gross Domestic Product for 1990 go from just over $10 billion to almost $13 billion. We saw going up towards a 30 per cent increase in the Gross Domestic Product but we saw no increase in extra money going into the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Why isn't that? Isn't it a sign of prosperity when you get extra revenues, you have extra money to spend on extra goods and services? This never happened. Why didn't it happen? Why didn't our provincial economy grow with the Goss Domestic Product?

All we have heard since the mid-1990s, from 1996 on, this House, on numerous occasions, minister after minister and Premier have stood outside this House and boasted what a great Gross Domestic Product we have. In fact, we have led the country. We have a tremendous growth in Gross Domestic Product, but where is it going? Where is the increase coming from lately? It is coming from oil. Oil goes in a tanker. Some of it stops at Whiffin Head. Some of it goes straight, direct into the U.S., the Eastern Seaboard. Where are the benefits coming from this offshore oil? Where are most of the benefits? The benefits are going to the Eastern Seaboard or other parts of the country, and they are not staying in our Province. That is why we are not getting the benefits. We are not getting the job spinoffs, the growth in industries. We are not getting more money in people's pockets as a result, and therefore this is having a dramatic impact. That is why we cannot just look and say that Gross Domestic Product is an appropriate indicator of growth in our Province, Mr. Speaker. It just does not fly. It is not the answer, it is not the way that we should be looking in terms of saying what is best in our Province.

I want to make some reference to a few things about Gross Domestic Product and some other avenues that we could look at pertaining to growth in our Province. For example, if you look at some other indicators - let's, for example, take our Gross National Product. Look at Ireland. Just take the case of Ireland, what they did. In Ireland, they looked at - there are numerous factors, for instance, that tell us if we are going to have growth. You have to look at more than Gross Domestic Product. You have to look at productivity; if you have disposable income; if you see an improvement in our borrowing and our debt; if you see an improvement in all of these areas. We cannot be just satisfied with looking at one specific area because that alone is just not going to cut it. It is not the acceptable one and it is not going to be the one that is going to put us on the road to recovery. We have to look beyond that. We have to look at income in our Province. For example, if we are looking at economic growth, you have to subtract all the benefits that go out of the Province rather than applying those benefits and counting them in your Gross Domestic Product.

The Minister of Finance has indicated in this House - she stood and read, in this House, a Ministerial Statement that I felt was a very, very misleading financial statement. It did not illustrate what the experts are saying out there, and I think it is not indicative of what is happening. The minister stood in this House back on May 8, just last week, and the minister said that we have an increase in our credit rating. What did the minister attribute that to?

I am glad one of the companies out there, at least Moody's, has seen fit to increase our credit rating because that means if we go out and borrow now, any of our money out to the bond market, we can get a better rate on borrowing. If you can get a better rate on borrowing, pay less interest, our interest we are growing is not going to increase as much. Some of the borrowings we have, we could be able to refinance at lower rates. Now, we do have borrowings out there. Some are at high rates, for example. We have some payable - these are in Canadian dollars - and we seem to get a better rate on the foreign exchange with some others, but then there is a downside to that, of course. There is a big downside to borrowing foreign.

I am glad to see that we have shifted to more borrowing in our own country, Canadian funds. We have interest rates out there today 10.95 per cent and 13.5 per cent. There are many others though, more recent ones at 6.4 per cent, 4.6 per cent and 5.9 per cent. Some of these are very reasonable rates. We have ones in U.S. dollars. Rates at eleven-and-five-eights are still fairly high. By and large, we have borrowings under the Canada Pension Plan up to 16 per cent, 12.01 per cent up to 16.53 per cent. That is a fairly high interest rate. Some of these are becoming due in the next while. They could be refinanced, hopefully, at lower amounts and try to keep our interest payment down, but it is not going to reduce our interest payment because we are still borrowing. Even if we do get a lower rate and we are borrowing more, the more we are borrowing it is still going to mean we could be paying more interest rates even if we are getting a lower rate. You only benefit from a lower rate if you do not have to borrow anymore and you pay less interest on what you already have borrowed, but we have not stopped borrowing. We are still borrowing. We are paying everything we have to pay off and we are still borrowing. We are borrowing more.

If you borrow another $200 million and you get a 4 per cent or 5 per cent and you happen to get a rate on what you had borrowed earlier, that is $200 million more times 4 per cent. You would have to have a significant change in borrowing rates to make up for that. I am saying, even if we do get lower borrowing rates, we are going to be paying more money out in interest because we are increasing the amount we are borrowing.

What is a good credit rating? I hope the only legacy, the only thing that we are going to have to say on a lower borrowing rate is that it gives the permission to borrow now cheaper. It is not something that we are proud to say. We should be able to say: Well, thank God, we do not have to go borrow more money this year. We can concentrate on - if we have to refinance, or if they come due and we have to go to the market and get a better rate, even if there is a penalty attached, with the penalty we might get a better rate and we might reduce the cost to us as a result.

The minister noted that our Province, in announcing the upgrade, she said - and that is what is so misleading. She said: "In announcing the upgrade today Moody's noted the province's strong economic growth, improved fiscal position, and the resultant improvement in key debt ratios, such as debt to GDP."

Then, in another sentence, she said: "Moody's also point to the level of fiscal support provided by the federal government, and the likelihood of a continuation of this support in light of Canada's improving fiscal position and debt burden."

That is telling us that because we have done such a good job, the minister said, we are going to get a better credit rating now. But, that is not what Moody's said. I am glad that we had an opportunity - I only got this statement walking into the House that day. If I had it five or ten minutes beforehand I could have had a chance to at least download and go the Net and find out what Moody's said about it. What Moody's said about it was not what the minister said about it and that is the difference.

Here is what Moody's said: "Our assessment that the provincial sector now operates in a more stable system of federal support prompts the rating upgrade to A3 for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador." It went on to say, "The province now faces more difficult budget circumstances and is relying to a great extent on non-recurring measures to enhance its short-term fiscal flexibility." She went on to say that this is not sustainable and so on, or that Moody's indicated. But, that is not what we heard from the minister.

We thought about the glowing economy in this Province is why Moody's did that. In fact, Moody's were a little more explanatory. In fact, they also increased Prince Edward Island and I do believe Saskatchewan's went up also, basically, the same. They said: "Within Canada the Atlantic province's are most reliant on federal transfers as a revenue source and, as a result, are most susceptible to a systemic retrenchment in such transfers." She said: "Today's Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island rating upgrades reflect, in part, our assessment that the federal government's stronger position lessens the likelihood of transfer reductions comparable in scope to those imposed in the mid-1990s." So, she said: "According to a report recently published by the central government, federal cash transfers for the province will average 6% growth annually....".

In other words, she said - and they said in the first paragraph: "The rating actions announced today for Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island reflect, primarily, our recognition that the federal government's improved fiscal position - acknowledged in last week's upgrade of federal government debt ratings - provides a more stable environment for federal-provincial fiscal transfers." In other words, that is why. Previously, the federal government got upgraded and (inaudible) more fiscally. In fact, I read today, I believe in today's paper - I read somewhere today that the federal government surplus is estimated at $10 billion. Their fiscal position has improved and that is why we got the rating; not what the minister read in her statement. I do not think that is acceptable, if the minister is up saying that we are going to have an upgrade because of: what a great job we are doing here in our Province.

In fact, she praised themselves up. She said it: "... will result in lower borrowing costs... will enhance our ability to finance major projects... confirms that government is making the right choices with respect to striking a balance between continuing to build our economy, while maintaining the integrity of our health and social programs. It is very important that we continue our resolve to prudently manage the finances of the province so as to ensure a strong economy in the future." Well, I can assure you, it has not been a prudent management of the resources here in our Province, Madam Speaker, and that is not what was indicated here in the statement by Moody's.

Furthermore, around the same day, the very same day I think, May 8, a very prominent company in this country, the Bank of Montreal - the Bank of Montreal did not get carried away with what the minister said. Here is what the Bank said: "Despite supercharged growth in three of the past four years...Newfoundland's fiscal situation has become more precarious." On May 8, just last week, that is what the Bank of Montreal said. They went on to say: "The province has incurred increasingly larger deficits in each of the past three years and this pattern is expected to continue for fiscal 2002-03."

Madam Speaker, in its March 22, 2002 Budget, the Province's Minister of Finance projected that the deficit would rise to $93 million in 2002-2003 from $64 million in the last fiscal year. Although the revised deficit for last year was twice that originally budgeted from a year ago, the underlying deficit was much larger as a result of deferred revenues of $197 million.

The bank goes on to say: "Netting out a further deferral of $77 million from 2001-02 to 2001-03, the underlying deficit for..." last year "...amounted to $184 million. And, given the $77 million transfer from 2001-02 to 2002-03 and a $97 million..." that they took from the Labrador - that is not the words they used. I will use their words, "And, given the $77 million transfer from 2001-02 to 2002-03 and a $97 million transfer from the off-budget Labrador Transportation Initiative, the underlined deficit for 2002-03 is approximately $267 million. On a consolidated accrual basis, the deficits could very well be much larger."

The Bank of Montreal is saying, we know it is $267 million and it could be larger. I said today, from our calculations and looking at areas, it is $300 million and possibly not counting the full accrual method. I say it could be closer to $500 million than what this government budgeted; I am predicting it will be when we see the final reports this fall. That is not a ringing enforcement, I can tell you, of the way the finances of this Province have been managed.

It goes on to say, and this is a telling statement: "Clearly, Newfoundland's fiscal situation is a cause for concern..." - the Bank of Montreal said - "...and could act as a drag on economic growth. With very high debt levels (estimated at 54.2 per cent of GDP as of March 31, 2002, the highest by far of all provinces) and the highest personal income taxes in the country, the province is in a difficult situation." That is what the Bank of Montreal is saying on our Province's situation.

I think I would take it as gospel, the words from Moody's and the words from the Bank of Montreal, before I will take it from a minister who is trying to put a positive slant on something that is not all positive. I will admit, it is good to see some positive news but when it gets presented as an endorsement of government, that these people do not attribute to that. We are not getting the full information and we are not getting the truth.

When you look at the tax rates of this Province and see where we are from a tax prospective - if you look at the personal income tax in our Province, in the first tax bracket, our Province has the third highest rate; the next bracket, we are the second highest; and we are second in the next. So on average, overall we are the second highest tax province in the country in personal income tax and we have the highest levels overall, is what the Bank of Montreal says.

This minister tries to tells us, when it comes to giving us a tax cut, we cannot afford it. Things are not good enough. But, when she comes to presenting a budget, she says the Budget is an endorsement of our great economic situation and how things are going so well here in our Province. Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) out of the House, Loyola. You are driving the Premier right out of the House

MR. SULLIVAN: Madam Speaker, the Premier always had difficulty dealing with facts. He always had trouble dealing with facts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I will say to him - I have said it to him before and I will say it again now in the public record, Madam Speaker - who runs the Province when he is down here all the time? Is it on automatic pilot, I am wondering. Is it on automatic pilot? If it is on automatic pilot, I might tell him, it is going in the wrong direction. He should get somebody up there and change the course. That is what I tell him. We will have to get a skipper from our side, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, to get up and set the course and show him how to use the navigational tools the Province has at its disposal, because they are using them to go in the wrong direction.

No wonder they are more used to talking about deficits and the debts, I say, Madam Speaker, than talking about positive indicators and surpluses. Hopefully, while we are on this topic, with a $10 billion surplus federally - I read that today, and I am sure my colleagues are aware of that, the federal government - why, might I add, are we getting less money if there is so much surplus federally? Why are we getting less money for health, post- secondary education from the federal government if they are having such huge surpluses? Why would they cut the poor provinces when things are better across the country? To me, I cannot figure that out. I cannot see the reason why that would happen.

We have a government that is the least accountable government in this country. That is not a statement attributed only to me. That is a statement by the Auditor General who served this Province for ten years.

MR. REID: Let me see it.

MR. SULLIVAN: Read it in her report.

MR. REID: Let me read it.

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the Auditor General's report is tabled in this House every single year and he has an opportunity to read it. What I will do, if he wants me to do it, after supper here this evening I will take the Auditor General's report into this House and I will make reference as to the parts.

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

MADAM SPEAKER (Ms M. Hodder): On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. REID: (Inaudible) across the floor made reference to something that the Auditor General said in the report. I would suggest that the words that he used, the Auditor General did not use in the report, and if he thinks that she did or he says that she did, I challenge him to table it on the floor of the House.

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I was talking about a government that is cited by the Auditor General as the least accountable in this country. I know it hurts, Madam Speaker. I know it hurts, I say to the member. I even feel some empathy for the member over there. Either he does not know the difference or he is indicating that - and hopefully he is not saying something he does know. I will not attribute that. I would say he does not know the difference in it. It is in the report. I will get to that. During the course of my notes I am getting to that. In due course, before I am finished speaking to this Budget, I will address that.

I wanted to touch on some of the things that this government has been doing, Madam Speaker. The Financial Administration Act is an act brought into law in this Legislature and is an act of this Province that tells and sets down rules by which this Province should abide by dealing with certain financial administrative matters. In that act, Madam Speaker, actually on page 20, it says here (3) "Where when the Legislature is not in session" - in other words, when this House is not sitting - "or when the House of Assembly has been adjourned for more than 30 days" - you close the end of May and after the end of June, for example - "an expenditure not foreseen and not provided for by the Legislature in respect of a new service is urgently and immediately required for the public good, then, upon the report of the minister that there is no legislative provision and of the minister having charge of the new service in question that in his or her opinion the necessity is urgent, giving reasons for the opinion, and that where the expenditure is not made, grave damage to the interests of the Crown or the public will result from delaying the expenditure until the necessary legislative provision has been made, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council" - which is the Cabinet - "may, on the recommendation in writing of the board order (a) that a special warrant be prepared...".

I want to say on this item here, Madam Speaker, that this government, this year, when the House sat, and we were here in this House debating in this House, passed and issued special warrants that we were not aware of, of $48,256,800 that this government approved in special warrants in Cabinet through the Minister of Finance when this House sat. To me, that is an affront to the House of Assembly and to elected representatives, that we are here to approve budgets and to approve expenditures and we did not have an opportunity to even pass judgement on these.

The minister tries to defend that by saying: Look, they went for a good cause. Well, let the public judge and let the House decide if it is a good cause. It could very well be. For example, on March 15, $720,000 was spent by the Justice Department, Supreme Court, for property furnishings and equipment. On March 15, the Provincial Court, there was $1,952,000 approved in salaries. On March 27, there was the Newfoundland and Labrador Education Investment Corporation, grants and subsidies, $4 million. On March 27, teaching services, grants and subsidies, $6.4 million. On March 27, health facility operations, $10 million. On March 27, under Community Services, grants, $820,000. Salaries for adult correction on March 27, $387,000. Supreme Court salaries on March 27, $23,800. On March 27, $3.5 million, health care facilities. Health care facilities, properties, furnishing and equipment, $14 million on March 27. Drug subsidization, $3.3 million on March 27. The last one on March 27, drug subsidization again, $3 million.

We are not indicating that some, and maybe many, maybe all, of these expenditures should not have occurred. What we are saying, what the Auditor General is saying, is, if you are going to spend them you should have included them in a Supplementary Supply Bill, bring it to the House and vote on the bill here in this House that has proper legislative approval. If you were not going to do that, you should have carried that expenditure into the next fiscal year and put it in your budget. They did not do either. They did not do either. They did not carry out what they were supposed to do. They committed a breach and contravened the Financial Administration Act that they are sworn to uphold. They did not do it.

Not only that. According to the Auditor General, they tried to get whatever result they wanted in their Budget. Near the end of March, they could spend tens of millions, $48 million at the end of March, because if they had to carry it forward, if they did not spend it, their deficit might look better so they can carry it from one year to the next. They manipulate, and the Auditor General used the word, to get whatever result you want on the bottom line.

MR. LUSH: Calculate, not manipulate. Calculate.

MR. SULLIVAN: She did not use the word calculate. That is not the word the Auditor General used. She did not use the word calculate at all, I say to the Government House Leader. He shouldn't be putting words in the Auditor General's mouth because her words are printed here and they could try to twist it, I might add. They might try to twist it all they like.

They know they have broken the rules of our Province and they should not be allowed to keep doing it year after year, especially when they are being told by an Auditor General, basically, who is ten years reporting and is being very, very critical of the way in which the finances are handled by this particular government here.

Madam Speaker, I made a few particular points about what the Auditor General said. In fact, she went on to say publicly that the government accountability in this Province is the worse in the nation. That is what she said, and I will quote her words. I will quote the words for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. It says: Government accountability in this Province is the worst in the nation, and in at least one area compliance with the Financial Administration Act has gotten worse, not better.

MR. REID: Table it.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is tabled, I say to that Member for Twillingate & Fogo, in case he does not know. The Auditor General's Report gets tabled annually. It is tabled. It is in print. He has a copy or he should have gotten a copy because it was tabled here. If he does not want to own up to it, he should get it and read it. I could ask the Page of the House to have a copy brought over to you. If the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture does not have the Auditor General's Report, or if he has it and did not read it, I cannot read it for you; I cannot read it for you.

Also, they do not have any result based performance criteria of government departments and agencies. They are not required to report to the Legislature, basically, and that is what should be done. There has to be a greater level of accountabilities used I say, Madam Speaker, to keep a record here in the public.

I want to talk about another area of much interest and that is equalization. In fact, I just want to touch for a second on the Premier. When, days after becoming the Premier of this Province, the Premier - and the headline read: Grimes Wrong On Clawback, PMO Says. The Premier rushed off to meet with the Prime Minister and he came back and told us that we are going to get a discussion, basically, on clawbacks on our resources. The Prime Minister's office basically said: Premier Roger Grimes got it wrong. They went to the same meeting. The Premier and the Prime Minister went to the same meeting. The Premier came back and said: We are going to get change on our equalization, and the Prime Minister said: No. Why? In fact, here is the quote: It says: There were no commitments made in the meeting Wednesday, said Francois Duguay, in an interview from Ottawa. In other words, the Prime Minister's office said, Madam Speaker, there were no commitments made on equalization, and the Premier says there were.

In fact, here is what the Premier said: The Prime Minister is clearly committed to the notion that provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador could keep more of their source revenues; Grimes said outside the Legislature Thursday.

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

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. REID: Just a little while ago, the Member for Ferryland said that the Auditor General said - and he apparently quoted her from across the floor - that we have the worst accounting practices in the country. I have a copy of the Auditor General's Report in front of me now. I ask him to tell me which page he is taking that quote from.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Madam Speaker.

The Premier came back from Ottawa and he told us -

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

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. REID: Madam Speaker, I think I just proved, to anyone who is looking out there, that the Auditor General did not make that statement and the member opposite should withdraw it.

Thank you.

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: I just want the Speaker to rule whether the member is right and there is a point of order. I am just waiting for a ruling, Madam speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: No point of order. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The member again is up and down like a Jack-in-the-Box there and he does not have any point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. REID: Madam Speaker, all I would like to say to the hon. member opposite is, I might not have had a point of order, but he was not quoting the Auditor General, because she did not say the like. He knows it and he is not man enough to retract his statement.

MADAM SPEAKER: Again, there is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you.

Madam Speaker has ruled on the point of order?

Okay. I will continue on and indicate that I have made no erroneous statements in this House, and I am going to continue to speak on equalization. The member knows very well, the member has not read - I have read every single word in the Auditor General's Reports in this Province in the last four years; every single word. I am going to continue and hopefully without any interruption on my time.

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

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. REID: He made a point earlier. He said that he was reading directly from the Auditor General's Report where she said - and he had it on a piece of paper - that we had the worst accounting practices in the country. Now he says he has read every single word. I ask him - I have the Auditor General's Report in front of me - to tell me the page from which he is reading, because I cannot find it, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: Again the ruling is, there is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

In fact, the member is not really telling the truth. I never said I am quoting and reading from the Auditor General's Report in front of me. I did not have it in front of me to read and I never said it. He is only trying to throw me off because this government is not accountable. He is a part of that government that is not accountable, and he is feeling guilty about it now and he is trying to deflect attention away from their inability to put the finances of this Province back on track. That is what he is doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The member here has no reason to feel guilty. The person who should feel guilty is the person who, basically, slandered the Auditor General and put words in her mouth that she did not say, she did not write. I ask him again to apologize to that lady who occupied the position and did it quite well for ten years. He is only here today slandering her by putting words in her mouth that she never did say.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: Again, the Chair rules there is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I want to continue to address some of the major concerns. In fact, how can we have, really, a government that is running the finances of our Province and making decisions, when they go to a meeting in Ottawa with the Prime Minister, and they cannot even come out of meeting with the Prime Minister saying the same thing. The Premier came out of the meeting and here is what he said: The Prime Minister is committed to the notion that provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador could keep more of their source revenues. That is what he said outside of the Legislature on Thursday, back last year. He said: My understanding and my impression, from the meeting with the Prime Minister, is that he is of the view that it is the right thing to do and as soon as they can do it - and there is no reason to wait, I might add. What did the Prime Minister's office say? Grimes got it all wrong. The Prime Minister's office says: Premier Roger Grimes got it wrong when he reached the (inaudible). He couldn't even come out of the same meeting with the Prime Minister singing the same song. He came out and told a different story because he came back here and told us something and when the Prime Minster's Office heard about it, they denied it; that that wasn't the case.

Besides, what the Government of Canada is saying is wrong. They are saying that we cannot and we do not have to renegotiate equalization in 2004. I am saying that is wrong. Madam Speaker, in 1982 there was a cap put on equalization in this country and that cap was lifted unilaterally during the last federal election, unilaterally lifted by the federal government with legislation in the House of Commons without provincial approval, provincial support lifting a cap. It was put back on the next year without provincial approval. You do not need approval of the governments of the provinces of Canada to change equalization. The only thing that is guaranteed to us in our Constitution is equalization and it is not dependent upon approval from the provinces, and they have to get that straight. If this Premier has not told that to the Prime Minister of Canada and to the Constitutional Affairs Minister and to the Finance Minister and other people there, if he has not done that, he is derelict in his responsibilities as Premier. I would hope he has told him that, because we do not need to do it.

If you could do it in a federal election to get elected, and get more people elected in the federal election, when it looked like there was a potential majority government, then took it away after it was over, you could do it today and you could do it last week or you could do it next week, it is not playing the game. We are like pawns on a chess board, manipulated when it is politically convenient to do so. That is what is happening here and it is shameful that we are allowing this to be tolerated by people here, and that is why we sent a message to the people of Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: That is why Rex Barnes brought our message back to the House of Commons from Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: That is why John Efford, who has distanced himself from this government, brought a message back to the House of Commons, I can tell you -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: - if he had to tie himself as a member.

That is why the immediate ex-Premier of this Province did not make it back to the House of Commons, because this Province has gotten short-changed from the Government of Canada and they let the people know it. It is about time to do it. If it had to be a general election, there might have been a much stronger message gone back to Ottawa.

Right now, I might add, we should be up pounding on the door of Ottawa. We should be jumping up and down. I hope John Efford won't be jumping up and down just talking harp seals up in Ottawa. I hope he will be talking about how we have been short-changed here, a $10 billion deficit, and why they gave us less money for health care than a decade ago. I hope that is what he is going to be talking about to the people of Canada when he gets in the House of Commons. They are the types of things we want to hear: why we are getting short-changed here in good economic times; why we are cutting back and closing hospitals and hospital beds and longer lineups. That is what we have to be standing up for when we go to Ottawa, because they have taken $776 million out of the coffers of this Province in Canada Health and Social Transfer back since 1996. That is what we have taken out right from this government's budget records. I totalled them up. I went back each year and looked at the difference that we got, not in our best year but back when the change was implemented, and that is what it has cost us. What do we hear on this? Not very much, I might add. All we get out of a meeting, when the Premier goes to Ottawa is a difference of opinion, a difference of opinion between two hon. gentlemen, basically.

Mr. Speaker, I can say that is not the way this should be resolved. We do not have to wait. We do not have to wait until 2004 to get equalization resolved. We are now operating, in this country, on a five-province formula in equalization when we had a ten-province formula before. So, what they did when they wanted to take Alberta out because their economy was soaring, they eliminated the Atlantic Provinces, basically, to compensate for that. It now hasn't become relevant. The five provinces should be ten provinces, back in.

Basically I have a concern, and maybe the minister might answer this when she gets a chance later on some day to speak on this. I would like to know, now with British Columbia being one of those five provinces that affects our equalization and they are now becoming a have-not - for the first time they had to receive payments under equalization - how is that going to affect our equalization for this year if the pot is now shared with one extra province whose standard is used in measuring how much we get, and their economy is not performing as well because of softwood lumber and the impact it is going to have? How is that going to affect that in our Province? Something is going to have to be done. I might say, something is going to have to be done to deal with that. So, we have to change it to a ten-province formula. We have to lift the ceiling on equalization here. It was put on unilaterally. It should come off immediately. It should have been retroactive where there are huge unconscionable surpluses that we are getting on the federal budget.

We are seeing EI programs, huge unconscionable surpluses, at almost $40 billion. That is what it has escalated to, $40 billion in an EI program, and they cut the guts out of benefits to seasonal workers in Newfoundland and Labrador when the season ended and they had to depend on an income, and cut their weeks off early. An EI program should be a self-sustaining program. If it makes too much money, what should be done: one option would be cut the premiums to employers and employees who are paying into the plan. The plan is a $40 billion surplus. We are paying too much into it, or you are not paying enough out. One or the other. Either we pay more out or pay less in, maybe a combination of both. That is what it is. It is an insurance plan. It is not intended to be a cash cow for government patronage or to pop around and tour around all over the place at election time. That is not the purpose of an EI fund.

This equalization is a very, very serious problem. In fact, just back over this past year - and there are numerous articles written on this. I will not get into many of these references but there are numerous articles that have been written on equalization. We do not have, I might add, a fair sharing of revenues in this country.

One of the fundamental principles of us as a nation is that there should be an effort to reduce disparities between the rich and the not-so-rich parts of our country. What has happened to the gap between the rich and the poor provinces in our country? The gap has widened. We have been cut off. If we get money under ACOA, for example, whether it is a Western Canada diversification fund or under a Quebec fund, you will never, never, never produce a proper balance and eliminate regional disparities when you distribute money on a per capita basis. That will never do it. To get equity, you have to have unequal amounts to get equity into provinces. It has not happened. We are insignificant. We have seven seats in the federal government. That is basically seven seats. The House of Commons is 301. We are insignificant to the Government of Canada. That is correct, and the number is going up. I think it is going up to 308 or 309 now, I do believe. They never reduced the numbers we have, but we keep getting to be a smaller per cent of the seats that are in the House of Commons, and that will continue under current trends. I hope current trends will change. I hope we will get a change in the trend that is going on.

Mr. Speaker, there are numerous, numerous categories that go into equalization, and it is not a simple process. There is an estimated thirty-three or more categories. My understanding is that on any new categories, like water export, for example, there would be a 100 per cent clawback on funds under new categories under equalization.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I have asked that question to people in authority and I have been told that new categories have 100 per cent clawback.

We have numerous oil categories. I will not go into all of these, but there are numerous ones. For example, when you look at equalization, you have to look at how every single economy of all the provinces are performing under specific areas, whether it is personal income tax or business income tax. There are numerous areas in oil, for example. I will just give an example. There are: new oil revenues, old oil revenues, heavy oil, mined oil, domestically sold natural gas revenues, export of natural gas, other oil and gas revenues. So just to give some examples under oil itself and those resources, natural gas, how many different categories and the performance of each. That is why it takes over two years or so to get your final adjustments under equalization because all the data, all the results, are not in on these things each year, and that is why there is a lag. There are probably eight or nine adjustments, I believe. I do not know but there are more. There are numerous adjustments that keep occurring and that is why we hear, at certain times of the year - I think we get our final one some time in February each year. So that let's us know roughly, before Budget time, exactly where we are. They are very, very significant areas, I might add.

This is one issue - and I think I made reference before. This is one issue that I have raised on equalization on numerous occasions. I am not sure how often the Premier has raised this or the Finance Minister, but I raised it in news release on February 28, again on March 15, March 20, May 25, August 13, December 11. Numerous times I have made reference here since, and I have spoken on it since. These are some of the particular areas of concern. We have to get rid of that cap. It is not fair. It is not a proper allocation of resources. What happens now? There are only two provinces in the country, Ontario and Alberta, that are now, in this past year, have provinces. There are only two in the have category and the rest in the have not. Now we have more people sharing the pie.

If there is a cap on equalization, and you have more people sharing the pie, you will get a smaller piece of the pie. That is normally what happens. There are more sharing it - unless the economy shifts (inaudible) within that category that some other province gets a smaller piece of the pie. Whatever way you look at it, the average cut of that pie is going to be smaller when there are eight slices as opposed to seven slices. That is basically what is happening in this case here. That is why we are going to see a change, I might add. That is why we are going to see, and we need to see a change in that cap. It should be removed immediately.

There is no reason why, not one reason I could think of, that we should not change to a ten-province formula. Why shouldn't we change? What better indication of the performance of our country than by taking all ten provinces into a formula that sets equalization? Why should we leave the economy of Alberta out of this? Why should we leave the economy of the Atlantic provinces out of this? Why should we leave these out? We have British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. One time we had all ten. We changed that because Alberta's economy was growing fast. Now, when we throw out - to balance that on the other end of the continuum, we tossed out the Atlantic provinces. What is the reason? Why don't we have all ten? There is a better indication.

Government, I am sure, agrees with this. We have heard news releases - I have heard government out on this position, after. We have raised this up to months and months beforehand and I have heard them come out on it later. So, I am assuming they agree with us on this position, but we are not hearing anything. We are not getting any challenge in Ottawa. We have to push the envelope. We have to talk to other provinces. We have to be tougher in negotiations. We have to fight for every last thing we need because it is unfair, and anything that is unfair the Canadian population will buy. If there is equalization, it is constitutionally guaranteed. The only thing, I think, we are constitutionally guaranteed almost is equalization from the federal government. I know we have Term 29. We are guaranteed that, too; $8 million a year, forever. But, Premier Tobin and the Cabinet took that in three years and used it all; twenty years worth. We do not get any then for seventeen years. So, we will not get any more of that now until around the year 2017. We will not see any more of that money because they took the $160 million - they took $130 million upfront. They said: Look, give us a $130 million upfront. We will take $130 million instead of $160 million. Twenty years payment - $8 million a year for twenty years is $160 million. They said: give it to us all upfront and then don't give us any for the next nineteen years, for example.

The federal government gave it to them but what they did, they took it - they would not give them, obviously, $160 million because if they give you money in advance there are costs associated with paying that out early. So, they said: we will give you $130 million. You can have your $130 million. We took it. Premier Tobin, when he came here, and Cabinet approved it. We took the $130 million. We got $30 million less than we would, even though we got it early. That would be less borrowing for us, hopefully, and that could be a benefit. That part of it is not the big problem that I see. The big problem I see is that it created a structured deficit that our Province now has to deal with year after year after year. In other words, we delayed decisions to the future to another seventeen years down the road. That's the problem I see.

We took the Labrador Transportation Initiative. We stopped making a decision - we transferred that to a future year and to our youth and to our future. That is one of the biggest problems I have seen for the past five years or so, is that we are transferring decisions onto the shoulders of our children or the people who are going to be left here in our Province to bear that responsibility. That has been a trademark of this government and that is there in spades. It is there in print. It is there for anyone to see. That is unquestionable. It has been a major contributor, basically, to the uncertainty and why Banks are out saying - the Bank of Montreal, senior economists and people, on why - even Moody's, in spite of an upgrade, they said was because they upgraded the federal situation. They upgraded the feds. They said it is a better fiscal situation. You are less likely to cut back transfers now like you did in the 1990s and therefore we will up Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, we will increase you. They rapped them on the hands for the way we are handling funding at the same time. That is basically what happened.

We have to face the truth because we have to see that there are major, major concerns, I might add, with the economy here. We have to try to address these and we have to look at solutions. We do not propose to have all the answers to them and I am sure from government's performance in the last ten or twelve years, they certainly do not have them. If they have, they have not been utilizing all of them or maybe they are not getting results. Maybe the approach is wrong, maybe the policies are wrong, maybe there needs to be other efforts looked at, maybe more input from people who are more experts in giving advice to do that. We have to be receptive to that. We cannot be defensive. If something is not working get up and say it is not working. We tried and we failed on that, we are going to look at another solution. If you have a better one tell us, basically.

It is a process that, I might say, we need to look at. We have a ten-province formula for some time and that is changing. I checked back and did a little research. What did we lose, basically? For instance, the cap on equalization, how much money have we lost because they put a cap on it twenty years ago? How much have we lost because we went from a ten-province to a five-province? Well, one study - this is the federal proposal here that was done. I think it came up during the Senate Finance Committee hearings in equalization. I was particularly interested when I checked on it with the Newfoundland part. It says, a more significant recommendation, for instance, asked the federal government to return to a ten-province standard in determining equalization. Currently, the five-province standard now - and I named them - results in lower equalization payments.

The Department of Finance estimated - see table 3 - had we gone with the ten-province standard instead of the five we switched to, we would have provided an additional $14.4 billion during the fiscal years 1994-95 to 2001-2002. If you look at that seven year period, we would have had $14.4 billion more in that period.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, that is not just to us now, that is across the country. In Newfoundland and Labrador, yes. I will tell Newfoundland and Labrador's share. In the case of Newfoundland and Labrador, it would have provided, during those seven years, an additional $626 million, just in the ten-province standard from the five we have now. We would have gotten $626 million more in a six- or seven-year period. That is about $100 million a year. One hundred million dollars a year could do a lot of things in our Province. That is just that one issue.

I say to the Government House Leader, the cap on equalization should not be. Now, you look at it realistically. Why do we cap equalization when our country has a $10 billion surplus now? Why are you capping equalization? When you lifted it during the federal election last year, for that year they lifted it, we got $38 million just for that year. If it averaged that for twenty years - which I do not know and I have not researched to determine it - if that was the average, you would be looking at $750 million. It may not be, but it would definitely tell us it is in the hundreds of millions of dollars extra on top of the $600 million. So we are looking at over $1 billion in that period. Well, some of it during the twenty years and some during the six or seven years, most of it. We would have gotten extra from the federal government had they not changed it. That is an significant amount of money that we would have in the coffers of our Province.

All of this is happening when? Is all this happening when the federal government is showing deficits? No. This is all happening when the federal government has been showing tremendous surplus, I might add. So, why don't we have a ten-province standard? Why do we have to have a cap?

There are seven provinces participating in sharing that cap. I will just use this as an example. Seven provinces shared that cap. We get our share, but this year for the first time in quite some time - because sometimes I think Saskatchewan might have gone in and out of it - this year, for the first time, we are told that British Columbia has entered into the have-not. Now, if we have British Columbia going into the have-not, that is eight have-nots sharing the same cap amount and a smaller piece of the pie we are going to get. And that is not the most telling tale. The most telling tale is that British Columbia is one of the five provinces that is significant in size, the third-biggest one into that pot of five in the five-province standard, and they are in that standard and they are a have-not. So, now you have them and Quebec being have-nots. The only one in now that is a have, is Ontario. That could shift, that could affect the overall amount of equalization that is due, and that could affect us in the process too. That is certainly a downside of that aspect, I might add, of equalization. We have to take up the fight with Ottawa and we have to solve this problem.

I do understand, I think, from our House Leader and the Government House Leader, that we are going to break at 5:00 p.m., if that is the understanding. Because of some prior agreement, I say to the Government House Leader, I will not continue to talk until 5:30 p.m., which I could, and force adjournment of the House and go home, unless everybody here wants to do that. If you want to do that, I can do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) vote.

MR. SULLIVAN: If you want to have a vote to do that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: - otherwise the House will adjourn until 7:00 p.m. and I can come back again and you could be entertained for another three hours, if that is your wish; but I understand you want to come back at 7:00 p.m. and spend three hours anyway, and you would like to give me time to finish my comments. Is that what the Government House Leader is saying?

Well, if that is your wish, I will grant your wish and I now move adjournment of debate for a recess.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman and I give notice that I will move a motion on Tuesday, May 21 - I think that is the date - on tomorrow, the parliamentary day, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. nor at 10:00 p.m.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: I give that notice.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed that we recess now and come back at -

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: I am moving that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m., the same motion that I made on Monday, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. and not adjourn at 10:00 p.m.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I understand that the Government House Leader had moved Motion 4 on the Order Paper. Is it Motion 4?

MR. LUSH: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. and at 10:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 16, 2002.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

This House is now recessed until 7:00 p.m.


May 16, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 25A


The House resumed sitting at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

We are on the Budget Debate. The hon. Member for Ferryland adjourned the debate at 5:00 p.m.

 

I recognize the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I had a chance, before break, to conclude my preliminary comments on the Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I guess some people are glad I have finished my preliminary comments. I think I will say like Winston Churchill said: "This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I want to spend a bit of time tonight talking about some of the real economic indicators of whether our Province is doing well. When you look at some aspects of our Province and look at - the indicator that this Province has been using for some time has been Gross Domestic Product, our GDP. I want to look at some other particular options and some other areas or indicators that can be used in measuring the degree of success, or lack thereof, in our Province.

When you look at Gross Domestic Product, you are looking at the total value of all the goods and services, the whole total value. That is found by looking at the quantity produced and multiplying it by the price; multiplying the quantity by the price and then we get a value. This total export value, or total value, gives you your GDP. How indicative is GDP? If the Gross Domestic Product, the GDP, all the money generated was staying in our Province, we could see that our Province, by leading the country in three of the last four years, was on a very prosperous path; if we could take that conclusion, but we see that has not happened.

We have led the country three of the past four years in GDP, but we have been far from leading the country in almost every other category. The only other category - we are certainly leading the country in some categories that are not too great to brag about. We are leading the country in out-migration, I might add, Mr. Speaker. We have the, I guess, unenviable record of saying that we have the greatest out-migration of any province in this country. That is not something we should be proud of.

GDP does not take into account where the profits, where the royalties, where the tax revenues go. Where do they go, for example? What we see here is that GDP basically has turned a struggling provincial economy into a statistical boom town, basically. It looks like it is a complete boom town if you looked at GDP, but that is not the case. The reason why, because many of the companies doing business in our Province, the profits are going outside. If we sell oil, the profits go to owners of the company. Where are the owners of the oil companies? Are they in this Province?

Probably one of the few industries were most of the Gross Domestic Products stays here in the Province to create jobs and goes into the economy is the fishery. That is right, the fishery. Most of the fish businesses in this Province are owned by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. The profits generated from those companies stays within the Province. Those revenues stay inside the Province. The profits are staying inside the Province. Where do the profits, for example, of Mobile and Gulf, and these go? Outside the Province. Where do the profits of the mining industry in our Province go? Outside the Province. Where do some of our major utility companies - lets taken even companies like Fortis and Aliant, some of these have a Newfoundland base but shareholder wise, small numbers.

When you have companies that are owned outside, most of the profits are going outside the Province. They are into the pockets or into the bank accounts or coffers of individuals residing outside the Province; spending their money on goods and services in other provinces, other countries, other parts of the world. That is why we have seen a tremendous growth in GDP, close to 40 per cent growth in GDP, but no growth in personal disposal income. That is a much better indicator, I might add.

On White Rose it has been estimated - on White Rose for example - that the federal government will get about $2.25 billion from White Rose. Our Province will get about $269 million. If you look at that total picture, our Province will get 10 per cent of the total revenues that go federally and provincially. The federal government will get nine times what we will get on White Rose. A resource that should belong to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; a resource, I might add, that was brought into the Country of Canada by Confederation. We brought that resource into this country and they are going to take $2.25 billion on that resource and we are going to get a measly $250 million. That is what I call injustices in equalization, injustices in resource clawback. We are not getting the benefits from our resources and that is why we are not enhancing the prosperity, increasing the wealth of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It is not happening. We are not doing it, for that simple basic reason.

Mr. Speaker, what has this government done? What has this government done to turn that around? My colleague for Cape St. Francis said: Nothing. He said they have done nothing to turn this around. Do you think there is something wrong when you look at White Rose and see the federal government taking $2.25 billion and we getting just over $250 million? That is not a resource of the Government of Canada, that is a resource belonging to us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: If you add up our contribution to the Government of Canada, if you add up our benefits, what we brought into Confederation, they will far outweigh what we got by coming into Confederation. We brought in a wealth of resources. We brought in minerals. We brought in forests. The pulp and paper industry, a big employer, one of the biggest contributors to the economy in our Province. We brought in fish, iron ore, the mineral content. In fact, the biggest source of revenue to our Province, the biggest contributor for years and years in the history of our Province, has been the mining industry. The mining industry contributes the largest amount. It traditionally has contributed the largest amount to our Province.

Now, what is the best indicator to show if we are growing? Is it Gross Domestic Product? We said no, because Gross Domestic Product only tells you the value of what is produced, what is in our Province. What about it all went out, if 100 per cent of what is produced went out? We would get little benefit. If 100 per cent of what was produced stayed in we would get tremendous benefits, tremendous jobs, tremendous spinoffs, more people working in every service industry in our Province, but that is not happening. That is not happening.

It has been estimated that on Hibernia, Terra Nova field and the White Rose field, that Ottawa will get about $15 billion, in that ballpark, to a couple of billion for our Province. We will get $2 billion out of $17 billion. A little over 11 per cent; between 11 per cent and 12 per cent, that is what we will get. Between 11 per cent and 12 per cent of the total dollars that flow out of that into the coffers of government. The federal government is going to get between 88 per cent and 89 per cent out of every dollar on those oil fields off our shores. Then they are telling us they do not want to deal with a change in the clawback on our resources, Mr. Speaker. That is unjust.

Here is an interesting example. The Gross Domestic Product, if you have a resource - and this is a very fundamental thing. In fact, the United States government made this point in a 1992 report on the Council on Environmental Quality. Basically, here is the point they have indicated: that if we have a resource - let's say we have Voisey's Bay. What is the total value of Voisey's Bay (inaudible)? It could be in the tens of billions of dollars. Every year, if that went into production, we would see a value going out adding to the Gross Domestic Product; but every year that asset gets depreciated. If you have a car, every year you use that car it gets depreciated and, at a certain point, it has no value. If you have a car that is a $30,000 asset today, in five years' time that undergoes considerable depreciation. It is only worth several thousand dollars.

If you have a $40 billion deposit in mining and you mine that out in twenty years, for example, after twenty years you have no value in that asset. That asset is gone. So, why are we counting income from our resources into the GDP? Shouldn't we be factoring in the depreciation of an asset? That violates basic accounting principles when you don't factor in the depreciation of an asset. The United States government made that point in 1992. Why isn't our Province looking at depreciation of that asset?

In fact, a former colleague of mine in the House of Assembly, representing Labrador West, made a point in this House before: Why isn't there some plans made even outside the depreciation factor, a resource depletion fund? If a town is dependent on one industry, primarily, shouldn't there be some allowance made at some point down the road? If we are going to see the end of that, shouldn't there be some allowance to have an adjustment fund to be able to deal with the fallout and closing down of a one-industry town? We seen it in many parts of this Province. We seen it in mines across the country. We have seen mining towns become ghost towns. It has happened in the United States; it has happened in Canada.

I have visited towns that were mining towns in the Rockies of Colorado. I have seen them here in Canada, in Ontario and other areas, where they were prosperous mining towns and now they are basically ghost towns. I know one, a little town called Black Hawke up in Colorado, a couple of hours from Denver, as being termed a beautiful area, through the mountains in Colorado, just sort of north, up in north-northwest of Denver, and it is turned into a town for tourists. There is a casino there; a different little town to visit. It still employs people. It is allowed to maintain a certain base of a population there. It is still creating some jobs and adding to the economy of the area instead of shutting it down, because there is always devastation from that. It is a beautiful area and anybody who has visited there and gone through Eisenhower Tunnel and gone into the Rockies, the Canadian Rockies are magnificent. The Colorado Rockies, I think, have about a dozen peaks higher than the Canadian Rockies, so that is a magnificent area.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you ever seen them?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I have, I say to my colleague. I have seen them. I have seen the Rockies. I have seen all four, I would say: Rocky I, Rocky II, Rocky III and Rocky IV.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I hold no punches; I have seen all the Rockies. I can tell you, I would say that he would take on and challenge anybody over there any day.

I will get back to the point at hand. Why do we take our resource, whether it is our oil - if we look at the Hibernia field out there, the volume of oil every year, with the pumping of oil, we have an asset that is less valuable but we are counting all that as revenue into GDP to show how great things are when really every year as the clock ticks we have an asset getting devalued. Any accountant who is evaluating your equipment in your business, evaluating your cars or trucks - if you are running a trucking business, if you buy a truck for $200,000 or $150,000 and the first year it depreciates, the value is probably at a rate of 30 per cent per year, approximately, on vehicles, I think. Some other assets are 20 per cent, more fixed assets. Some have reached their lifespan a lot quicker, like computers, for example, which would be a lot quicker because everything is changing so rapidly. You have a high depreciation rate depending on what the piece of equipment is. You have no value to it. The same as a house, the same as any other basic thing, you have a depreciation value.

Resources should be factored for accounting purposes with a depreciation value and this would reflect the true value of an asset that we have. That is something that is ignored and not factored when we look at Gross Domestic Product. Gross Domestic Product does not take into account how well our Province is doing. For instance, if you look at our Province, Mr. Speaker, where is the wealth in our Province generated? - what is here. Is it on the tip of the Northern Peninsula, the southern tip of the Avalon, on the South Coast of the Province, or in White Bay? No, the only place in this Province we are seeing big benefits, basically, generated from our industries that are contributing to our GDP - and the main ones contributing, the increase in GDP - is coming, basically, from our offshore oil industry. Now, it is only about 10 per cent in total of our GDP, but it is the biggest contributor to the increase. Where is this wealth going? This wealth, Mr. Speaker, is mostly going to the City of St. John's and surrounding areas. So, an important factor that is not counted in GDP is distribution of income. Income is distributed within a certain area of our Province and the rest of the Province, I might add, is not seeing great benefits in this regard. That is why we are seeing, Mr. Speaker, that over 50 per cent of the population of Newfoundland and Labrador is now on the Avalon Peninsula.

You can imagine at one time we had large towns and cities in this Province with tremendous populations. I look through different parts, and everybody can look at their districts and areas and see. There was only one community in my district that showed an increase on the last census, from1996 to 2001. One community, Port Kirwan, had an increase of eight people, from ninety-four to one hundred and two. So, they had an increase in a small community. Every other one, from statistics that were produced from the census, basically showed a declining number. Even though I do feel certain areas closer to St. John's are increasing in numbers, maybe it will be reflected in future numbers.

I will just make reference to a quote from The Globe and Mail, and how misleading a statement can be. It said, it recently used per capita GDP to suggest that the Newfoundland economy was about to vault from last place to seventh place in Canada. That is what they said: the per capita GDP from last place to seventh.

The fact is that if our economy had not grown at all since 1995, if it never grew at all, our per capita GDP would have increased because, when you take 50,000 people less and divide it in, your per capita GDP goes up. If you never increased your GDP and your population goes down, your per capita GDP goes up. That is why it is not an appropriate indicator of economic growth to look at per capita GDP. It is not appropriate to look at the general GDP. You look at how income is distributed, you look at various other areas: the depreciation of assets. There are numerous specific areas that are important in discussing that.

We talked about here - and I think my colleague asked questions here in the House one day to the Premier - the relevance of GDP as a factor in controlling or measuring our economy. Should these things play a factor in measuring our economy? In other words, not just GDP. What role should productivity play? Is productivity an important measurement of economic success and growth of our economy? Yes, it should be a factor in determining that.

What about indebtedness? If we have increased our debt, is that a good sign or bad? Obviously, if you increase your debt it is generally a bad sign unless your economy is growing faster than your debt is increasing. Then, it may not necessarily be a bad sign.

Other factors we have to include: employment and unemployment rates should be important factors in determining whether our economy is producing appropriately; labour force participation; net migration. You look at the migration of people. You see people coming in to get jobs in the Province, people going out of our Province. Out-migration is not a positive factor in determining whether our Province is on the right track.

What is the income per capita, the per capita income, those factors? What roles should they play? If your per capita income is increasing, if out-migration, your net migration, is a positive factor, if your unemployment rates are going down and your employment rates are going up, your indebtedness is decreasing, your productivity is increasing, they are important factors in measuring success.

You just cannot take a Gross Domestic Product because all that is doing, if you look at the oil industry, you have a product in high quantities at high prices compared to some other goods and services, going out of this Province, getting exported. That is not a way to measure success. For large national economies with large internal markets where foreign ownership could be a factor, if ownership and control were with local residents, for example, then you could say GDP can be a reasonable measure of economic success if the owners are within the Province. If they are not within the Province, is it a success? That is why economies like the United States and Japan, even if they are exporting something - if they are exporting a product and the monies are coming back into the country to the companies that are owned by people in that country, that is a mark of success.

Let's look at Newfoundland and Labrador. Is the money from iron ore going out of this Province coming back to shareholders that are in Newfoundland and Labrador? No. Is the money from offshore oil and gas - are the major companies owned by people, or a portion thereof, by this Province? The answer is no, which means all the profits and so on are being sucked out of this Province, going elsewhere, and we are getting a false level of GDP; because, if you increase GDP by $1 billion and $800 million of that goes out and never comes back, we are not getting a real growth produced because of that because it is going out to other countries.

If you look at other industries, what industry in this Province do we see as probably a positive contributor? I would say the fishery, for example. Most fishing companies in this Province are owned by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and the profits from the companies go back into the bank accounts and they are used within this Province and the money stays in our Province, and they are getting the benefits generated here by it. Other bigger companies - if we could have Newfoundland-owned companies, it would be much better because we would have monies staying here rather than going outside.

They are some of the basic factors that determine a measurement of success within a particular economy. So we find the term GDP is really misleading. It is not an indicator of wealth, an indicator of total value, and that is why it is important. That is why, if you look at GNP, Gross National Product, or in this Province, Gross Provincial Product, and take the value of all of this oil and subtract the value that goes out, then we have to factor the Gross Provincial Product and it shows the value. If you compare Gross Provincial Product, it is a much more meaningful indicator than Gross Domestic Product because you are looking at the net benefits to our Province as a result. You are subtracting, in other words. You are taking away, subtracting from it, the benefits that go out from that total and you are getting a real meaningful total. If you take in $1 million and you go away somewhere outside and spend $900,000, it is from another province. You have lost that value. In this Province, if that $1 million had all stayed here, you would have it coming back here, contributing. That is more indicative.

I made reference earlier to disposable personal income. I made reference to a graph, but I have another one here that is a little easier to read, one that I referenced today. This is a very positive indicator, too, of how we are doing. You are looking at personal disposable income.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) table that?

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't have any problem tabling it, I say to the member. I am not required, but I do not have any problem. I will certainly share it with him, if he would like to see the comparison between personal disposable income and basically our Gross Domestic Product, and see the variances. It is all in the record anyway. I made reference to it on one occasion before. I will just look at that in a few minutes.

I understand Ireland was not happy with just looking at it. I have reference here. In Ireland, the government and their social partners indicated: We were not prepared to say they were successful until they began to perform well on all these indicators and so on - looking at indicators like productivity, indebtedness. You are looking at employment and unemployment, labour force participation, net migration, and income per capita. All these factors must be factored in. You cannot measure success on GDP. That is what we have talked about continuously. We have driven it down our throats for the last number of years and we have been told that, but that is not the true measure of success.

What is the sense of GDP going up and the benefits are not staying here, when our debt is going up? Our unemployment rates have not changed appreciably. They are up and down on times. There is no huge change.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Use better indicators. I say to the House Leader, we will not get up and brag about how great the GDP is here if the money from the GDP is generated and going into the coffers in the United States network. We will not say it. We will say: don't look at it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, the Government House Leader happens to be different from a lot of economists. The people that looked at - he is different from a lot of economists. I do not know if he took his lessons from John (inaudible) or who he took them from but they are different from what economists tell you, because if anyone thinks our market success is GDP only -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: For instance, that is like measuring somebody's wealth - I will use an analogy. That is like measuring someone's wealth by only counting the assets they have and not counting their liabilities. That is a comparison. You can have $5 million and you could owe $6 million. You cannot call yourself a millionaire. You are basically in debt $1 million. If someone else only has $2 million and owes nothing, we could say they have assets of $2 million if they have no liabilities. Basically, GDP is more like counting the value of your assets but not counting your liabilities.

I told the Government House Leader the other day what the result would be, and he can tell you beforehand that I told him what it would be. I did not get a chance to tell him today. I was too rushed to get my supper and get back here on time to try to give some good words of advice to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. He was told today by our critic that the skin is worn off his hands from sitting on them. Basically, he told him today: You got to get up and do something. You got to wear down the soles of your feet, not the palms of your hands, basically. That is what you have to do. That is what he indicated almost - similar, he said to him.

MR. SWEENEY: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I did. In fact, I say to the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, I gave you an option this afternoon. I gave you an option to finish debate on this at 5:30 p.m. and go home or come back at 7:00 p.m. for another three hours and you chose to come back at 7:00 p.m. I am quite content -

MR. SWEENEY: Never had a vote on it.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh yes, I conducted a straw vote in here. I got one in favour; none against. It was not a democratic vote because it was not conducted by the Speaker of the House and therefore we could not count it.

We have to look at appropriate economic indicators. We cannot just take a little piece of information and spread it as being good and not tell the rest. That is like the Minister of Finance coming in here, proudly jumping up in this House, and telling us that we have an increase in the credit rating from Moody's because of what we are doing here in our Province. Then she said: also, the federal fiscal position. That is what she said. I have it here in writing, the quote, and she gave casual reference to the improved federal fiscal position. Moody's said: They increased the federal credit rating prior to this and now we are increasing Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland because we are operating within a better fiscal federal regime. The federal government is running surpluses. There is less risk to bondholders. Because of that, our Province is not likely to get cut on transfer payments like we had ten years ago. That is what they are saying. We are not getting the same chance.

I have addressed this before, and I will get back to it again a little later about what they are saying. Maybe while we are on the topic, hon. members might want a little bit of information on this because I find it difficult to leave this alone. I do not like getting misled or getting a report two minutes before I walk in the door and then five minutes after when we get to do the necessary research we are told that Moody's, in announcing the upgrade today - here is what we were told: "Moody's noted the province's strong economic growth, improved fiscal position, and the resultant improvement in key debt ratios, such as debt to GDP." That is what she said.

Then next she turned and said: "Moody's also point to the level of fiscal support provided by the federal government, and the likelihood of a continuation of this support in light of Canada's improving fiscal position and debt burden." That is what the minister said. Now, what did Moody's say? What did Moody's say? I am going to tell her what Moody's said now. Here is what Moody's said.

AN HON. MEMBER: You told us that the other day.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will tell you what Moody's said. For some people it does not sink in. I have to tell it two and three and four and five times. Here is what Moody's said. Is this different from what the minister said? Moody's said: "Our assessment that the provincial sector now operates in a more stable system of federal support prompts the rating upgrade to A3 for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador." It went on to say: "The province now faces more difficult budget circumstances and is relying to a great extent on non-recurring measures to enhance its short-term financial flexibility." That is what it said.

Then it went on to say: "The rating actions announced today for Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island reflect, primarily, our recognition that the federal government's improved fiscal position - acknowledged in last week's upgrade of federal government debt rating - provides a more stable environment for federal-provincial fiscal transfers." That is what they said, and that is exactly what they said. We did not get that picture from the minister. If you want to go further, there are some further comments they have indicated which say: "Today's Newfoundland and Prince Edwards Island rating upgrades reflect, in part, our assessment that the federal government's stronger position lessens the likelihood of transfer reductions comparable in scope to those imposed in the mid-1990s." That is what they went on to say.

I might add that this report by the minister, and her statement - I am saying that statement by the minister is a misinterpretation, a misleading statement on what Moody's said. Also, I might add, a very important financial institution in this country, the Bank of Montreal, one of the largest, one of the top three banks I think in the country - Royal Bank, I think, is number one; I think the Bank of Montreal is number three; CIBC is number two in the country. Here is what the Bank of Montreal said, the senior economist of the Bank of Montreal indicated on May 8, Kenwick Jordan: "Despite supercharged growth in three of the past four years (the exception being 2001), Newfoundland's fiscal situation has become more precarious. The province has incurred increasingly larger deficits in each of the past three years and this pattern is expected to continue for fiscal 2002-03."

It went on to say, if you would like to hear more - I will cut out some of these figures there because I do not want to confuse the people over there with figures. There are no negatives in front of some of these so I do not want to confuse them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: It says: "And, given the $77 million transfer from 2001-02 to 2002-03 and a $97 million transfer from the off-budget Labrador Transportation Initiative, the underlying deficit for 2002-03 is approximately $267 million." Furthermore, the next sentence he said: "On a consolidated accrual basis, the deficits could very well be much larger."

That is what the Bank of Montreal said. I said earlier today that there are about $300 million, not counting some accrual basis, almost within 10 per cent of what the Bank of Montreal said. I made reference to the figures to substantiate that. I have indicated that if I was placing bets, our accrual basis would be closer to $500 million than to what this minister told us on Budget Day. We will find that out in November and we will see who is right on the public record then. We will see who is right when the time comes.

I will conclude this topic with a final statement from the Bank of Montreal. The Bank of Montreal said: "Clearly, Newfoundland's fiscal situation is a cause for concern and could act as a drag on economic growth." It said: "With very high debt levels (... the highest by far of all provinces) and the highest personal income taxes in the country, this province is in a difficult situation."

You would not know by listening to the minister and this government that we are the most prosperous Province in all of this country. We hear that when it is convenient to hear it but when it comes around to other times, then they put on the poor face and tell us we cannot do this and we cannot do that. One day we cannot be great and the next day we cannot be bad. The economy does not change that rapidly, I hope. It is not that they are not getting information to put out, it is that they are spitting out what information they want for their own benefit. That is what they are doing, to give us their own slant on things.

Mr. Speaker, if anybody could read that, what this minister has told us, and what the Bank of Montreal has told us, and what Moody's investor service has told us, you will see a different reason why this Province got, by one of these rating agencies, an increase. The reason they gave in Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island is the same basic reason.

I have talked about the differences, what has happened here in our Province, when back in the 1980s - lets go back to the 1980s, for example. The Works, Services and Transportation Minister asked about debt in 1988, he said - and I will refer to that later. He did not get to hear me but I referred to it before I went to supper. I will not get into all of that now but I will point out that back in the early 1980s, when GDP was only $8 billion, we had a disposal income then of about $6.5 billion. In other words, our personal disposal income was 80 per cent of our GDP back in the early 1980s. Then we went into the 1990s. Back in the 1990s we started to see our GDP had increased to about $13 billion up to $14 billion and our personal disposal income stayed at only about $8.5 billion.

Mr. Speaker, we have gone from about 80 per cent personal disposal income of our GDP. Today, our personal disposal income is only about 60 per cent of GDP. We see a major, major problem occurring here in our Province. In just a little over ten years we have taken this Province from 80 per cent of GDP, personal disposal income, to now where it is only over 60 per cent. What does that mean? That means the economic growth in this Province has not put money into the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That is what we are seeing happening here in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make some reference to another area in particular. The particular area I want to make reference to is with our Canada Health and Social Transfer. Since 1994 to 1995 we have seen this government receive $776 million less from the federal government in Canada Health and Social Transfer. I am going to reference some of the losses that we have had under Canada Health and Social Transfer. Back in 1994-95 our Province, for example, received $441 million from the federal government under two basic programs - under Canada Health and Social Transfer, which has now rolled in from two previous programs. They were: Established Program Financing and the Canada Assistance Plan. Back in 1994-95, the Canada Assistance Plan and Established Program Financing brought $441 million into our Province.

Now the following year, 1995-96, we took in $427 million per year from the federal government. If you look back at what we are getting today - in 1995-96 we had $427 million and then in 1995-96 we had this changed. This government here changed the Canada Health and Social Transfer. In fact, what they done, the federal government - and at the time our federal Cabinet Minister was Brian Tobin. We had a change in which the federal government decided they were going to give us money, not on a need basis anymore, they were going to give it to us on a per capita basis. When you get money on a per capita basis, with a declining population, we get less money.

If you just look at the drastic cut that occurred, Mr. Speaker, if we go back and look at - let's say we got $342.5 million the following year, we lost $84.5 million. In 1997-98 we got only $280 million. That was a loss of $133 million. In 1998-99 we got $275 million. That was a loss of $152 million. In 1999-2000 we got $290 million, and that was a loss of $137 million. When you go and count all of this up you will find that we have lost, since that time in six years, $776 million in federal transfer money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, it is kind of difficult to even hear myself here. Could we have some order here so I can hear what I am saying?

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): Order, please!

The member has the floor and we are having difficulty hearing what he has to say.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it is really difficult, Mr. Speaker. I don't mind them not paying attention you know. They are not school children. I do not mind that, but it is kind of difficult when you can't hear what you are going to say yourself. I think that is kind of difficult. What I am going to have to do, if they keep it up, is write it down and read it. I don't want to do that because that does not tax my mind enough.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: We have said the federal government has gypped us, in six years, $776 million in that period of time. That is a tremendous amount of money, I might add. Back on December 11, 2001, on The Morning Show on CBC, the Minister of Finance came on and announced: Well, yesterday you called the Budget, I missed the opportunity for health care. That is in reference to the federal budget. How badly did Mr. Martin miss?

When it was convenient to do something, here is what the minister said: The reason our Premier signed that agreement - when he went away with the other premiers and when they got all the premiers to sign the agreement back last fall. The Minister of Finance said: The reason our Premier signed that agreement, at that point in time, was contingent on the fact that they were going to do something about equalization. The Premier said he went out with the other provinces and signed that agreement for funding because he got a commitment, basically, he thought they were going to do some on equalization. The Minister of Finance said that, but the Premier did not admit to that. That is where they differ. That went on CBC The Morning Show at 8:47 a.m., December 11, 2001. That is what the Minister of Finance said. They have to get on the one page. If the Minister of Finance and the Premier of the Province are on a different page, it is kind of difficult to get your act together and deal with some of the major problems and concerns we have here in our Province.

I would like to touch, for a little while, on health care. Now, health care is an area that is pretty close to the hearts of every single person here in our Province. There have been governments defeated over health care and the lack of - federal government. Prince Edward Island got elected on a health care agenda but the federal government ignored them. The province went along with it and they had a massive turnaround, from what, one seat in Prince Edward Island. We went through it in New Brunswick. We have seen massive turnarounds in government. We have seen it - we even saw Bob Rae in Ontario, and then we saw rapid change since. Today the voting population is more volatile. They are extremely volatile, I might add. We have tremendous changes in the electorate, in the voting, in people's minds, because they do not feel they are getting the full meal deal on health care in our Province. Other provinces in this country sent very strong messages when they got a chance at their electorate to do that. They got a chance to send a very strong message.

We talk about health care; earlier today I made reference to how deficits at health care boards - and I went through each of these - how it is $97 million. I made reference that since then it has climbed up over $100 million. This minister, I said, does not even include that amount in this Budget that she tabled in this House in March. She is not even considering. What do we do with over $100 million that is not long-term debt - because we know the long-term debt for the Health Care Corporation of St. John's is guaranteed by this government, and that I do believe is $208 million. The health care critic can correct me if I am wrong. He nods his head and says I am correct; $208 million is the long-term debt of the Health Care Corporation of St. John's and now we have a $100-some million more. How do we deal with this within our health care budget this year? It is not budgeted. There is nothing budgeted this year to deal with that. They were told not to convert it to long-term debt because it shows up as the debt then, basically. That is what they were told.

The Minister of Finance said in this House, I say to the Minister of Health and Community Services - and I asked that question in the Estimates Committee - the Minister of Finance said we are dealing with boards on this. I said, well, some of the options are that the government is going to pay it. That is one option. Another option is that they are going to tell the boards to find all that in their savings or cuts to get that money. Another option is, they are going to say we will share those up between us. We will give some and you have to find the rest; or we convert it to long-term debt, and we will pay interest on that long-term debt. They are just some of the options or ways that it can be done out there. So, what do you do with any of these? Unless the money came from government to go to that, there have to be cuts. There have to be cuts if you are going to maintain it.

Would that be why now the minister did not close the door on the possibility of combining emergency departments? When he was asked the question by our Health critic, he did not rule out - the recommendations of the Hay report - he did not rule out the Janeway Hospital losing its integrity, its identity as a pediatric hospital in our Province. We were told solemnly, I would say, that when that happened we were going to have a hospital dedicated to pediatric care. There were no ands, ifs or buts. It is untouchable. It is not going to happen - said by successive ministers right there, including the current Minister of Finance and previous Minister of Health, when she was the previous Minister of Health, and the previous Minister of Health to that has indicated that in numerous questions.

We have gone through several years with restructuring. We have seen the Grace Hospital close. We have seen the old Janeway - and I must say, the facility in the new Janeway is very nice. There is a nice atmosphere there. I think workers, by and large, in the new atmosphere, the ones I have spoken with there, have positive comments on the atmosphere there and very positive comments on the staff who work at that hospital. I haven't heard many people in this Province, I do not know if I have heard any, complain about services at the Janeway Hospital. I do not think I have heard anyone ever complain, and I have been here in politics since 1992, about services at the Janeway Hospital. I think the people there give priority to the young kids who are sick, and when the need arises I know - I must say, the numbers in hospitals could fluctuate as it has fluctuated in the past, from ninety to 100 down to the fifties and sixties, and the population in a pediatric hospital can fluctuate a lot more than in adult hospitals because young children are more susceptible to picking up various things like the flu and so on. They get them into hospital and treat these people. The population from almost overnight, in a matter of time, can increase by 50 per cent the number of patients who are in hospitals. So, you have to have staff ready.

We got into a bit of a problem with that in the past. I raised the issue here, where they had to fly a child to Winnipeg. They had to come from Winnipeg and fly a child from one of the units at the Janeway. I think it was one of the postnatal or neonatal units at the time. What they did - you cannot staff to low levels. If you staff to low levels - that is what they were doing and that is where they got in trouble. They staffed below a normal staffing level and they had to depend a lot on temporary and call-ins. When they have a high usage in that unit, and they have it full, they never have the staff and the expertise there, enough people employed to fill the gap. They were juggling between the Grace and the Janeway. Can you imagine sending a jet from Winnipeg, I think it was, to take a child for treatment to Winnipeg? They had a system on standby to fly people out of this Province, young children, just days and weeks old, to get treatment because they allowed it. In fact, people who made decisions to work permanently there - I spoke to a person who decided: I want to spend time at home with my family and raise my kids. I do not want to work full time. I am only going to work a shift or two a week. That is all I want, a shift or two a week.

These people who made a decision, for family purposes, to work a shift or two a week, were ordered to come to work, ordered to work full time, ordered to make changes in their own personal life, when they had worked for a number of years on that. That is because we got into staffing problems there, that they were trying to cut corners. When you cut corners, someone has to pay the price.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of concerns, I might add, in our health care sector. We have looked at waiting lists. If you follow the Hay report recommendations, I might say - and it is under consideration by this government - we brought those consultants in to tell us something we already knew. If you want to save money, they will tell you to close down hospital beds. Do you think that was very creative, very innovative, I might say, to tell you that? Everybody knew. Shut down every hospital and look at all you would save. Solely, the purpose of a health care system is to care for people who are sick. Jobs get created as a result of the care that is needed. The role is not to create jobs but to help people who are sick and, in doing that, we have to create jobs in the process and that is important.

Waiting lists for surgery - in fact, I have been told that in this Province we do not give the true waiting time for certain diagnostic services. I am told in this Province, for example, if you want to get an MRI and they put you on a waiting list, I have been told by people that they do not count -

MR. MERCER: What does MRI stand for, Loyola? (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Magnetic Resonance Imaging. The Member for Humber East wanted to know what it stood for. Okay. He is testing whether I knew or whether I did not, and whether he knew or whether he did not, I might add.

Anyway, basically an MRI and the waiting lists, we do not have the accurate waiting time. For example, I have been told on numerous occasions -

MR. MERCER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I say to the Member for Humber East, I recognize that, if he wants to get that checked out, as the Deputy Speaker there, on the technical aspects.

I will continue to talk. One of the concerns, I might add, on that is the wait list. I am being told that when a doctor recommends you for an MRI, you do not get wait-listed. The clock does not start clicking. When you are called back - it could be weeks later - and given your time, whether it is a year down the road or ten months, then they start counting. When the Fraser Forum goes around collecting statistics, they get the lists from the time the booking was made, not the weeks before when you were recommended to get one. So, that is dropped from the waiting time. Our waiting time shows up a lot better than it is because of the way we statistically keep the records, that we do not count. We do not count the first few weeks. Did anyone ever get recommended for an MRI? Because when you are recommended, I understand, it goes to a committee now and they have to look at priorities and then they have to decide if you are going to get one. That is what happens. I have been told that. I have been out of the position of Health critic for the last year but that is what I was told by numerous people up to a year ago. I cannot speak right for now; I do not know if it has changed. I spoke, actually, with people at the Fraser Forum on this issue, as Health critic. When I read articles, the figures I was getting were different from the published ones. In fact, I got calls before the publication and I told them what I am hearing and that they should check it out, which is only fair. If we are going to get reporting, we would like you to be accurate. Whether it is good or whether it is bad, I want to see accurate reporting and accurate statistics used. Hopefully we will get accurate statistics, Mr. Speaker.

The waiting lists for surgery are inordinate lengths. I know doctors I have talked to, because I have calls from patients, people, as every member gets, calls from various constituents, to follow up on that. When I followed up on some, I was told that: Look, I have such a long list, if that person could get quicker with another doctor, switch doctors. I just had half a day a week of surgery cancelled; (inaudible) closed surgeries and so on, cancelled. We are not getting the time. It is frustrating because surgeons out there make a living on operating, to a certain extent. They expect to get a certain level of remuneration for the procedures they do. That is how they work under private practice. If you cannot get that volume, you cannot get access to an operating room, you cannot get to deal with people, a few things happen. Number one, doctors cannot get a reasonable income and they are going to start looking somewhere else. A very important reason, the most important reason for it, is that people are in pain and suffering and cannot get the help they need in a reasonable period of time. That is the most important factor in trying to shorten waiting lists.

I have said there are a lot of inefficiencies in the system, and in correcting inefficiencies what it could do. What it could do in many instances, it would not necessarily save money but it would put a lot more people through the system with the same dollars in the same period of time. If you could put more people through their surgeries, and more people through those diagnostic services and so on in a certain period of time, that is a better service and that results in shorter stays and shorter waiting lists.

One of the biggest problems, people in this Province feel, and many people say - and I have heard people on the government side say it - Everybody should not basically have access.... With an MRI, you cannot have everybody getting an MRI.. Granted, yes, there has to be a screening process to an extent. I don't say it isn't, but you have to keep in mind that the best diagnostic test available gives the best diagnosis, and if we can get that quicker, we could get that problem solved quicker. It could save someone's life if it happens to be of a malignant nature, a tumor. There are a lot of young people dying today, especially from cancer. I know it is happening in other provinces. We are not the only Province this is happening in, and I do not propose to say that. When you have only one MRI - a lot of these things would be picked up earlier, the intervention would not have to be for as long, the treatment period is probably shorter, and maybe some cases would not need the same level of treatment. You would save a lot of dollars by early diagnoses. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. That is one aspect you could use in preventive medicine, but early diagnosis leads to improved health.

I have spoken with people who have indicated, and doctors, who have said: Look - let's take the heart surgery for example. Today, to get a bypass operation - and there were upwards to 300 when I checked last, a few months ago. There were 270 or 280. By the time you get it now, you have to be very sick. It would have to be almost an emergency and therefore your recovery - the longer you wait, the sicker you are and the slower your recovery, and sometimes you never get back into the workplace. You may never get back into the workplace because of it. So, by having faster surgery, you become more productive. I know people who had to go from earning good incomes to where their families had to go on the assistance rolls of the Province because medically they could not go back to work because they could not get access to it. I know people who have died while waiting for bypass surgery. Names have been mentioned, even in the past several months. I know of people in the past. I know doctors have had to make decisions. I think I raised the case here once. I know of a doctor who had to make a decision, who was doing some intervention - I am not sure of the procedure at the time. I think it was an angioplasty. It was, yes. They could not do both of them because you had to have a bed. If there were complications arise, you had to be kept in; but normally in a couple of days after an angioplasty you go home. They clear up the blockage and you are sent home.

I spoke to a doctor on it and they had two people there. They could not do two because there was no bed, so they had to do one. The one they did not do, on the way back to the Burin Peninsula, back to the hospital in Burin, actually, back to Marystown - I raised this before, and the Speaker maybe aware of the case - on the way to Whitbourne in the ambulance, he got chest pains. That person had to be diverted to the hospital in Clarenville. He got to the hospital in Clarenville, was there for a period of time and got stabilized, and was checked there for some time and then sent in the ambulance to get back to the hospital in Burin, and on the way back he got pains again and he had to be back in Burin, hooked up again, and had problems. That is the person who did not get an angioplasty because there was no bed.

A lot of cases at that time, the reason there were no surgeries done in this Province - can you imagine the reason? - and this came to a nurses' strike which occurred in this Province - one of the reasons we could not do surgery after all the money and effort trying to do it, was because we did not have the nurses to work in the operating room and in the recovery room afterwards. We spent millions of dollars - and I first raised this as critic, I think, in 1993 or 1994, on heart surgery lists, and the list then was 115. I have raised it umpteen times since, as hon. members are aware, and the numbers kept going up, and we kept saying, and I kept saying, and I am sure the specialty people: You have to have a separate room dedicated - an operating room, recovery room - to cardiac care. What happens if there is an ambulance that comes in and there is an emergency? People get pushed aside, they do not get done, and you have waiting lists going up to 300. That got pretty serious.

So what they did under pressure - we kept hammering the issue - they put a dedicated unit for cardiac care, an operating room, a recovery room, there is a step-down room. They had to basically get the space. Then they went and brought in a third cardiac surgeon. We had two pervious to that. The third cardiac surgeon came in, and normally a surgeon would do about five cases a week. There were less than ten getting done, but during the whole year the first surgeon was here they did not even average ten, about nine a week, and they had two surgeons already here. So, what did they do? The other person was basically getting paid as if he was doing his workload and they did not have to work because they did not want to lose a good, young skilled surgeon. Then it got to the point where, if the person did not get work - to maintain skills, doctors do speciality areas because they want to work at their jobs. They want to practice at their job, and that is their dedication. What happened then? They had problems. They increased the space; they solved that problem. They had problems with profusionists who run the machines during an operation; that was important. When a couple left, I think they were a married couple, they had to be replaced and we ran into problems. Each assistant got everything fixed. There were several areas. Just like a car, if there are five essential parts to make it run and you are missing one, it cannot run. It cannot run without an engine. It is not going to run without tires. It is not going to run without steering - not very far. There are basic things you need. You need fuel in the tank, and so on, the same as if you are running an operation. Where it is dealing with a bypass you need doctors, you need profusionists, you need the operating room, you need the recovery room, and you need nurses. And they fixed all the problems.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is a profusionist?

MR. SULLIVAN: I was asked what a profusionist is. They run the machines during the bypass operation in the operating room.

The one thing they did not fix was enough nurses. In other words, you have a bottleneck now. You have everything working and you did not have the nurses to work in the operating room, or the nurses to work in the recovery room, so what happened? The whole system bottlenecked now because of lack of nurses. They drove the nurses out on the streets, and not only drove them on the streets, they drove them out of the Province. We had to take extreme measures to solve the problem. They went all out of over the United States and Canada. This government advertised in the United States and Canada to try to get them back and pay money to get them back. They realized, maybe too late, they made a mistake. A lot of them never came back. Some have come back and now, I guess, with hospital beds closing down, we are taking in less people. This year they stopped giving incentives to nurses again, starting this year again. Every (inaudible) nurse who came out last year was told they would get hired. Now we are starting to see another slight decline again. Graduating nurses this year are not going to get work. A good many will not. I heard, I think, those graduating out in Western may all get jobs out there. I have heard that in the media, but here I know some people who are graduating have been told they will get twenty-five hours a week, fifty every two weeks, and a full shift will be seventy-five. That is two-thirds of a shift. New nurses make over $40,000, I would say $42,000 at the moment, in that ballpark. Mr. Speaker, two-thirds of that is $28,000. That is a fair difference, $14,000 a year, when you will probably step out of the Province and go somewhere and get a full-time job in Nova Scotia, or other parts of the country, paying you what you get on a full week's work.

Those are some of the problems we are starting to encounter, we are starting to see developing in the system, but we did get some of the problems associated with heart surgery solved. I can tell you, there were problems a few months ago again. A few months ago there were problems there and we were not getting the numbers required to be done. There are always glitches for some reason, but overall the numbers have improved. When there are so many people needing this service, we do not want to see those jobs exported somewhere else. Why should people go to Halifax, Ottawa or elsewhere? Every time we go out of the Province, we pay the medicare costs to have these done elsewhere. We pay the costs. It is their own personal expense if they go on their own, even though there are various programs that paid for that in the past. They incur that, but we still pay the medical expense, so why wouldn't we pay it here in our Province, the medical expense? They factor in their doctors, nurses, space and everything in those costs. By having them here, we are keeping skilled jobs here in our Province: skilled surgeons, profusionists, nurses, and all other related staff here associated with this. That is important, to have these skilled people here in our Province. We should not be turning people away.

I related an incident there, in March, from personal experience, going to an emergency department with somebody who had a separated shoulder - my son - and after eight hours, from 10:15 to 6:15, we managed to get to see a doctor. Other people were there, I am sure, for way longer periods. They were there when we went. They had gotten in to be seen but they were still there. Other people came in after who still had not been seen. The normal waiting list then went from five, I think, up to eight hours. It was marked on the board there, saying that is how long you have to wait. There are long waiting lists. There has to be some solution to it, because many people complain today that they are having a job accessing family doctors. I know I have had calls to my office, when I was Health critic, talking about how it was a job to get to see family doctors in some areas because they just cannot deal with caseloads, the number of patients they have. That is certainly a concern. I know now, I think in September the agreement with the Medical Association expires and discussions, I think I heard on the news yesterday, are in progress and hopefully an appropriate agreement can be reached with doctors in our Province so we can continue to provide a much needed medical service here without any disruption. Hopefully something will happen before the eleventh hour, that we will not have a crisis here before this is resolved.

I have received, in fact I received a letter today - and maybe other colleagues did, too, I am not sure - on personal care homes. I have talked about personal care homes many times in the past here in this House, and my colleagues have. My colleague from Conception Bay South who, by the way, is ill and in hospital at the moment, on many occasions has brought this issue here to the floor of the House. I have said it before: it is the cheapest form of care that we can get in our Province today. Many of these homes- I know many of them personally- inside my district and outside, the people go into those homes and become attached to the home. It is their home. They like it there. They get mixed into the environment. They are cared for. Many of these homes have excellent reputations. I find that something should be done to be able to maintain this level of care in our system. We are finding what is happening in our system today is that people, the owners, are not getting dealt with fairly in terms of this government. They have been putting things on hold.

Mr. Speaker, I am finding that many of these homes are going on a point basically of almost personal bankruptcy, and some of these areas are causing great concern. I think we need to do something about it. I read today that a lady who - actually, no, the owner was a male, who sent the letter. I read it, actually, between 5:00 p.m. and when I came back here at 7:00 p.m. - who has indicated that they are in dire straits. They spent their life at the business. They took people in, when they were destitute and lonely and basically on the streets, and cared for them. They are working seven days a week, almost twenty-four hours a day, for $15,000 a year basically. When you divide that in, you will see that does not come to a faction of the minimum wage. They are saying that the business is falling out from under them and, I might add, that is not a proper way to get treated by this government.

I just want to talk for a few minutes on some of the things at personal care homes. I have spoken with many of the owners and I took time to go to their annual general meeting back a few years ago. I have met with them on numerous occasions. We have raised issues here in the House. We had a Private Members' Day dealing with this particular issue, and I am finding that many of these concerns are not getting met. The amount that they are getting today with the increased cost of maintaining those homes, the increased costs of heat, light, clothing, or basically food, I might add - food for these, because some of the homes are even providing clothing for people who cannot afford, on $125 a month, to supply things - are keeping these people going. They enjoy having them there. It has been their livelihood. It is not just as a business operation. It is really a part of an extended family, in many aspects. These people haven't gotten a fair share, to be able to operate that appropriately.

When we look at other levels of care, when you look at nursing homes and look at the costs of keeping somebody in a nursing home, I am aware that nursing homes require - certainly, it is a higher level of care. Basically, it is Level III care. People in a personal care home, if they are Level I, and some are also licensed to have Level II, are finding that is a major concern because we know there are Level I people in nursing homes today, and nursing homes are costing in the vicinity of $60,000 or more per year to keep someone in these. Now, there are some revenues come in from people to offset that, but in a personal care home most of the revenues come to pay for the individual who is there. If you add up the total amount, if you add up their old age pension, if they do not have any Canada Pension, you just add up their old age pension only, I think someone on old age security, with the basic supplement, I think it is in the vicinity of - someone can give me an exact figure - but in the vicinity of $960 or so, in that range, they are subsidized then to a small amount. Some have Canada Pension incomes or they have hardly any subsidy that has to paid out by government. We are finding that it is one of the cheapest forms. It is only a matter of a few thousand dollars a year in many cases to keep these people there, when we spend $40,000 and $50,000 elsewhere to have people in those homes. There are many particular concerns in health care.

I know home care was not designed as twenty-four hours because twenty-four hours was not the intent. I do not think we are advocating that somebody should get twenty-four hours of care at home continuously. There are special circumstances, I know, in cases where people are, but the intent was to be able to provide some assistance to people so they can live in their own home and sort of maintain a certain dignity of life.

We have seen cases where people got sick and had to go to hospital, and when they came back from hospital they still needed the same level of care, or more. They had their care cut and got nothing because there was a freeze and they could not get back in. After a bit of fuss, we managed to get that changed. I guess community health saw that it was unfair. I guess government gave them the go-ahead to change the policy to release that after it caused serious grief and problems for people out there.

If you are elderly and you are up in your eighties, sick enough to go to hospital, you come back out of hospital and are being told that you needed forty hours before you went in, I cannot see how they are going to turn an eighty-seven-year-old man or woman into somebody who does not need any care when you come out of hospital two or three weeks later. If we can perform those miracles here in our Province, I do not see why we need to spend any money on health care, if we can perform those types of miracles here. That has not happened. I think it is important that we recognize those particular concerns. We cannot be taking those things for granted.

I made some reference there to heart surgery. We talked about the importance of people getting reasonable access to health care. We have gone through a lot of problems in the past. I must say, in some areas there have been some improvements. I will admit that. We have had improvements to some areas, but it has been a struggle. It has been a continuous raising and pushing of issues. The issues that we fight for and keep pushing and pushing and pushing get attention, and some other issue doesn't get attention. Then you sort of ignore that and leave that issue alone.

It is a matter of this government putting out fires, I might add. They go and try to put out a fire here and a fire there. They have been doing that for a number of years. I have seen our Health critic here, the Member for Trinity North, ask this government to put forth a plan. What plan do you have to deal with the health care of the people in our Province in the future? Are we just managing the shop, just running a day-to-day operation? And hopefully nothing flares up that needs attention. If it does, try to put the best possible spin on it,

Mr. Speaker, we have seen people in our Province here, people who are sick, and one of the particular diseases that is causing a lot of problems for a lot of people at a younger age, is cancer. Now, one time when you heard the work cancer, I guess it was just a matter of several years ago, it struck fear in the hearts of people, but today we know that there have been a lot of success stories from people. There have been also a lot of stories that have not been so successful and very sad. I have had an opportunity to witness one of these just on Tuesday of this week, as I went out to my district to attend a funeral there.

The point I make, and I have said it before, is that we have to make sure that people get early diagnosis, because every single day you are waiting it is causing problems. We have had doctors saying: We are overworked. We are working two and three times the number of patients of a national standard. Is that safe? Are people getting treated? How can you possibly deal with hundreds of patients and know each patient and their needs and things? It is difficult to do the job. They are not doing justice to themselves, doctors, and it is difficult to do justice to the patients when you have so many. They have indicated that they are going to follow a certain standard or number, and I am not sure what has happened in the last week or so on that, but overall you can only deal with what is humanly possible and give a quality of service. This government let a problem develop. I know medical ontologists here at one time, all of them left the Province. I had spoken with at least one of these, if not two - at least one at the time. One went to Winnipeg, Saskatchewan, and one went somewhere else in the Atlantic Provinces and they had to recruit people all over again. When they had to recruit people, I must say they have been fortunate to get some good people to work in this area, but you are not going to continue. It is going to be a never-ending battle, I might add, if we do not, and I have said it before - we have to pay our people in health care on at least a par with Atlantic Canada. If we cannot compete with Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, we are basically telling the people: Look we will throw in the towel; you should get a lower level of service. That is what basically we are telling people. We have to stay competitive with Atlantic Canada. If we are competitive, it is easier to get people to come because you have a more competitive wage. If you have a more competitive wage, you can fill your positions, which lightens the workload. You can say what you like, it is related to finances because if finances are there, the proper compensation to them, remuneration to them, you will get your positions filled. You will not be operating with three where you should have five. That lightens everybody's workload and makes it easier for everybody, and can allow them to be able to deal with the number of patients in an appropriate manner.

We let the situation get so bad here that doctors said, we cannot treat people in a safe period of time. This government had to spend in the millions, I understand, for five people in the United States, with an accompanied person, and weeks and weeks down there in private clinics in Cleveland, Ohio. What we did: we exported very expensive, very good paying skilled jobs. We exported and paid in the United States for those service when we could have had those skilled people and paid to have them here in our Province.

I am not a believer in exporting skilled jobs to anywhere outside this Province. If we have money to spend, it should not be spent on exporting jobs elsewhere. It should be spent on employing people here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Then we would not be seeing such disparities between our Gross Domestic Product and our personal disposal income. We would be seeing a gap consistent like it was during the 1980s and early 1990s until it got out of hand when personal disposal income was 80 per cent of GDP. Today, it is only over 60 per cent of GDP. That tells us that Gross Domestic Product is going up and we are not getting the personal disposal income.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, there are major concerns.

We have the oncology department. Oncology is an area in many cases where it is a matter of life and death, and when you are dealing with areas where it is a matter of life and death, I think that an extra effort should be made. The same as dealing with young people and children, nobody likes to see a child suffer. Many of these are helpless and depending on us, adults and so on, to take care of them. That is why we need to have a hospital dedicated to children. We need to have sufficient resources available to be able to provide those needs. It is important. Certain services might not need to be performed very often in our Province, for example. If services are not needed to be performed very often in our Province, and the specialists in a certain area - child cardiology, for example, and heart surgery - they used to come in every so often. There were not enough cases, so it was probably cheaper to send them out of the Province for certain things. Well, if there are some, it would be small numbers. We have to accept those realities. We cannot perform every single service available, if the numbers are not there to do it. We need to provide reasonable service here in line with the number of people who can avail of these services. We have seen it happen here and we have seen us lose services.

I hate to listen to people tell about going out of this Province to get heart surgery in Ottawa, Halifax and other parts of the country and the United States, when I know we have three surgeons here who could sufficiently get in eighteen or twenty a week - about twenty a week - and sometimes we are only doing twelve, thirteen or fourteen. Up to five or six years ago, we used to do only seven and eight on average. So when the skill is here, utilize it here, keep it here, employ people here, create the jobs here, and provide the faster service for people here; because, when you go away, it is more difficult, you have to have someone with you, you are probably in an area where you do not have any friends, and the extra personal costs and so on. All of these are incurred and it is fairly traumatic, especially if someone is going away for cancer treatments, radiation, or going to Cleveland, and that has happened in the past.

 

We have a situation here where government continuously talks about increasing the health care budget. Now, the health care budget has increased in value, there is no doubt about it. It has increased in value for more than one reason, not just because we are pumping more money into those services. It increased too, Madam Speaker, because we moved new areas into the Department of Health. We moved a few areas like Child Protection, for example, from our Social Services Department, previously, before the Human Resources and Employment Department formed. We moved Child Protection in there. I think we moved youth corrections services there. I think we moved family and rehabilitative services, I understand. These are some of the ones we have added to the budget. I know the budget has increased independent of that, but this has driven it up that much more.

We need to look at our long-term planning. We cannot plan just for tomorrow, we have to plan for further down the road when we look at health care. We have to look at what the needs are going to be. We are seeing a shift in population in our Province, and until we can turn that around - if we cannot turn our Province around, if we cannot get people to start staying here, working here, getting employed here, we are going to see even a further out-migration of young people.

What is happening now, people who have left the Province in the last several years, even some of their parents are starting to follow now because there are so many gone. It did not happen before because there were other families here and they were into jobs. What is happening now, in our generation, the baby boomer generation, as their children move out of the Province I am finding many people are moving out where their kids are and they are leaving. These people who once were bringing incomes into our Province have gone, the baby boomers we call them; or they are retiring young, in their fifties many of these people, and they are now starting to move out. I did not see it ten or fifteen years ago, a lot of people moving out. The out-migration right now is not only, I am saying, with young people. I am starting to find - in my area I know in particular, areas in Renews, their kids have gone to Alberta so the parents have moved; and down in the next community the parent have gone. Now they are gone for most of the year. They are not back hardly at all, only briefly in the summer. So we are starting to see the whole shift there.

I know families who have moved to Fort McMurray; whole families have moved to Alberta. We are starting to see the parent generation now starting to move. That is taking more wealth and more income out of our Province. It is a further drain. If we do not find ways to keep the young, working people here we are going to see, for the first time - people retiring now are probably the better off generation for retiring in terms of pensions. This generation retiring now, the baby boomers, are probably retiring with more wealth or more disposable income than previous generations ever had. We are starting to see that is now impacting negatively on our Province. Even if they do stay here, they are going away for two and three months to visit and stay with their daughter in Alberta, or their daughter in Fort McMurray, Edmonton, Calgary, or wherever it may be. So (inaudible) a lot of situations.

I am just looking at some statistics in the provincial net migration by age, group, and sex in Newfoundland from 1971-72 to 2000-01. We are starting to see, in the fifteen to nineteen age group, twenty to twenty-four, I am just looking - I am finding here, in fact, the fifty to fifty-four age group. The fourth largest group of people going out of our Province are the people in the fifty to fifty-four age group. So that is very significant, some of the points I have just been saying here.

My colleague, who is a good source of information on age groups, migration and statistics, the Member for Trinity North, has statistics available to show here that - I will just give an example of the groups that are going out of the Province, just to comment briefly on those. From 1986-87 right up to 2000-01, we can see consistently that the people in the fifteen to nineteen age group were most of the people that was the net migration, and in twenty to twenty-four. Lately, in the last two years, it has been twenty to twenty-four, and then it is fifteen to nineteen. After that, it is twenty-five to twenty-nine. After that, would you believe, it is fifty to fifty-four. That is an interesting statistic. Well actually, zero to four years is fourth. That is just right behind the fifty to fifty-four because young people I guess with kids, naturally their kids are going with them, they want to get a certain quality of life and get into a steady job; they have kids zero to four. They are the people who would normally be filling the schools in our Province, who would stop our declining enrolment. They are starting to leave our Province. So these are telling statistics, I might add, on what is happening here in our Province.

When we look in the components of population, interprovincial in-migration, Newfoundland and Labrador - for instance, in 1996-97, there were 6,962 people in-migration and 15,096 out-migration. That is a difference of over 8,000 people, a net loss in 1996-97. If you look at 1997-98, there were 7,392 in, 16,882 out. A loss of 9,500 people in our Province in 1997-98. In 1998-99, there were 13,690. In 1999-2000, 12,663 people in our Province, and 2000-01, 14,152 people. So we have seen a loss, if you look at the total, just in that short period of time, of 31,000 people from 1997-2001. That is a tremendous difference, a tremendous loss of people. Can you imagine, 30,000 just in that short period of time. These are very telling statistics, I might say, on people going out of our Province.

I was surprised that there were so many people zero to four leaving. There are about as many zero to four as there are fifty to fifty-four. The fourth and fifth largest categories of out-migration out of our Province. I wasn't surprise I suppose in a sense because I know, just from my own area, that people today, probably for the first time - most people did not retire when they were fifty years of age, or in the fifty to fifty-five range. Today there are a lot of people retiring from fifty to fifty-five, and you see an increasing number of these people going out of the Province. They are people who have incomes, some of it coming from their own pension plans, government pension plans, maybe private investments, whatever the case may be. If you go out of the Province that is money lost and revenue lost for our Province, and that is happening. All the young people are going to be going to school. Again, the fourth largest category, people under five years of age who are going out of our Province.

If we look at population projections for Newfoundland and Labrador, we are looking from 1991-2016. They are proposing from 579,000 in 1991, right on down to - in the 500,000 range in our Province. So there is a tremendous loss of people who have gone out of our Province just in the last few years. This is impacting a lot, I might add, on jobs in health care, jobs in education. The young people going out of our Province is really the brain drain in our Province.

While I am on the topic of population decline, there was an interesting interview done back some time ago by CBC Radio. In fact, before I get to that, I will just make reference to some statistics there. We have seen about 40,000 people - the people we have lost in our Province just in the last five years. If you added up the City of Corner Brook, if you added up Grand Falls-Windsor and Stephenville, you would find that if you took all these three towns and cities - because Corner Brook is a city - if you took these out of it, we would find the equivalent of what we lost in the last five years. Can you imagine if Grand Falls-Windsor, Corner Brook and Stephenville, just disappeared in five years? That is the impact that we have had on a loss in our Province. There was a net loss - if you look at from 1995-96 to 2000-01 in those six years, in that period - of just about 40,000 people. That is a telling statistic in our Province. We have seen communities, and I am sure people have looked at the communities in the census there and seen the huge drop in the number of people who are moving out of our Province and going to other parts of the country.

I was going to make reference to an interview that was done. I have a copy here of an interview that was done with CBC On The Go and that interview was done with an economist at Memorial University, Wade Locke. An announcer introduced that by saying: "The most recent census taken between 1996 and last year shows that we lost seven percent of our population. There are now 513,000 people living here..." It said: "With the exception of Alberta every resource based region of Canada lost population. However, most urban areas seem to be stable or growing. Stats Canada described the Newfoundland decline as a vicious circle. That's because most people we're losing are young and therefore lost as potential parents." The young people we are losing.

The announcer, Jeff Gilhooly, spoke with Wade Locke and asked him: "What's your reaction to this dip in population?" He mentioned some very interesting things. He said: "I guess we're surprised. Not surprised that we had a fall in population but the magnitude of the fall was so much surprising." Jeff Gilhooly said: "When you look at how significant it is, it's averaging about 11,000 people a year, what are the implications from this?"

I must say that the economist said: "Well, they're varied and for example, one of the implications of that is that the Newfoundland's equalization entitlements will now fall." He said: "Even if there were no changes in the per capita basis going into the formula, the formula itself is based on a per capita amount so the more population you have the more equalization you get."

Then he said: "There are two reasons why equalization will fall. Basically one is that small population get smaller entitlements. On top of that, small population implies that the per capita turns for some base, we can pay more of our own way." He said: "So we get a double whammy." He said: The double whammy is, "On top of that if you're a company that sells goods and services in the domestic market and that's an important part of your revenue stream, that means you have less people and consequently your market is lower and your ability to raise revenues and earn profits are somewhat lower." If you have 40,000 less people in your market in this Province, that is going to create a major problem.

It went on to say, "I don't know if Ms Aylward has incorporated into her budget these new lower numbers before we had them but she may or may not have but in any event we will certainly expect that they will have implications long into the future. It's not only the number of people that's leaving is important, it is who's leaving and from where they're leaving."

It went on to say, "...the best and the brightest are leaving and the rest of us are staying. So the people who are in a position to come up with new ideas and have the energy...". He is indicating that these are the people who are going. The brightest people are the ones who are leaving our Province. That is unfortunate because the young skilled ones are the ones who are leaving. That is sad. I say to my colleagues, that is a telling tale.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to touch quickly on one other item. I am going to touch quickly on one other specific area that I think is of vital importance here. I hope I will get an opportunity to touch on the other seven or eight items as we debate different money bills. I have gotten to about half of my comments. I did not get a chance to touch on Tourism. I had some very interesting things to say in Tourism, which I will certainly get an opportunity to address. I am sure we will be dealing with some money bills and what this government wants to do with the other $2.3 billion that they did not get approved under Interim Supply - I will get a chance - and numerous fishery issues. I am sure we will get a chance to debate here in this House, over the next day or so, the legal authority, the authority of this Legislature, to take the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund. I would like to hear from government, for members to stand up and tell us why they are going to raid the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund, Mr. Speaker. I think we need to address many of these concerns here.

The Voisey's Bay concern, I could speak volumes on what has transacted in this House since we retroactively changed - when we changed mineral legislation back here in the mid-1990s and what has happened from the changing of opinion. As the wind changes, the Premier's views and opinions on what his Cabinet is saying changes. It is almost as changeable as the wind. One day he says something, and the next day - no wonder the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are so confused, I might add. We do not know from one day to the next what is happening here. So, there are numerous issues. I am sure some of my colleagues might want to say a few things.

I think I will close. I do not know if they want to adjourn debate or conclude debate. I will just conclude with a little comment. Unfortunately, I did not get into great detail, but as the Chair of Public Accounts we will get to address the Auditor General's report, I would hope, in great detail over the next couple of months because we will be having hearings scheduled to deal with numerous areas. The Labrador Transportation Initiative, we will be dealing under that. We are going to be dealing with the coastal ferry service and we are going to be dealing with areas of financial accountability of this government.

I might add, when the Auditor General of this Province says, "Our review of the legislation of the other jurisdictions has disclosed that Canada and the other provinces have some form of legislation which requires that departments and Crown agencies table annual reports on their operations.... Our review has disclosed that in all jurisdictions, except this Province, an annual report is required to be tabled in the legislature by departments and Crown agencies." This government does not have it, the only one in this country.

I recommend that, "Government should draft legislation for consideration by the House of Assembly which requires that Government and all of its departments and Crown agencies including Memorial University of Newfoundland be held accountable to the Legislature for their use of public resources."

We do not do it; therefore, we are the least accountable government in this entire country because we are not doing that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: A PC government, in a news conference with our leader, has indicated we will do that and we will go far beyond that, as we make reference to it. You will find that it will be the most accountable government in this country, I might add, because we will do what the Auditor General tells us we should do, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I have a whole host of other colleagues who are just itching to make a comment, to speak on this Budget. I wanted to leave eight or nine departments for these colleagues to stand up and have an opportunity to address some of these.

With that, I will conclude my comments on the Budget, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The Member for Ferryland, my colleague in the caucus, has indicated that he has left at least eight or nine departments. I am going to adjourn debate in a few moments. We will be back on Tuesday for the rest of us to get on with the Budget debate. Before I do, I have been in the Legislature for nine years. I have seen many Finance critics respond to the Budget, but never have I seen such a performance by an individual member as I have witnessed in this sitting of the House. Guaranteed! Never, ever!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Just a quick couple of stories before I conclude. I recall one night when the former Member for St. Barbe, Chuck Furey, made a bet with the former Member for Mount Pearl, Neil Windsor - if you recall, a true story - that if he could break the record, I believe there was a fine bottle of wine at stake. Anyway, the Member for Mount Pearl at the time was the Finance critic and he did it. As soon as he did it, he sat down. It was almost like: Thanks be to God, I have done it.

Now, this member here tonight has more than doubled that record with his response to the Budget, more than doubled it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Not only did he break it; he blew the doors of it. Not only that, it almost took all of us to get him to sit down. It wasn't as if he even wanted to sit down then.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). He's got the record.

MR. E. BYRNE: He does. It is not even in question.

Mr. Speaker, with those few opening remarks in support of our colleague for the job that he has done as the Official Opposition Finance critic in using his unlimited time on the Budget, I will conclude my remarks and I look forward to taking it up on Tuesday afternoon when we return.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I just wonder if you could take it under advisement to check into the various authorities and see if there is any difference in unlimited and eternity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: I certainly felt I was in the latter. I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, I don't think I want to witness the breaking of the record.

Mr. Speaker, after that effort, I think we will move that the House on its rising do adjourn, and I wish everybody a happy weekend.

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