April 1, 2003 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 8


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings today, I would like to welcome to the gallery a former Member for Burin-Placentia West District, Mr. Glenn Tobin.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, recently, a Newfoundland born artist was given the highest award offered by the Province of Ontario for his work in assisting students and for promotion of the arts. The Order of Ontario honours individuals who help and enrich the lives of others within their respective fields.

Earlier this year, David Blackwood who was born and raised in Wesleyville, I think, now New West Valley, and who continues to maintain a very strong contact with this Province was bestowed with this honour. Mr Blackwood's award winning art work gained him admission to the Ontario College of Art in 1959. This artist is probably best known for his creation of one of the largest thematically linked series of prints in Canadian history, the Lost Party. This series of fifty etchings focused on the 1914 Newfoundland sealing disaster.

Mr. Blackwood is also a member of the Order of Canada which he received in 1993.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that members of this House join with me in congratulating Mr. Blackwood in receiving yet another award in recognition of his life's work and passion. We are so very proud of him.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to pay tribute to the late Stephen Carter of Witless Bay. Mr. Carter passed away on Sunday, March 30, at the remarkable age of 102. He was born on October 26, 1900. Mr. Carter lived a very rewarding and fulfilling life. He and his wife of seventy-one years, Ethel, who only passed away five years ago at the age of ninety-six, raised a terrific family.

Mr. Carter had enjoyed excellent health until this past year. I had the opportunity to visit him on each of his last four birthdays, the most recent being October 26 this fall when he was quick to point out that his son, Steve, who has the same birthday would be getting the pension for the first time. He had turned sixty-five. So, the man was concerned even in the very later years with his family, and that was typical of him his entire life.

I am sure this House, Mr. Speaker, will join with me in sending our condolences to the Carter family.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand before this House and congratulate a former Member of the House of Assembly for St. John's North on being inducted into the Order of Canada. Other inductees from this Province are: Shannie Duff, Terry Kelly and Miller Ayre.

Mr. Speaker, Phil Warren is a former Head of the Department of Education at Memorial. Dr. Warren represented the District of St. John's North from 1989 to 1993, at which time he sought the nomination, won and was elected by the people of the district to represent them in this Legislature.

Shannie Duff is presently a City Councillor and another former MHA.

Miller Ayre is the publisher of The Telegram and former President of Rotary Club.

Terry Kelly is a singer songwriter who has won the East Coast Music Award and has been a Juno nominee.

These four Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are among sixty-eight people to be inducted this year. The Order of Canada recognizes people who have made a difference to our country. This award symbolizes the highest honour for lifetime achievement.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join me in congratulating these four great individuals on receiving the Order of Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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.

Mr. Speaker, from the homemade basketball net on the side of the road in Patrick's Cove, Placentia Bay to the hardwood court of the University of Hawaii, twenty-two year old Carl English has become an ambassador of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Last evening, Carl confirmed that he would be entering the 2003 NBA early draft. The draft is slated for June 26, 2003 at New York's Madison Square Garden.

Many people in the Province have watched Carl pursue his dream over the past number of years. To reach this point is no doubt a testament of his own commitment, drive and determination to be the best.

Carl began this tremendous journey at Fatima Academy, a school of approximately 200 students located in St. Bride's on the Cape Shore, where he is both loved and respected.

His celebrity is no less in Hawaii where following the final home game a few weeks ago, Carl spent over five hours signing autographs for fans. Carl English has been major news in all the local media and has recently graced the pages of Sports Illustrated and ESPN. Along with all that, he is due to graduate in May with a degree in Liberal Studies specializing in sports management from the University of Hawaii.

Declaring himself for the 2003 NBA draft is a major step for Carl to make. He has until June 19 to opt out but his chances of success are tremendous. There is no doubt that this level of competition is beyond what many of us can imagine but I am sure we will all be in his corner as the big day approaches.

I will ask all members of this House to join with me today in wishing Carl English all the best as he moves another step closer to becoming the first Newfoundlander and Labradorian to play in the NBA.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate a former Liberal Member of this House of Assembly, Bill Callahan, who will be named tomorrow as one of three new members to the St. John's Maple Leafs Media Wall of Fame located in the Bob Cole Media Center at Mile One Stadium here in St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Callahan joins former Telegram reporter Bernie Bennett and the late radio announcer, Jim Browne as the latest inductees to this Media Wall of Fame, which includes such notables as the late George McLaren, Dee Murphy and Bob Cole among its members.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Callahan started his sports reporting career in 1949 with the Western Star in Corner Brook. He reported on numerous sporting events throughout the Province but especially hockey during his eight years as sports director for CJON Television and Radio in St. John's.

Following his sports reporting era, Callahan moved into the managing editor and publisher roles with several newspapers including The Evening Telegram and The Daily News. He also served the people as the MHA for the District of Port au Port in 1966 and later was named to Cabinet as Minister of Mines, Agriculture and Resources in July, 1968.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all members of this hon. House, I want to congratulate Mr. Bill Callahan, Bernie Bennett, and the family of the late Jim Browne on this recognition by the St. John's Maple Leafs and dedication to the sports community in the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

 

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform my hon. colleagues in the House of this government's action, and the actions we intend to take regarding the privatization of Port Harmon.

Today the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will file an application for judicial review

with the Federal Court of Canada Trial Division on the decision of the hon. David Collenette, Minister Responsible for Transport Canada, to divest the Stephenville port to a private interest. Mr. Speaker, I believe that is taking place as I present this statement.

The Province is basing its application on its belief that Transport Canada failed to adhere to the Marine Policy of Canada Act, the Treasury Board Policy on the Disposal of Surplus Real Property, and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The application is also based on the belief the Transport Minister did not appreciate the corporate distinction between the Stephenville Port Authority and the Port Harmon Authority Ltd. This Province is also claiming that the Transport Minister failed to observe a principle of procedural fairness towards the Province in his decision to transfer the Stephenville port to the Port Harmon Authority Ltd.

According to the National Marine Policy, regional and local ports owned by Transport Canada must first be offered to other federal departments and then to the province. Only if the Province is not interested in acquiring these facilities may Transport Canada then seek an expression of interest from local stakeholders.

Similarly, pursuant to the federal Treasury Board Policy, federal real property that is being offered for sale must first be offered simultaneously to federal departments, Crown corporations, provincial governments and then municipal governments.

Mr. Speaker, this government was never given the opportunity by Transport Canada to negotiate the specific divestiture of Port Harmon. At no point did this government advise Transport Canada it had no interest in the divestiture of this port. In fact, the Province repeatedly advised Transport Canada of its interest in Port Harmon and asked to be apprised of any developments with respect to the transfer of the port. Transport Canada ignored these requests.

Furthermore, the Transport Minister, as the responsible authority under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, failed to ensure completion of the required environmental assessment before the transfer of the Stephenville port.

Mr. Speaker, the Province believes there is an overriding public interest at stake in the transfer of the public port facilities, such as the Stephenville port. We are, therefore, requesting the federal court to quash the decision of the Transport Minister to divest the Stephenville port to the Port Harmon Authority.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, this government is finally taking some action on this issue. If this government had taken some action earlier, it would have been -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, they do not like to hear the response over there.

Mr. Speaker, if this government has taken action before, it would have been federal court intervention instead of a federal court review.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: This judicial review is asking the federal government to basically see if proper action was taken, proper procedure followed, and if there was fairness in this situation. Obviously, there was no fairness on this issue when it came to the privatization of Port Harmon. They did not follow the proper procedure. It was not offered to this provincial government, as they were supposed to have done.

Mr. Speaker, I find it very strange; last week I asked in this House of Assembly why this government, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, would not seek a court injunction. The Minister of Justice stood up and basically washed his hands of it, saying that, when you look at this situation, when you look at any court request for the court injunction, you have to look at the likelihood of winning. Yet, in so doing before that he had asked, and basically requested, that the Town of Stephenville - encouraged the Town of Stephenville - seek a court injunction.

Mr. Speaker, what hypocrisy, when they say they could not win it themselves; yet, they support and encourage the Town of Stephenville to seek a court injunction. They are playing pure politics with it. Hopefully now, Mr. Speaker, with this there will be something done to resolve this issue and the Port Harmon will not be privatized - as it is now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: We hope that the minister will seek some retribution here and have this problem finally resolved.

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 am glad to see that the government is not giving up on this issue, the privatization of a resource such as this, to put in private hands what should be a public authority and a public service. This is a continuation of many policies of privatization and divestitures that are going on in this country. In fact, one interesting note, Mr. Speaker, is that the MP for Burin-St. George's suggested that this had to be done because if it did not happen by March 31 the whole thing would lapse. Mr. Speaker, on March 31, the Minister of Transport indicated and announced that Transport Canada's Port Divestiture Program will be extended for three full years, until March 31, 2006. There was no need to rush into this. This is something that obviously has been cooked up between the minister and some local interests in Stephenville. It has to be stopped.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: I hope that this is successful. I want to assure members that this matter will be brought to the floor of the House of Commons by our representatives in the House of Commons for the New Democratic Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Mines and Energy.

There has been some notion, I guess more fact, that there have been some design changes as it relates to the work associated with the Bull Arm site. Individuals associated with the project, or hoping to work on the project, have contacted our office indicating that whereas this agreement with the contractor was a fixed price and a fixed time, that if there are any design changes or slowdowns, the question being asked is: What impact will that have on the industrial agreement benefits package negotiated by the government?

Mr. Speaker, I know that officials in the minister's department have been looking at this and I want to ask the minister this question today: What meetings has he had? What is the advice coming from the department? If there are design changes, what impact will that have on the industrial agreement benefits as it relates to the people of the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

There will be no impact on the benefits for the Province. We have an agreement for that development and that agreement will be honoured. If there are any problems that Kiewit have with their fixed amount contract, that will be their problem to deal with.

Our officials have been talking to the companies and the unions involved and we are hoping that we are going to get some extra work for Bull Arm as a result of these negotiations. Contrary to what the Member for Trinity North said in his press release the other day, we are doing everything possible to try to maximize the benefits for our Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: The member criticized me for being hopeful about getting work on the Bull Arm site. Mr. Speaker, we are hopeful about getting in excess of the 80 per cent of the work that we are guaranteed. We are guaranteed 80 per cent and we are confident of getting that. What we are hopeful about is getting in excess of that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, what should be at stake for any government is not 60 per cent or 70 per cent or 80 per cent, is that if it can be done here, it should be done here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, that is the issue.

Now, the minister tried to avoid the question, but there is a legitimate concern and he knows it. Officials in his department also know it. I have talked to people in Marystown associated with the union, et cetera, and there are some negotiations going on for extra pipework, but let me ask him this question. There is also a great deal of concern that people have been informed that big bore pipe, which is pipe over two inches, that all which is a significant component dealing with the modules, much of that, if not all of it, will be done outside the Province. Can the minister confirm that that is actually so?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: One thing I can confirm, Mr. Speaker, is that the hon. member has been speaking to people in Marystown and has been told by the people in Marystown that they are very happy with what is happening down there. They are confident they are going to get the work that they are supposed to get, the work that is being allocated.

It was always understood that a certain amount of work would not be done there. Like the hon. member, we would all like to see 100 per cent of all of these jobs done in this Province by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, but that is not the agreement we have this time.

On the Hibernia development we got about a quarter of the work that we could have gotten in the Province. On Terra Nova, we got something under 50 per cent. On this job, Mr. Speaker, we are going to get at least 80 per cent, but we think we are going to get a fair bit more than 80 per cent and that is what we are working on. Some of it will go outside the Province and there is nothing we can do about that. There is only a certain amount of work that can be done in the Province. It cannot all be done at this stage.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am sure that anybody who is working in the Province today are happy, particularly the people of Marystown, given the fact this was the government that sold it to Friede Goldman, that sold it out that there was no work and no commitments made. So, anybody who is working in Marystown today, Mr. Speaker, I am sure they are happy to be associated and working with developments and projects associated with own resource industries.

The minister did not answer the question again, so I will ask him. This work that I am talking about, big bore pipe, prefab pipe which is over two inches, was scheduled to be done in Marystown. My information, and what people associated with that industry down in the shipyard are telling me, that that project or that section of work will be done now outside of the Province completely and then brought back to the Province only to be assembled. The amount of the workforce associated with this work could be up to 250 pipefitters. So it is a significant number, I say to the minister.

My question is, to him again, as a result of design changes in the project - and that happens, I am not saying that should not happen, that occurs - but as a result of the design changes are these the types of situations that are occurring? In other words, the work that was supposed to be done on big bore, two inch pipe that could affect 250 pipefitters, is that now being done outside the Province? Yes or no, minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, there is a significant amount of work that is going to be done outside of the Province because that is part of the agreement. The understanding was that up to 20 per cent -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: It doesn't look like your members want you to hear the answer, Mr. House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, if you would give an answer (inaudible).

MR. NOEL: I am trying to. It takes a while to get around to an answer with all the interruptions you get here.

The reality is, that what you are concerned about is part of the 20 per cent. We are guaranteed 80 per cent. What you are talking about is not part of that 80 per cent, it is part of the 20 per cent that the company has the option to do outside the Province. Now, the company is trying to do as much of that as they can in the Province. We are trying to do everything we can to get as much of it done in the Province, and we are carrying on negotiations with people to try to have more work done in Bull Arm that could help us get a larger portion of that 20 per cent.

What is happening, and what the member is concerned about, has nothing to do with the 80 per cent that we are guaranteed for this Province. It is the extra work, and it was always understood that a certain amount of that would be going outside the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear to the minister what I am concerned about, not his particular view or spin on it. What I am concerned about is that there are 250 pipefitters unemployed in this Province who could be working in this Province. That is what we are concerned about.

With respect to the question I asked on big bore pipe, that was scheduled to be done at Marystown. That is what we are being told. It is not now going to be done in Marystown. I ask the question: Why is that so, Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, there doesn't seem to be any point in answering the hon. member's questions because he won't accept the answers that he is given.

What I have told him - this is for the third time - is that the work he is talking about was never intended to go to Marystown. There was always a possibility for that work going outside the Province. Now, the reality, Mr. Speaker, is that on this White Rose project there are presently something in excess, I think, of 400 people employed in Marystown. There are upwards of 300 people employed in St. John's, working on the drafting and the engineering. So, there are 700 people working on that project now, Mr. Speaker, and we expect to have up to 1,000 in a few months time.

We are making every effort we can to get as much as we can of that additional 20 per cent, but it takes time. We are working with the unions, we are working with the companies. Everybody would like to see all of the pipefitters employed who are able to do this work in our Province, but we have to work at it, Mr. Speaker, we have to try to get the agreements that are necessary to make these things happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister puts off like it was some big political coup for the government to get 80 per cent of the work of a project and a resource that belongs to us anyway. That is not the attitude, Minister. It belongs to us anyway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The fact of the matter is, the question -

AN HON. MEMBER: Foolish.

MR. E. BYRNE: Who said foolish? Who are the ministers over there saying it is foolish, when 250 people who could be working in the Province should be working in the Province? What is foolish about that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Minister of Fisheries.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) the Minister of Fisheries would like to go down to Marystown and talk to the pipefitters who are going to have to transfer out to other provinces to do work on our own project. There is nothing foolish about that, I say, Minister!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Would not the minister agree that what really is at stake and what really the government should be working for is that any and all work that could be done in this Province should be done in this Province? Wouldn't you agree with that, Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, I would recommend that the hon. member review some editions of Hansard, because we have said that several times in this Province.

If there are 250 pipefitters who are unemployed, that is 250 too many. There are many other people unemployed in this Province who we are trying to get jobs for, but what I have said is that we are getting far more out of this development than we have gotten out of the previous two developments. We are going to get a lot more. We are guaranteed 80 per cent and we are working on getting as much as we can of the additional 20 per cent. We are making some progress. We will see how much we will get before the project is through, but the reality is that we are getting substantial benefits for our Province and we are working as much as we can to make sure that we get jobs for as many people as possible.

The hon. member is not the only one concerned about creating jobs for our people. We are concerned about it and we are doing something about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

In three or four responses now the minister has said we are working on it. Could the minister tell us how he is working on it? Who has he met with? What has he told the oil companies? What has he told the contractor? What are his officials telling him? What strategies are he and his government putting in place so that we can really see what working on it means? Can you elaborate, Minister, on what you are actually doing or what working on it actually means to the people of the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that one of my officials is in Marystown today, speaking with people there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: They are speaking with people there about getting new opportunities for people in our Province. Various officials of our department have met with, have had telephone conferences with, people who are involved in this, both unions and contractors and individuals who are looking for jobs. We can only talk to people. We can only try to facilitate things. We can only do as much as we can to make the Bull Arm site, for instance, as attractive as possible to contractors to put jobs there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: We are doing everything that we can, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member has some specific suggestions about additional things that can be done, it would be helpful if he would say what they are; but, like what that party is doing in every regard these days, and like the leader of that party is saying in the paper today - he is saying, trust me. He wants the people of the Province to trust him.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. NOEL: I think the people of the Province would have a lot more trust in you if you would be a little bit specific about what you do. The only thing -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Mines and Energy raises an interesting phrase: trust me. Let me ask him this question: Who should the people of the Province trust, us or them? Should they trust a government who sold out the resource? Should they trust a government who let modules from Hibernia go? Should they trust a government that let work go to Korea? Or should they trust in a party that puts people in Newfoundland and Labrador first and, in this instance, people who should be working must be working. Who should they trust, Minister, you or us?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. NOEL: The hon. member is correct.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right. The people of the Province have decided who they trust. They trust the party that they have put their trust in four times in a row now, in elections in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: They trust the party that did the Voisey's Bay development that is creating hundreds of jobs in our Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: - and billions of dollars in economic development over the next few years. They trust the party which has developed our petroleum opportunities and is creating thousands of jobs for our people and billions of dollars in revenue to our Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: - and billions of dollars in contributions to our Province.

Contrary to the party on the other side, whose leader has said that if he was Premier of the Province there would be no Voisey's Bay development and there would probably be no Churchill Falls hydro development if they were the government of this Province, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. NOEL: That is another project that we are working on and we intend to develop in the interest of our people.

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 shellfish industry, particularly the crab fishery, has been touted by many as the backbone of today's fishery. Crab has, for most people in most areas, replaced cod as the revenue generator in this industry. Yesterday, DFO science released its Stock Status Report on crab, and it is fair to say there is more than ample reason for concern. The report says, for example, that the exploitable biomass index in 2J, off Labrador, has declined by 94 per cent since 1998. It says that in 2J, off Labrador, 3K, off the Northeast Coast, and 3Ps off the South Coast of the Island, catch rates have declined steadily and significantly since 1998. Recruitment in the short term is expected to be low, and long-term recruitment prospects are uncertain.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture: Is there any joint committee of the provincial and federal Departments of Fisheries investing the impact of reductions in crab stocks, and is there any planning underway as to how best deal with the reductions should they occur?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the hon. member for his question, because the information that was released yesterday with regard to the crab Stock Status Report obviously has some concern for all of us, especially with the downward trend in 2J and 3Ps area.

Mr. Speaker, at the present time, DFO is hosting consultation sessions in all of the areas which the Stock Status Report referred to yesterday, but primarily in the areas where the stocks have taken a downward trend. They will launch a consultation with the fisherpeople this week in those particular areas and have some discussions with them in terms of impact.

As for our department, obviously we are very concerned about it. We are already gathering the data in terms of what the impacts would be if there was to be some decrease in quota in those particular areas and how it will affect people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Given the negative tone of the Stock Status Report yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and considering that the rumours of this have been circulating for a number of months now - and I know that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are planning consultations, and that has nothing to do with what this provincial Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture are doing.

I would like to ask the minister this, Mr. Speaker: What is her department going to recommend to DFO management? What recommendations are they preparing on quota levels, and what should be done with quota levels in 2J, 3K, and 3Ps in particular? What is the government doing to prepare for the fallout, should significant quota cuts occur?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I think that yesterday this report was released. We had some indications leading up to this, that this might be the case. Those indications came primarily from fisherpeople themselves. I do not think it is any secret; people out there in the industry have been telling us they are seeing a difference in their catch rates, the catch rates are down, the amount of time that it takes them to fulfill their quotas have changed. They, themselves, have asked for certain measures to be implemented over that period of time.

In the next few days, we will certainly be monitoring the consultations that DFO is undertaking in these particular areas. We will use the information solicited from these particular industry representatives in terms of preparing our own prospectus to DFO, but I think it is important that it is not the provincial Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture that will make a decision as to what the status of this particular fishery will be. It will be entirely the decision of DFO. We will certainly consult with DFO, consult with the union, and receive input from those fishers in determining how we deal with that process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, in the last couple of days I received this report from the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. It is called: 2002 Seafood Industry Year In Review. The report, again this year, glosses over or ignores the fundamental significant problems that are in this industry. It ignores and downplays the significant problems that are in the shrimp peeling industry, and it ignores or downplays the significant problems that are in the crab resource sector.

Mr. Speaker, the minister says that the decision on this matter will be entirely DFO's. Mr. Speaker, that is the problem with this department and with this government. This the question, Mr. Speaker, and they are eager to hear it: Why has this government, year after year, continued to ignore and downplay the significant problems in this industry? Is it because they do not recognize the problems, Mr. Speaker, or is it that they do not know how to deal with it?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member opposite that the people on this side of the House knows how to manage and deal with the fishery in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we saw revenues in this particular industry exceed $1 billion in landed value.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, last year we seen a $1 billion landed value in this fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the kind of impact we know that is having on the economy of our Province.

When it comes to scientific data, when it comes to looking at quota allocations, it is the jurisdiction of DFO. Yes, of course, we have opportunities that have input. We do have input, Mr. Speaker, but we also follow a process. We do not arbitrarily look at a report one day and pass opinion the next day.

Mr. Speaker, we will consult with the people that are affected. We will gather the information. We will discuss it with DFO. We will have talks with the FFAW and, Mr. Speaker, then we will make the appropriate representation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Mr. Speaker, today in this Province there are roughly 1,000 people, mostly seniors, who are getting home support services from agencies. There are some twenty-five agencies operating in the Province. Yesterday those agencies advised the minister that they are not prepared anymore to deliver the services to their clients with the rate government is paying. Can he tell us today what contingency plan he has in place for those 1,000 clients serviced by those agencies?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Indeed, officials from my department yesterday met with representatives of the agencies, as the hon. member has referenced. On the basis of those discussions some concerns were expressed, and we take these concerns seriously. Despite what the hon. member may be suggesting in terms of our attitude towards it - in fact, in this current budget we have committed some $70 million towards this particular service. In fact, over the past two years we have seen an increase in wages to the workers who are involved there of some 24 per cent. In real dollars, over two years, it has meant a $2 increase in wages. Mr. Speaker, this speaks to the value and the importance that we see in this service that is there.

Unfortunately, the hon. member is right, in this particular budget we did not have the means whereby we could advance in this year's budget a further increase in terms of the monies that is allocated to that particular area. But, Mr. Speaker, it is not that we underestimate or downplay the importance of the industry. We understand and appreciate the importance of the agencies who deliver it.

Mr. Speaker, yes, in fact, we have looked at the possibility that if - as these agencies are suggesting - they withdraw services, at that point in time my officials are looking at and developing contingency plans.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

The Premier wants to have private nursing home care in Corner Brook backed by a threat to delay the needs of seniors in the Corner Brook area for eight to ten years. Mr. Speaker, in addition to threatening jobs, wages, and benefits, private nursing home arrangements are a threat to patient care. Why does the Premier want to go down this road of privatization instead of finding public solutions and give this project the priority it deserves?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question about a very important issue with respect to long-term care in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a huge issue for all of us in the Province. It continues to be an area of growing concern, not only in Corner Brook, but in Avalon North, here in St. John's, Clarenville area and other places.

Mr. Speaker, we are not dealing with the issue in any manner of threat. I actually regret the inference made by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. We do not deal with any issues by way of threat. What we are saying, quite frankly, to the people of the Province is this, we believe there is an opportunity to provide, sooner rather than later, the long-term care needs for the people in Corner Brook, in Avalon North, in St. John's, in the Province. It is clear, from the Budget, that we had been debating up until yesterday - I guess there are no questions about it today, certainly not from the Official Opposition. They must have had all their concerns answered in just one day in Question Period. There are none today.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this, when we are running close to a $300 million deficit, we obviously looked at the priorities and said through the normal processes of financing. We are just talking about ways of financing. Through the normal financing we would have to add immediately, under any system, the cash system, the consolidated system or the accrual system, under any of them, we would have to add immediately to the provincial debt in order to take care of the long-term care needs in the normal financing matters.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in the debate that I hope we have publicly -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

In the debate, that I hope we will continue to have publicly, the care needs of the seniors and elders can be met. The workers are all taken care of through successor rights in contracts. There is no reduction in benefits. There is nobody who loses any jobs, and the people who win are the people who need the service. That is the kind of government that I lead, Mr. Speaker, which tries to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The public pays whether it is lease costs or debt, and lease costs are just as much an obligation to the public treasury.

Mr. Speaker, the Chancellor Park study showed that the rate of infection in the private versus public system was twice as high and that medication errors were, in fact, as much as fifty times as much with about half of the residents having a medication error in eight months. In fact, a recent analysis of forty-three peer reviewed comparative studies of long-term care facilities showed that not-for-profit facilities have a considerable advantage in almost every single dimension of patient care and facilities.

Mr. Speaker, why does this government not recognize its responsibility to seniors in this Province by providing for seniors' nursing care through the public system and give it the kind of priority that it deserves, not just find excuses for going down the private route?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, it is not a matter of going down a private route. I think the language is completely and totally wrong. I believe the hon. member knows it, as a matter of fact. It is publicly funded health care. As he indicated, whether we build it ourselves or whether someone else builds it and we lease it back, it is still paid for by the taxpayers. It is publicly funded health care. What we have is, we have a real need. We have a need that is real and apparent and growing today under normal financial circumstances. So we are not talking about levels of care; we are talking about having fully accredited public institutions providing levels of service equal to, if not beyond, what is in the institutions that we run today, and affordable so that we can have the service available to the people who are in need today, rather than ask them to wait five years, ten years, fifteen years, until we can find some way to probably afford it under a different financing arrangement.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the debate publicly. We will enter into it. It will be focused and centered in Corner Brook first and foremost, and we do look forward to having discussions with all hon members, everybody in the general public, all stakeholders -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - and we would hope that it would transcend politics and look at meeting the needs of those people who today are going without the long-term care that they so desperately need to have provided for them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

I would like to take this opportunity to welcome to the gallery today another former Member of the House of Assembly from Grand Falls, and former Speaker, Mr. Len Simms.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Notices of Motion

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

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Revise The Law About The Practice Of Optometry." Bill 9

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we can revert to doing reports? There were some reports to be presented here and I think the minister missed the call of the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: We will revert to Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to table the 2001-2002 Annual Report for the Department of Education, which highlights the activities of the department for that fiscal year.

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to table for the hon. members, fourteen additional reports for agencies which report to my department. They are: the Labrador School Board, the Northern Peninsula/Labrador South School Board, the Corner Brook-Deer Lake-St. Barbe School Board, the Cormack Trail School Board, the Baie Verte/Central/Connaigre School Board, the Lewisporte/Gander School Board, the Burin School Board, the Vista School Board, the Avalon West School Board, the Avalon East School Board, the Conseil Scolaire Francophone Terre-Neuve Et Du Labrador School Board, the Provincial Information and Library Resources Board, the Newfoundland and Labrador Education Investment Corporation, and the Literacy Development Council.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Notices of Motion

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Emergency Measures Act." Bill 8

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I present a petition today on behalf of several residents in my district, namely in the area of St. Vincent's-Peter's River-St. Stephens, communities throughout St. Mary's Bay.

Mr. Speaker, the petition reads as follows:

To the Honourable House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland, in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador

Ask for the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer:

We the undersigned citizens of St. Mary's Bay Area hereby draw your attention to the unsatisfactory and unsafe conditions as they now exist on Route 90, St. Mary's Bay.

WHEREAS it is the duty of government through the enactment and enforcement of the Highway Safety Act to protect the citizens not only from commuters but also from unsafe highways; and

WHEREAS the safety of the traveling public must be the number one priority of any government;

THEREFORE your petitioners ask that government provide the necessary funding to carry out the much needed repairs to Route 90.

As in duty bound you petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is another petition, one of many that are coming into my office over the last couple of weeks, that people in my district have asked me to present here in the House. We are experiencing now, throughout not only my district but throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, what we call the spring thaw, and our roads, Mr. Speaker, are in deplorable conditions in many districts, and mine is no different. The people in St. Mary's Bay, especially the people who travel Route 90, who have presented me with these petitions, have asked me to bring this concern forward for many reasons.

We have spent many, many dollars over the past number of years developing that part of the Irish Loop into a major tourist destination. Many people have invested many dollars in creating tourist establishments and businesses in the area to which people come, Mr. Speaker. Government has invested many, many hundreds of thousands of dollars in places like St. Vincent's beach and whale watching. Certainly, the people in my area are asking that, as we close in now on the new tourist season for 2003, government take that into consideration.

Another concern that people have, Mr. Speaker, is the traveling back and forth. As most people know, most of the health care is administered here in St. John's. Many people travel back and forth on a daily basis to work from that area, back and forth to St. John's and different parts of Conception Bay. They have concerns that have been raised with me over the past number of weeks as I have visited the area.

Mr. Speaker, just last weekend I had the opportunity to be down in St. Mary's Bay and I certainly have to agree with the people who have signed these petitions and have raised the concern with me, that this road is in serious, serious condition and in need of repair, as many parts of the roads in my district are.

Mr. Speaker, from what I understand, petitions will be coming forward from other parts of the district also.

Mr. Speaker, the main concern the people have, I believe -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: Just by leave, Mr. Speaker, to clue up?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MANNING: The main concern that people have put forward to me is a safety concern. People are traveling back and forth, children are traveling back on forth on buses to attend the school in St. Mary's. Ambulances are traveling back and forth over the highway, Mr. Speaker, as I said, to bring patients back and forth to St. John's and other medical facilities. Certainly, safety is the number one concern of the people who are operating those machines. I think to underline the importance of the safety issue that is out there is the reason why these people are bringing forward these petitions to me, Mr. Speaker.

As I said in my opening remarks, it is the spring thaw now and we are heading into a very rough time on the roads throughout the Province, and I certainly hope that the minister will take into consideration the concerns of the people who have signed these petitions and the concerns of the people in my district as they set out putting forward the Provincial Roads Program for 2003. We hope, Mr. Speaker, that he will address some of the concerns in the district as they have been put forward in these petitions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

WHEREAS the main road to the community of Winter Brook is in deplorable condition and in desperate need of paving;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to pave the approximately three kilometres of road leading to and including part of the community of Winter Brook, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a section of road which the former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the present Minister of Labour, and the Government House Leader know very well. The Government House Leader represented this area at one time right here in this very same House. He knows very well what the people from Winter Brook are asking for. Those people have never seen, have never had the main road to, or through, their community paved.

It was only about five years ago, Mr. Speaker, that the people in Winter Brook celebrated the 100 Anniversary of their community. Their plea to me is no different than the plea that was made to the now Minister of Labour, the former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and the Government House Leader, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the Member for Terra Nova; it is no different. Their plea is still asking this government, this Administration, to pave three kilometres of road; which is the only three kilometres left, I might add. There is a beginning made.

The former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation went out and listened to the pleas of the people. Two years ago there were two kilometres of pavement laid through most of the community of Winter Brook. Last year there was another two kilometres, which included the Jamestown Lumber Company and part again of the community of Winter Brook, but there still remains three kilometres of the main road leading to Winter Brook to be paved. It does not need to be upgraded. It is probably the cheapest three kilometres of pavement that will be laid in this Province this year when you are talking about repairing or paving a gravel road.

The upgrading had been done years ago, Mr. Speaker, with the promise from this government, at that time, that it would be paved the following year. It could not be paved the first year they said because it was not their policy to upgrade and pave the same year. Here we are, five years after, with this member standing here time after time asking that this particular road, the only road leading to the community of Winter Brook, be completed for pavement in this fiscal year, 2003.

Mr. Speaker, the people in Winter Brook are not asking for sidewalks, they are not asking for streetlights, they are not asking for water and sewer, they are not asking for 100 kilometres of pavement. Their plea is to have three kilometres of pavement included in this year's Capital Works budget so the people -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Just a second to clue up, if I could, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, all they are asking for is that this three kilometres of road be included in this year's Capital Works Program so the people in this community can drive over a road that most of us enjoy on a daily basis.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition to this Hon. House.

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

WHEREAS the roads in the community of Georgetown have deteriorated to a point that the safety of motorists and pedestrians are being compromised; and

WHEREAS access to residences, businesses, churches, postal facilities and recreation areas have been seriously affected; and

WHEREAS little if any maintenance and repairs are carried out on an annual basis;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to make a commitment to include the upgrading of this road system in its annual capital disbursement for the upcoming fiscal year, as is duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I bring this to the attention of the House because obviously it is a petition that has been signed by residents in the community of Georgetown who are asking this government to look at this particular situation.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the pavement - if you want to call it pavement - which is currently on the roads as we speak is at a point where, I guess, it is not even up to the standard of a good gravel road. The potholes, the cracks, the pavement that is missing. Again, Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a road system that is in dire need of repair.

In particular, Mr. Speaker, I would draw attention to a business that is suffering tremendously because of the conditions of the road. As a matter of fact, this is where the petition originated. There is a business at the end of the road in Georgetown, at the very end. There is a section of gravel road leading to it and the state of that road, at any time during the year, leaves a lot to be desired.

The point of it is, Mr. Speaker, that this business - it is a beauty parlor - depends upon customers from all over this particular area, and there are customers who are refusing to travel over this road to get to this business. I cannot tell you how important it is that this road be upgraded, not necessarily pavement, Mr. Speaker. Good Class A, good ditching and annual maintenance would be the order of the day to make sure that anyone who is travelling over it is not going to get stuck in the mud; is not going to tear the bottom out of their car; tear the muffler off their car; destroy their tires. These are the sorts of things that have happened, Mr. Speaker. This lady, who is trying to run a business in rural Newfoundland, finds that she cannot get a steady flow of traffic over that road, a steady flow of customers because the road is in such a deplorable state.

Again, the minister has been advised of this and he too has a copy of this petition. He has indicated that although he cannot make a commitment to it, he will make a commitment to look at it. I certainly implore him to take a good look at it and ensure that some commitment is made to take care of the problem on the gravel portion of the roads and also the entire system to make sure that it is fit for the travelling public.

With those words, Mr. Speaker, I certainly implore the minister to act upon this petition and certainly thank the people of Georgetown for bringing it to my attention and in turn, bringing it to the attention of this House.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, we ask Your Honour to proceed to Motion 1, continuation of yesterday's debate, the motion: That This House Approves in General the Budgetary Policy of the Government.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was half afraid he was going to call another motion here today, and he might have called something else.

I would like to start today where I finished yesterday. They say a good place to start is at the beginning, but I would like to start at the end because I made statements in this House yesterday which are recorded in Hansard, and which are entirely accurate, and the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education stood and tried to twist them. My statements are here on the public record of what I said, and I told her when I got again that I said it, and still she went to the Open Lines this morning trying to give a different impression of what I said.

For the record, I say to the minister, on page 325 of Hansard, I stood in my place and I said, "The Province of Quebec; all Quebeckers pay the same standard tuition in all universities over a year, $1,668 per year. Here at Memorial University it was..." $3000. There is a little typo here. They put down $300, but I guess that is just a little zero left off. I said it dropped then to around $2,700. It is all here in the record.

The minister jumps up and says we are the lowest in the country. In fact, she did a news release. The minister did a news release saying we have the lowest in the country. Well, that really puzzles me, Madam Speaker. It really puzzles me. When I looked at statistics produced by the Canadian Federation of Students, and looked at statistics issued through Stats Canada up to 2000-2003, I am aware of what we pay in other universities. I happen to have kids attending Memorial University and a university also - two at Memorial University and one outside this Province, in Nova Scotia. I am fairly familiar, with relatives attending numerous universities. My colleague, the critic of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education has supplied me with some good statistics, too, on what they are, and they are there for all to see.

I want to state again, unequivocally, that universities in Quebec have an average - not an average. I should say that every single university in Quebec - in fact, I will name them, Madam Speaker. I will name some of the universities in Quebec.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Concordia University has a tuition of $1,668; Université Laval, tuition for a year of $1,668; McGill University, $1,668; École des Hautes Etudes Commerciales, Montréal, $1,668; École Polytechnique Montréal has $1,668.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right. We are all familiar with that university because every year you stand in this House and have a statement there where engineering students, females, were killed, basically shot right there on the campus of that university, and every year we wear a ribbon appropriate as a statement usually in this House in memory of that.

École Nationale d'Administration Publique, $1,668. There is a whole host of these here. Université du Québec à Abitibi-Temiscaminque, $1,668; Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, $1,668; Université du Québec à Montréal, the same amount, $1,668; and at Rimouski it is the same. We can go all the way through every university. At Sherbrooke, at Trois-Rivières - $1,668.

In fact, in fifteen of the last twenty years there has been a freeze on university tuition in the Province of Quebec. Do you know what they pay at the colleges in Quebec? Do you know what the tuition is at all the colleges in Quebec? Zero, no tuition for Quebecers at the colleges in Quebec - and $1,668 they pay in tuition.

Does our Province pay less than $1,668? The minister tried to skew it and twist it and say with international students and other students, but factoring in this weighted average, and taking the per cent of foreign students at Quebec, the average comes to - including those in Quebec - $1,851. That is what it comes to in Quebec. The minister knows that quite well -

MS THISTLE: A point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER (M. Hodder): Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I have to say I really enjoyed our dialogue yesterday afternoon with the member opposite, the Member for Ferryland. Madam Speaker, he is trying to put out another misstatement today; because what you have to take into account, and for the members opposite, we are not comparing apples to apples.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am.

MS THISTLE: Listen, if you would give me the respect I just gave you, I will explain.

In Quebec, as I stated yesterday, Madam Speaker -

MADAM SPEAKER: Would the minister get to the point?

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

In Quebec, as I stated yesterday, there are two layers of tuition. One is for Quebecers, residents of Quebec. Any other Canadian studying in Quebec has almost double that tuition rate. What we have in Newfoundland and Labrador at Memorial University is one tuition rate, and that covers all Canadians, all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and landed immigrants. So we are, in fact, the lowest tuition rate. We have the lowest tuition rate in Canada, and that is factual.

MADAM SPEAKER: I ask the minister to get to the point.

MS THISTLE: I would remind the member opposite, Madam Speaker, that his leader, at the end of our Budget day last Thursday, stood outside and told the media this is a great Budget. Today, the Member for Ferryland is disputing what was in this -

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

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

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

Points of order raised in the House are not opportunities for Ministers of the Crown to interrupt a member's time to make large speeches or speeches related to the Budget. The minister will have her opportunity, like everyone else. If the minister takes exception to a point, or if it is related to a point of order - a statement that she says is not fact - deal with it, but it is not an opportunity for a Minister of the Crown to stand up for five minutes to give a speech.

MADAM SPEAKER: The point is taken.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I want to correct the minister on one more thing she just said. She said in Quebec they pay almost twice as much for international, for students outside Quebec. I want to tell the minister what they pay, because I have the figure. She does not even know that figure. That figure is $4,171, which is more than twice; in fact, it is two-and-a-half times as much. Quebecers are looking after Quebecers. Newfoundlander and Labrador should be looking after Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That is what they should be doing. That is what she did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: And do not stand up in this House and throw out things that are not true. If you can stand and put the facts on the table of what they are, do it.

It says here, this comes from Stats Canada, the recent - we are up to 2002-2003 - if you have any figures different - in fact, I will go through it and cite numerous instances here and if you want to refute information gathered by Stats Canada, if she wants to do that - if the hon. member - will the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the hon. member.

MR. SULLIVAN: You are allowed to say that in the House. Mr. Speaker, I did not say will you, which is proper, I said will she; and that is correct. That is the parliamentary procedure I am following in this House. The Government House Leader should know differently. He should know better. He should know better because he rises when people do not follow it and I am following it exactly to the letter. He is only trying to interrupt again.

I will put the facts here as they are taken from the costs at Memorial University registration and I will give them for other universities across this country. If you want to sit here and listen, or if you want to stand up and refute them, show information that contradicts them; and tell me your source, I say to the minister.

It says here: user fees have undergone significant reviews in recent years. Following two years of frozen fees Grenfell College and Memorial University were granted - it goes on to say - a 10 per cent reduction in fees; and we know that. Then we had another 10 per cent, and of course now we are being told this year we are going to have a 5 per cent reduction. That is factual and that is good. We are not complaining about that. We are complaining about the minister giving the wrong information to the public. That is what we do not like. We do not like telling the people of this Province we are the lowest in the country when we do not come close by a long shot. That is what we take offence with, trying to give the impression we are ahead of the rest of the country in that.

This same article states -

PREMIER GRIMES: A point of order, Madam Speaker.

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Madam Speaker, again, to make the point, the Opposition desperately wants to give some impression to students in Newfoundland and Labrador that they might be able to go someplace else in Canada, go to university and be charged less tuition than at Memorial University. If he would admit that even his own research - because you do not get charged, nobody gets charged an average tuition in Quebec. There is no such thing as an average tuition charge to any student. There is a tuition charge to a Quebec resident, which you are or you are not. There is another tuition charge to other Canadians, which would be Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. There is another tuition charge to people who are not Canadian, who are from other countries, international students. You get charged one of three numbers, Madam Speaker, you do not get charged an average. He should stand up and admit that the fact is, for a resident of Newfoundland and Labrador, the lowest tuition that a Newfoundland and Labrador student gets charged anywhere in this country is at Memorial University, bar none.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am delighted the Premier got up and dug the hole deeper. I said - and it is in Hansard yesterday. I said today, and he sat there and did not even hear me, did not listen. Now he runs. He is running now when I get back and tell the truth of what I just said. I said in this House, four minutes ago -

PREMIER GRIMES: (Inaudible) what averages you want now. You cannot find another tuition (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Look at the Premier, shouting and waving his fists! Shouting and waving his hand at me as he is running away. Come back in here and fight, I say to the Premier. Come back in here, stay on the debate here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: It is unparliamentary to say a coward in this House and I will not say it. It is unparliamentary. I wouldn't even want to imply it.

Three to four minutes before the Premier stood in his place I said in this House, right here, that a person from outside of Quebec, who goes to a university in Quebec, pays $4,131. I think that was the figure I used. I will make sure it is exact. I said they pay $4,131 per student from outside Quebec, going to a university in Quebec. That is what I said. That is not twisting the truth. That is what I said.

A Newfoundlander and Labradorian going to a university in Newfoundland and Labrador pays approximately $2,700, and there is a decrease coming. A Quebecer who goes - and I said yesterday in this House - the minister got up and couldn't even understand what I said. I said: In the Province of Quebec all Quebecers pay the same standard tuition in all universities over a year, that is in the Province of Quebec, if you are a Quebecer, $1,668.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: They can speak all they like, Madam Speaker, and I will ask protection from these continuous interruptions.

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

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister made a fool of herself on this issue, and she is trying to come back now and twist facts here. She does not have a fact to put on the table.

MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The Member for Ferryland has this so twisted he does not know what he is saying anymore.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Madam Speaker, what has been reported in the Budget, what I have said right here in this House yesterday, and today on the Open Line media is correct. In fact, I would ask the Member for Ferryland: What would a Newfoundlander and Labradorian pay for tuition in Quebec?

Do you know what a Newfoundlander and Labradorian would pay in Quebec? Thirty-nine hundred and sixty-four dollars, almost double. So I am telling you that we do have the lowest tuition across the country. There is no layering. There is one fee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

This minister released a statement on the day of the Budget, and the Minister of Finance in this House on the day of the Budget stood in her place and said: Memorial University of Newfoundland has the lowest tuition in this country. The tuition in Newfoundland and Labrador for Newfoundlanders is over $1,000 difference than tuition in Quebec for Quebecers. That is the difference, Minister, and you can twist what you like. I said - actually I found the figure. I said several minutes ago - you stood and said $3,900 - that the average undergraduate tuition in Quebec for people who are from other provinces; before the Premier stood up. Not the average.

Any other province of Canada that sends a student to Quebec university, from outside Quebec, whether they are from Newfoundland and Labrador or British Columbia, Alberta or Ontario, because in other universities, there are numerous universities in Quebec, they pay $4,171. If a Quebecer goes to a university in Quebec - that the big majority of people going to university in Quebec, the vast majority from statistics are Quebecers, they pay $1,668. Here we are paying roughly - it used to be $3,000, it is down around the ballpark of $2,700 or $2,600, roughly. It is all based on a full course load. That is what they are all standardized on. If the minister does not know that, they are standardized across tuitions on full complements.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister wants me to explain the point?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will explain the point. The statement that the minister gave, the Member for Grand Falls- Buchans, the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education, and the Member for St. John's Centre, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, both of them made a statement, and it is here in black, that Memorial University of Newfoundland has the lowest tuition in the country, and that is wrong. That is wrong. It is not the lowest. The point is, Madam Speaker, I would just like them to tell the truth. That is all we ask. Could they tell the truth?

Madam Speaker, maybe they do not like the truth. Maybe the reason they are getting so upset is because they do not like the truth. Maybe they have not been dealing with it very often, and they do not like the truth. That could be the reason why.

I am going to go on and I am going to mention other aspects that you should know about tuition in Canada, and that the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education should find out about.

MR. LUSH: Are you telling Newfoundlanders now to go to Quebec?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, it is cheaper to stay here than to go to Quebec! The minister does not understand it. I thought I made that clear. The Government House Leader, the Member for Terra Nova, does not understand it. The minister does not understand it. No wonder we have problems with our education system in this Province; the minister cannot even understand it. Cannot even understand their own press release. Do not even put facts on their own press release.

I am going to continue. I am going to say a few facts here on education, Madam Speaker. They can shout and they can interrupt all they like, but I am going to continue. I am going to make reference here, where it said: despite soaring student debt levels, government's strategy for reducing debt is deeply flawed. That is what this statement says, it is deeply flawed. It says; Canada remains one of two nations in the world without a national system of needs-based grants. It saddles its students with some of the highest fees. The loans-based approach to student financial assistance has proved to be a failure at guaranteeing access. It said, research clearly demonstrates that the cost of post-secondary education and increased debt levels are significant factors in decisions that students make about whether or not they are going to continue their studies above high school. Even more significant is the finding that students from lower income households are more likely to be affected by financial issues when deciding to pursue or not pursue education beyond the high school level.

I see another big difference here in our Province. The average over a two term to go to university, to come in from rural Newfoundland, it normally costs in excess of $10,000 a semester for someone to leave rural Newfoundland, come in here, pay for their apartment, their lights and heat, and of course live away from home, and there are other costs of getting back and forth. You are looking at in the vicinity of over $10,000 a semester. Tuition used to be about 30 per cent of that $10,000, when it was $3,000. Granted, tuition has dropped and that is beneficial. We support that; I am delighted to see that. That is not the point we are making here. We are all for more access. Still, you have to keep in mind that a student now living at home in St. John's could attend university for two semesters for about $2,600 or $2,700. With the $500 down, for a student from rural Newfoundland coming in and having to set up house and all other costs, still $500 less than $10,000 is about $9,500. It is now costing significantly more, about three-and-a-half times as much money, for a rural Newfoundland person to get an education here in our Province as a person from the urban area of our Province. I think we need to look at addressing those needs.

I know one particular person now who has $70,000 in student loans, got one degree, couldn't get a job and had to go back another year to go on to get the next degree. It is in an area that is in fairly high demand, at least in North America, and hopefully here. They had to apply and it went beyond the time. In fact, I wrote a letter of support indicating that I felt the student is in a career that has a high opportunity of getting work, and research of this issue has shown all that. That is a family whose parents couldn't afford to contribute, for example, to their education and that person now has a greater opportunity to repay that debt by getting that extra year or two in than they are having to leave there without that job. So, those are the types of decisions we need.

Why is the burden so high in the first place? It is because we are really disadvantaged in rural Newfoundland today, to try to get a university education. The cost of tuition is only a small part of the cost. It is the minority of the cost of getting an education there. We all know, most of us on both sides of this House, I am sure, are familiar with it, through friends or with their children having to come and attend university here, it is not cheap anywhere to attend university, basically, when you have to move away from home, because your living costs and your transportation costs are very high. We have people in debt, to a great extent, I might add, by those burdens. Can you imagine? What happens now?

I will raise one of the big concerns. If a person comes from a low income household and they cannot access the full student loan, what do they do? They either don't go to school or they try to work part-time to get a job and take a lot longer to go to school. They have to spend a lot of their time worrying where the next meal is going to come from. People at university do that. People in the middle income bracket -

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I wish the Minister of Labour, the Member for Bellevue, would stop shouting out over there. He is continually at it, interrupting. It is only going to take me longer to make my points if I get all these interruptions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It is going to take longer than that, I say, if I keep getting interrupted. It might take longer. Infinity plus, I might say, it might take me. A math teacher knows a little bit about infinity.

What happens to middle income families with kids in school? Their parents are expected to contribute to many of the kids' education. I know parents who have put a mortgage back on their house so they can access the money for their kids to get an education. They were required to contribute to it. Anything that would reduce that is a tremendous benefit. We want to see opportunities for growth and development in our Province. We want to see an opportunity for people to be employed in our Province. We want -

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

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education, on a point of order.

MS THISTLE: Madam Speaker, I won't misuse this time at all. I just want to take a moment to enlighten the Member for Ferryland that the Canadian Federation of Students agree that our tuition rates are the lowest in the country. They agree that we have the best student loan package in the country. I will tell you that we had revamped the whole student loan package last summer. It is possible now, Madam Speaker, for a student to have all the Newfoundland and Labrador portion of their student loan erased, providing they meet the criteria. That is only one, and I will be up later this afternoon to talk about others.

Thank you.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would appreciate if the Government House Leader would take the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education aside and explain how the House of Assembly works here; because, if not, I will point it out if you want.

Ministers have a privilege, Madam Speaker, to stand in this House and give a Ministerial Statement, a privilege that I, as a common member, do not have, to articulate the programs and statements of her department, not on a point of order. She has the right to be able to stand as a minister on any particular day with a statement in this House, and no limit on her time, to stand and read from a statement that articulates policies of students in Newfoundland and Labrador. She happened to articulate a policy and did a news release and a backup to the Budget supplement that made a statement that was false. I have a right to stand, in my time as the critic for Finance, and respond to this Budget. The minister had unlimited time in presenting the Budget, and I have unlimited time in responding to that Budget.

Four times she abused the rules of this House by not knowing how it works, or deliberately interfering with it. One or the other, I am not sure which one. If she does not know the rules of the House, I will accept it, but now she knows the rules of the House and I would expect them to be followed. If she is trying to make a statement, there is an appropriate time in the next day this House sits. The minister can stand and she can talk for forty-five minutes or two hours if she wants to, and articulate the policies of that department.

I am familiar with loan remission programs and debt reduction. I have gone with people to appeals recently on some of them, and I have dealt with many people, like many other members here in this House do. It is a part of the routine day. I deal with them continuously, I tell the minister. I have five appeals this week alone on different matters dealing with either students - not necessarily this week with student appeals, which I do not, by the way, but I have in the past. I continuously spend time and I am familiar with the programs. We do about 200 of them a year, appeals with numerous different types of aspects. I appear in person. I have a little knowledge. I am not an expert on them all, but I read and try to find out about them all, research and find out the rules that apply. When I stand here in this House, or sit here, and read statements that I find are erroneous, they are leaving the wrong impression out in the public, I am going to do what I can to stand in this House and clarify those particular points.

I am going to continue. I am still on the education issue. I must be half an hour now and have not even moved away from that yet, because of four points of order, trying to deal with them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not points of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Proposed points of order.

I will read another statement from this document I have here. It says: For the sixth consecutive year tuition fees will be frozen at Quebec universities for residents of Quebec. I have said this before. Quebec residents attending university in that Province will pay, it says, an average of $675, the lowest tuition in Canada, and the official list lists $668. For residents of other provinces attending universities in Quebec, the average undergraduate tuition fees, depending on which university you attend, is $4,171. I made that statement before the Premier jumped up on his point of order and tried to say I did not. That is there. Read Hansard. I ask anybody to go in on the Web. Read it tomorrow. Go in and read it. It will be in written form tomorrow. It is there. It is factual, what I stated, and I stand by it. What they are trying to throw out is a smokescreen to cover up an incorrect statement that was made by two Ministers of this Crown to create a different impression for people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Of course, for people in Newfoundland and Labrador to go to other provinces to get an education is more costly. Of course it is. To leave here and go to Quebec, to leave here and go to Ontario, you have to fly out. You have extra costs. I am familiar with it. One of my three children attends university outside the Province. There are two attending here at Memorial and I know very much what the costs are, and so do any member of this House. This information is available. Most people in this House, I am sure, attended some form of post-secondary and they know a little bit about the costs and comparisons and what is happening here.

Madam Speaker, the same basic thing it mentions here, it even goes into mentioning some of the other special programs here like dentistry, medicine and law. They say the most expensive programs at universities in Canada, measured by average tuition, continue to be dentistry, medicine and law. Students in dentistry will pay $8,997 on average this year, more than double the average, for instance, of $3,605 that art students pay. Law and medicine students had to face the largest fee increases last year. Law students will pay $5,019 on average. That is up 14.17 per cent, and medicine will pay $8,062 on average, up 8.1 per cent from the previous year.

I also have information here that shows not only are tuition fees not the lowest in the country, this article also says, from Stats Canada - I am quoting my source, and if anybody has other more current information, more current to this, I would be delighted to have it. This is up to 2002-2003 and I think we are there now, in that neighbourhood. If there are drastic changes since this publication, that was, I think, downloaded on March 29. That was only three days ago, actually. If there is anything other, not up to date, I certainly would like to know it, but it states here that when you look at all the other provinces in Canada, in addition to tuition, other mandatory costs, they call them, they say there are other fees that are mandatory. For example, it says, average additional compulsory fees, fees that you have to pay on top of tuition, and what it says on this document - three days ago it was still on the Net - up to the end of March this year, it states that Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest additional compulsory fees of any province in this country. That is on top of their tuition. That is what it said. It says, New Brunswick has the lowest. That is $272 per year, and Newfoundland and Labrador is $732. Canada, on the average, in $538. Newfoundland and Labrador is the highest at $732, followed by Ontario with $653, followed by Manitoba with $646, followed by, next overall, $513 in Alberta. Then we are looking at Saskatchewan, $492; we have $448, Prince Edward Island; we have Nova Scotia, $429; Quebec is $440.

On top of these statistics here of Quebec showing over $1,000 cheaper than Newfoundland in tuition, these statistics also say that a Quebecer going to Quebec as opposed to a Newfoundlander attending Newfoundland university here in Newfoundland and Labrador, would pay an extra $300 more in Newfoundland and Labrador in additional compulsory fees. Madam Speaker, that would be about $1,300 more for a Newfoundlander and Labradorian to go to school.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: For the fifth time, it's abuse.

MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

MS THISTLE: Madam Speaker, I just cannot sit here and listen to those false statements that the Member for Ferryland is making.

I am sure he was tuned into his radio after I spoke this morning on Open Line. He knows full-well that is incorrect. There are no additional compulsory fees at MUN for $732. They actually total $366, and those fees come from the Federation of Students, Memorial University Student Union, and others. The only fees that are involved are for health and dental plans. Also, $40 goes to the university for operational use of the recreational complex, Field House.

Can you imagine that he is trying to mislead this House by saying all this incorrect information? This was corrected by Memorial University, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Memorial University corrected this at Stats Canada and Memorial University also corrected the media; and that has been done.

Thank you.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I appealed to the Speaker of this House on five occasions, minister, and the Premier (inaudible) this House on one occasion since I started speaking who is violating the rules. They are making ministerial statements - she has the right to do it. I said - and prefaced this by saying at the beginning. I have a document here, I indicated, from Stats Canada. I said this document here list these figures. I said if anybody has figures they can table which refute these, I will accept them. They were downloaded on March 29, three days ago. If this minister could give me a sheet refuting these figures and the sources, and I check them, then I would believe it; but, the minister has not done that. She jumps up, contrary to the rules of democracy in this House, trying to take this House on her back, Madam Speaker. I think something should be done about someone who is trying to take this House on their back and run it on their own with six or seven ministerial statements here today.

I want to add something very important that the minister should know. The years when the biggest tuition drop occurred, what happened? The last two years when we had a 10 per cent drop in tuition each year fees jumped. The fees here in this Province jumped from $120 in 1993-1994 - it went to $200. In 1997-1998 it was $200. Just four years ago it was $200, those exact fees in our Province. In 2001-2002 they jumped to $724, and now $730. They dropped tuition by a few hundred but the compulsory fees went up even more. That is what happened. Giving on one hand and take back more on the other hand. That is the smoke and mirrors game that this government is playing here.

You talk about the Field House. Sure. I am not disputing the merits of it. I am saying a student has to pay it. A student has to pay, I think, $40 a semester. Eighty dollars a year, whether they use it or whether they do not. That is a compulsory fee they have to pay. I would assume student union fees are compulsory. If you do not have a medical plan or opt out - I would assume they are compulsory. I said yesterday I am not sure what is in the compulsory fees. I would think it is medical fees or dental, if you do not opt out. I would assume it is union fees. I would assume Field House. I would assume those costs are in there. I am not saying what they are. I am just asking the minister - if she could table figures that refute these you can go back to the source and say you got the wrong information because these fees went up drastically when tuition went down. They are not giving us the true picture of what is happening.

This minister, over there, is trying to defend an indefensible statement and make a statement that is saying we are the lowest in the country when she knows fully well that a Quebecer can go to university in Quebec for $1,668 in tuition and an average of $400 in other fees. Here in our Province it is $2,600, plus - if you follow this accurate report - another $732 on top of that there. There is a big difference. It is cheaper for a Quebecer to go to university in Quebec - significantly more, over $1,300 by these accounts - than a Newfoundlander and Labradorian to go to university here in this Province.

In this Province - there are many universities in Quebec - usually the geography to go here and the cost from rural Newfoundland are fairly expensive because there are not a huge number of locations, obviously, that you can go. So that is a cost built into the system too. I think we should acknowledge that. The minister should not be up trying to twist a statement that she made.

Let's look at some of the university costs, in case the minister wants to comment on these later on when she gets up to speak on the Budget. We hope she will get up and speak on this Budget when her time is called. I hope she will give me the opportunity for a member's statement as she has made five or six minister's statements during my comments.

The University of Prince Edward Island, academic fees - I cannot even read all the incidental fees because they are sort of blotted out here, but I will stick with the academic fee - about $3,870. Acadia, for example, it says $6,584. Dalhousie from $4,800 to $5,600 range. Mount Saint Vincent, $4,575. They do mention here in the overall reading - I will not go into that - that Nova Scotia's fees are fairly high to attend universities in Nova Scotia. Saint Mary's, $4,685; St. Francis Xavier University, $4,940; Université Sainte-Anne, $4,738; University of the College of Cape Breton, $4,507; University of King's College between $4,865 and $6,175.

I will use Western Ontario as an example, $4,065; Wilfrid Laurier, $4,106; University of Windsor, $4,000; York University, $4,106. Here is another low one, Brandon University, $2,730. In hours prior to this change, in our university here in our Province, it shows the figure of about the same basically. It shows $2,670 compared to $2,700 in Brandon. So Brandon is another particular one which is showing that it is down and their compulsory fees are much cheaper. So Brandon is cheaper too, in addition to all the universities in Quebec.

If you wanted to look at colleges, they do not pay any tuition. Quebecers do not pay any tuition in colleges in Quebec but people going to the College of the North Atlantic and other institutes do pay a fee here in our Province. So, lets compare apples and apples, I say to the minister, because I am comparing apples and apples in this particular case.

If you look at Saskatchewan, most universities in Saskatchewan are down about the mid-threes in tuition. Their fees are all showing as being in the ballpark, but at the lower end of it, a bit less than our Province with compulsory fees. Alberta, slightly higher. At St. Thomas University, it is showing $3,520. Of course, all of Quebec - one thing in common, among all these universities in Quebec is a common theme that they are all $1,668 that is listed here for the universities in Quebec. In Ontario, for example, a lot of universities in Ontario - St. Paul University is $3,116; the Royal Military College of Canada, $1,524.

The University of Victoria, British Columbia, $2,796. Okanagan University College is cheaper than Memorial University, $2,340. The $2,340 at the Okanagan, all these include fees and tuition of $2,340. I cannot figure out - the University of British Columbia shows cheaper here than our Province; and every single university in Quebec for Quebecers is cheaper. That is totally the second largest province of this country with a population in the vicinity of 6 million to 7 million people. It has -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is great news for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is great news for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians when the minister stands and tells us we are the lowest and we are not. That is great news for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, I say to the Government House Leader who is shouting out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Madam Speaker, those people on that side of the House are very, very irritated, I think, today. They are very testy today because they cannot stand the truth. They cannot stand the truth, I say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: They are having a problem to deal with it.

I can tell them they are going to have to deal with a lot more of it, a lot more of the truth, I can tell you, because I intend to address every single critic area of the budget here, if I can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I might get through it, who knows, by this afternoon without interruptions. If I keep getting interruptions who knows when I will finish. Without interruptions, I might add, I may finish up today, but they keep interrupting.

I want to get back to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, there is something, I might add, going to rupture in the next election, I think. Yes, sir. The ballot boxes will be stuffed so much with ballots supporting the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, they will not be able to fit them into the ballot boxes, I say, in the next election.

MS THISTLE: We've got you frazzled.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education hasn't stood up in four or five minutes. I think she must really be feeling she has run out of points of order.

I want to just comment on an article here. There is an article here on provincial analysis. Achieving Excellence, it is called. It goes on to mention that Newfoundland and Labrador's per capita income and labour productivity in 2000 was below the Canadian average but was, we will say, on par with other Atlantic Provinces.

It goes on to mention - and this is interesting here in our Province because if we are going to achieve excellence, if we are going to invest in people, knowledge and opportunity in our Province, we need to invest in people. We need to make an investment in people, in new technology, in skills. Total research and development spending as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product in our Province was below the national average in 1999, with most of the input in R & D from universities and the federal government. Very little driven by the Province here, or by private industry here in our Province. In fact, it says, Newfoundland enjoyed one of the most educated labour forces in the country in 2000. As a result of substantial interprovincial migration to other provinces - you know, we have produced a very well educated and a good workforce here in our Province, but one of the biggest problems dealing with it, and it is cited here in this particular article, too, is that we are not retaining them here to invest and grow the future of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are seeing immigration. Immigration is occurring, to other provinces across the country, and they are also going to other countries, but in particular out of our Province. We have seen a tremendous brain drain, you call it, and that is not healthy for our Province. We have seen that drop now - our Province has gone down to 1.7 per cent of the Canadian population, Madam Speaker. At one point we were, just back in the early 1990s, about 2 per cent of the Canadian population and we have dropped significantly. That is a major drop, from 2 per cent to 1.7 per cent, because that impacts on a lot of areas of programs and services that we obtain.

We had pre-Budget consultation sessions. There is reference made here that construction companies have been turning down work due to lack of labourers. There are few new entrants into many occupations. It has been argued that labour market and career information is to students and job seekers what market research is to business, invaluable.

We have numerous -

MR. E. BYRNE: There was a pre-Budget submission to the Minister of Finance.

MR. SULLIVAN: There was a pre-Budget submission done by the Capital Coast Development Alliance and, in fact, I have a copy. I am sure probably all members got a copy. I remember getting it and going through it, and there are some very interesting points. You do not run government day to day. Most of the success achieved by running government comes through long-term strategic planning, and you have to look at getting an educated workforce; but there is no point in getting an educated workforce and spending millions and millions of dollars to do it if you see them all go out to other provinces, bring their skills and talents there, and cannot be used for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

It says here, an interesting statistic, Madam Speaker, that Newfoundland and Labrador is the least manufacturing intensive province in Canada. The manufacturing sector in this Province accounts for less than 7 per cent. Less than 7 per cent of the GDP in the year 2000 came from the manufacturing sector. The manufacturing sector creates jobs, produces a good or a service, and that is important. That is important because we need to grow as a Province. We need to invest more into that basic level at the manufacturing, at the primary producing level here in our Province.

We have seen that Newfoundland and Labrador's per capita measure of standard of living was $26,210 in 2000. That is 24 per cent lower than the Canadian average.

Labour productivity is a major determinant of a standard of living. Labour productivity in Newfoundland and Labrador was about 13 per cent, Madam Speaker, lower than the national average in 2000. Relative productivity levels in most industries were lower in Newfoundland and Labrador than the Canadian average. However, our primary sector was the second most productive and that is, in particular here, when you look at the primary sector in the Province, after Alberta, it ranks second, and productivity in the utility sector outperformed the Canadian average in this specific area.

It is important. We cannot underestimate the value of research and development because research and development, we need to get a bigger chunk of the pie. Most research and development, as I looked at earlier, filters in through government agencies, particular through the universities involved in that, and any announcement to bring new monies into our Province in research and development will pay long-term dividends.

I was looking, I think, at the America's Cup. The Swiss had their yacht. It was tested here in our Province, to know that here in our Province we are involved in the design. We are involved in design and testing, which is so vital, because we have a lot of expertise here in our Province and many people I know with high skills in areas have left here. They have managed to get short-term work but not sustainable. They have gone to other parts of the country, and to the United States in many cases, and other parts of the world, to bring their skills to those specific areas. It is important that we keep an educated workforce here in our Province.

Fifty-three per cent of Newfoundland and Labrador's small- and medium-sized enterprises, it said, used the Internet in 2000, over 15 per cent below the national average, but I do feel that we are hopefully getting there. Encourage using the Internet. Even in the Budget there was reference to $5 million, I think, under Broadband. That is positive for rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and we need to get that out there. We need high-speed Internet connections. We need to bring businesses to our fingertips, access to markets, access to research and access to information, because we are in a high information technology economy here and there are tremendous jobs to be reaped there.

Data that is available shows that people who participate in the Canadian workforce in job-related training is below the levels in most industrialized countries. That sends a signal. Twenty-one per cent of the Canadian adult population participated in job-related training, and the participation rate here in our Province was 15 per cent. It is important.

Today, it is a lot different than twenty and thirty years ago. When you went to a job twenty, thirty, forty or fifty years ago, you probably carried it out and did that same job maybe for life. Today, people have to be trained, continuous training. Even if you are an automobile mechanic, there are new updates, new equipment; you are updating and training. It is going on in business today. There are seminars and workshops for people who are in the education field. There are training seminars, whether you are an automobile mechanic or whatever you are doing. There is continuous upgrading to be able to compete better in a competitive market and better serve the customer. You have to know the product. You have to know how to service that product and also you have to know how to sell that particular product. So they are all very, very important.

We have had a tremendous amount of immigration from our Province. The slide is still continuing. We certainly hope that it will stop, because we cannot afford to have a continuous erosion of people out of our Province.

You know, people talk about - and it is all under education. I want to make another reference to something in this Budget, two other things mentioned in this Budget. It is cute how people try to word it. You know, if they said: Is the bottle half full or is it half empty? Well, when we look at our Province today, government said here in this Budget document that we are putting - and I say that our Education critic is fully aware. It is saying in this document that there are 218 teachers we are putting into the system in Newfoundland and Labrador next year.

What they do not tell you, what they hide on side two, on the reverse of a news release, they look over on a news release, and look on the reverse side of that - and I have it here, right over on the back, hidden in a news release, on the reverse side of the document that was passed to the media - it states: Had government allowed the teacher allocation model - the Sparkes-Williams report - we would have taken 378 teachers out of the system.

In other words, they are telling us, we put 218 teachers in the system, left them in the system. What they did, they took 160 teachers out of the system. So that is the way you word it. They said: Three hundred and seventy-eight would have gone because of declining enrolments, so we will give you 218 teachers.

Basically, you removed 160 teachers even though the students came out, because obviously if you have a class of twenty-four and you have one teacher, and that class goes up to twenty-five, every class in the Province all went up by one, obviously the same teacher can teach it; or it goes up by two, the same teacher probably, when it gets to twenty-seven. What happens if you took one student out of every class for two years in a roll? Then it goes down, so we are not going to take it out. You did not put it in when it went up. Because there is a certain base you need to operate our system. You have to have certain programs. You have to have a certain basic number of employees, and as you add programs you get economies in numbers as they go up. You should apply them in reverse as the numbers go down. That is what should be applied, not to go out and spread it and say: Look, we will give you 280 new teachers. There are 160 less teachers.

The board in the district I represent, I think, are getting - what? - thirty-eight less teachers.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thirty-six.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thirty-six less teachers. My colleague, the critic in Education, the Member for St. John's East, says thirty-six less teachers under the Avalon East Board in the district I represent. They have to look at what they are going to do, what is going to happen. Are there going to be program cuts? If a student comes out of each class, a student less in this class and that class, what have you got to do? You cannot pull one teacher out of every fifth class and say, this class will have no teacher. What do you have to do? You have to either combine or you have to cut programs. The same thing should be applied, as when we get economies on an upward swing and population, we should apply particular savings back into the system.

We were told, and we all heard it here, a householder went out all over Newfoundland and Labrador, that the savings would be reinvested in education. Savings back into education! Is taking 160 teachers from what we had last year reinvesting savings in education. No. It is syphoning out 160 times the average going salary in that particular item in education. If you take 160 times whatever the average salary is, we are looking at a significant amount of money in the system. A significant amount of money is coming out of the system this year. Several million dollars, basically, that is not going back in on the teachers' salaries item alone.

The Premier, I think, made a commitment earlier, that we are going to put $9 million back into schools. I think it makes reference to secretarial, janitorial, maintenance type services in the schools, because the schools have been cutting corners. They are having to lay people off in the summer and you are laid off over Christmas, and they are cutting back on the cleanliness within the schools. You can only do so much work in a thirty-five or forty-hour week. If you don't get it done, you go home, and that is why things are not getting done, because they are cutting back on that.

There was a commitment to put back $9 million, I think was the figure. What is in this Budget for it? What does it say, $9 million? No. Not $8 million, not $7 million, not $6 million, not $5 million or even $4 or $3 million, Mr. Speaker, but $2.5 million is referenced in this Budget as being put back. It was put in when $9 million, I think, was promised by the Premier. That is not going to cut it. It is $2.5 million better than last year. I know some of that is going to be taken up with other costs, but still it is not what was promised. I didn't see the exact words and script so I won't make it definitive that he said it is going to be - if he gave time lines when he made that, I am not sure. The impression I got - and, as I said, I could be wrong, but my understanding was that he said we were going to get $9 million and we got $2.5 million.

Mr. Speaker, it is not good to make statements and then not follow up on those statements. I would like to just touch on something that the minister made reference to here in responding to questions here in the House, or the Premier did. In fact, the minister stood in this House, back some time last May, and she gave a Ministerial Statement. She stood and applauded, basically, and everybody applauded, how they said our credit rating was increased by Moody's. In fact, in that statement she went on to say that in announcing the upgrade today - this is the statement she used - Moody's noted the Province's strong economic growth, its improved fiscal position, and the resultant improvements in key debt ratios such as debt to GDP. Moody's also pointed - she said also; she pointed to things on the government that we have. She said, our strong economic growth, our improved fiscal position, result in improvement in key debt ratios such as debt to GDP. Then she went on to say, it also pointed 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 she said - also pointed to some stability.

When the minister gave her statement, I just received it, and I am not sure if I had it coming into the House at all, but I had someone go back and see if we could get information. Within minutes after, I was successful in getting information that said - and here is what Moody's said compared to what the minister said. Here is the difference in spin that a Ministerial Statement - I did not get the statement enough to be able to see it and react, time to respond and find out the true information. It said here, the ratings announced today - Moody's said - for Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island reflect primarily a recognition that the federal government's improved fiscal position acknowledged in last week's upgrade of federal debt ratings provides a more stable environment for federal-provincial fiscal transfers. That is what they credit with being the significant factor.

They went on to say within Canada the Atlantic Provinces are the most reliant on federal transfers as a revenue source and they are more susceptible to systemic re-entrenchment in such transfers. They went on to say, today, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island's ratings upgrade reflect in part our assessment that the federal government's stronger position lessens the likelihood of transfer reduction comparable in scope to those imposed in the mid-1990s. It goes on to say, according to a report recently published by the central government, federal cash transfers for the Province will average 6 per cent between 2000-2001 and up to 2005-2006.

That is the reason they gave improved fiscal commitments in a longer term to this Province, not the outstanding economy that the minister stood in this House and tried to spread to the people of the Province. In fact, they went on with a warning. They went on and said, our assessment of the provincial sector now operates in a more stable system of federal support prompts the rating upgrade to A3 for this Province. They said, while Newfoundland's credit rating remains among the least robust of the Canadian provinces, it is important to recognize the now reduced risk to its bond holders. That was not what the minister read and said to people in that particular statement.

It goes on to issue a warning. It says, 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. The use of such measures - this is Moody's - in response to ongoing spending pressures posed by last year's costly salary agreement is unsustainable and severely limits the potential for further credit improvement.

In other words, they are indicating what we are doing here in this Province is unsustainable. One rating said we have increased the rating, basically, because we see stability in federal transfers and a commitment to 2005-2006. That is what is indicated in that statement.

Other people voiced their opinions also. The Bank of Montreal said, "...Newfoundland's population is likely to continue declining over the longer term, due to a falling birth rate and net out-migration from the province." They also went on to say: Despite the supercharged growth that Newfoundland has had, the fiscal position has become more precarious.

In spite of all this growth, our fiscal position has precarious. In spite of all this growth our fiscal position has become more precarious. What did the Premier state? We are better able to pay our mortgage today than we could yesterday. That is what he said, better able to pay our mortgage. Why is the Bank of Montreal economist telling us, only last year, that despite the supercharged growth we are having here the fiscal situation has become more precarious. The Province has incurred increasingly larger debts in each of the past three years and that pattern is expected to continue in this fiscal year just ended, too.

It goes on then to make reference to different transfers and reasons why. I will not go into detail, but I am going to just read from Kenrick Jordan, Senior Economist, the Bank of Montreal, this statement. Mr. Speaker, this statement says, "Clearly, Newfoundland's fiscal situation is a cause for concern and could act as a drag on economic growth. With very high debt levels (estimated at 54.2 % 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. It cannot increase taxes to reduce the deficit and it cannot reduce taxes to stimulate the economy."

It says it is in a very difficult position. That was last year, less than one year ago, several months back, in May of last year, that the Bank of Montreal made reference to what they feel we are in for here in the economy of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at other areas that rate, and look at our economy, just this past year, I did a release back just a few months ago, back in October, and in that I pointed out that this government has dropped from fourth place to eleventh place, dropped to last in the annual Fraser Institute audit of provincial governments' fiscal performance. In fact, the Fraser Institute measured the fiscal conduct of the provinces and the federal government based on twenty performance measures in three general areas. They measured them in spending, they measured them in tax rates, and they measured in revenue. They measured spending, tax rates and revenue, and the other area was in debt and deficit. That was the third category.

On the spending measure, we dropped from sixth place to eleventh place last year. On the tax rates and revenue measures, we ranked seventh. On the debt and deficit measures we had a three place drop from fifth to eighth. That is the largest decline on that measure of any province, all in a period of one year.

On overall performance, this government dropped from fourth in the 2001 index to eleventh place based on the 2002 index. The Institute described the Province's performance as worrisome. Some might say, well, the Fraser Institute. Well, the Fraser Institute ranked us fourth before, and we would gladly jump up and quote the Fraser Institute when it is a positive thing for our Province. If we have to accept the news as being positive by the same Institute, we have to expect it and take it as being negative when they downgrade us and tell us that we are the worst in the country.

This government talks about leading the county in economic growth. I think it is great to be able to lead the country in economic growth, but there is a little more than leading in economic growth. It is by far not the only indicator. In fact, it is not highly effective in certain economies, an indicator of what the growth in our Province is. I will address some of them just a little later. Later on, I want to discuss some aspects of what we should be measuring to get economic growth in our Province.

This overall picture: we have the dubious distinction of ranking last with a score of 36.6 on overall performance, when you look at the big picture. If you just look at some of the other scores, Alberta was 74.2 out of 100. We expect Alberta to be high. Ontario was 65.1. The federal government, 63.6. We would expect some of the more prosperous provinces to be higher up, but let's look at some other provinces in Atlantic Canada compared to where we were.

The overall picture: New Brunswick was 53. Saskatchewan is 53.6. Only two other jurisdictions received scores in excess of (inaudible), Saskatchewan and New Brunswick. Where did Newfoundland show? New Brunswick was 53.0; we were 36.6 on the overall picture. We were the biggest downward mover when you compare the budget performance index on an annual basis in provinces' fiscal performance.

MR. NOEL: What is that you're reading? What are you reading there?

MR. SULLIVAN: I did a news release back in October on it. I am sure the minister, who was asking was it is, can go back and get that on the net under our Web site. I am sure you will get a wealth of information, I tell him, under our Web site there.

Under government spending, for example, the largest deterioration in government spending was experienced by our Province. We dropped five rankings, from sixth to eleventh, in that particular category. When you look under debt and deficit, the largest deterioration was record by our Province. It dropped three rankings from fifth to eighth position and we had the highest drop also.

I am looking forward to seeing this year's index and seeing basically what has happened in our Province in those particular aspects. I think it is important to have an idea where we sit, and, you know, where the people of this Province, if they are aware of what our true fiscal performance is. Are we getting better? Are we getting worse? We have been told in those figures I looked at there, it has been a downhill slide from fourth overall in the country to eleventh. That is not a very interesting figure when we just looked at, this year, to add on top of that we looked at a cash deficit, they are telling us, of $212 million, $213 million. Well, a cash deficit is not the relevant thing.

We have a deficit, on an accrual basis, they are telling us of $666 million. I could not find out from the minister yesterday if that is the true deficit, $666 million, or whether it is higher or lower or what it is. I asked her how were they depreciating our tangible capital assets and the net additions of those capital assets.

We had a net addition of $55 million in capital assets under CRF fund. On top of that, we had another $73 million under other government entities. That is about $129 million, and we showed depreciation on these. A depreciation of $127 million on those; $900,000, basically. Almost the same, and they could not tell us how it was being calculated. So, we had to be doubtful. I am doubtful. I am skeptical. We are getting the truth when you cannot give answers to very important and fundamental questions dealing with the books of our Province. The people of the Province should have the right. There are numerous departments, and I am going to make reference before I get into some of the other areas. No, I will come back to these.

There are a few things I want to talk about. Accountability in this Province. I am sure I would like to get to that, on government accountability. We have seen over the past number of years - the Auditor General of our Province, just October past, tabled his report On the Audit of the Financial Statements of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Just some of the particular statements that the Auditor General made regarding our affairs. The Auditor General indicated, "...that spending within its means and addressing the debt and unfunded pension liability should be a priority for Government." Of course, it should be a priority for government.

He goes on to make another reference and we have repeated it on numerous occasions. Here is an interesting point. He says, "The inconsistent reporting has resulted in much confusion and debate in the past as to what was Government's "real" deficit or surplus in a particular year." He goes on to mention - for example, to put it into perspective - the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the year ended March 31, 2002, projected a deficit of $30.5 million when the actual cash deficit, when you look at the public accounts with accrual basis, that cash budget came in at $47.2 million; but, when you look at the total accrual basis on the Province, with the total accrual budget, it came in as $473.1 million.

So, how do you miss a figure from $30 million to $473 million? It is not possible to determine. The Auditor General said: it is not possible to determine if government is meeting its fiscal plan. We just cannot tell. The figures are not there to be able to show it. If we do not get the figures and the breakdowns on an accrual basis, how are we going to do it? You cannot find out, I guess, from the Comptroller General of the Province who published a report. Here is the question I asked. I would like to know the answer to this: Why were the statements of our Province, the Public Accounts, ready last September but never tabled until November? Why was the true financial picture of this Province held back from its people for two straight months? They should have been released. When they are ready, signed, and dated, and released. In fact, the Auditor General has certified the audit of these and the appropriate letters that are in the front of these shows that. Why wasn't that included?

There are numerous references made here about government's inability to be upfront and to deal with accountability. We have been calling for some time for an appropriate accountability framework. We have seen government taking, at year end, and adjusting Sinking Funds, using money to manipulate on deferred revenues and every other thing. We have seen special warrants become an Order of the Day. Government does not feel they have to bring to this House Supplementary Supply bills anymore. They feel we will do it with a special warrant. We will try the special warrant now and we will spend it.

Many of the funds in special warrants could be very legitimate, but what flies against our right in this House is that we have a right, as elected members in this House, to be able to debate those particular expenditures. We should have an opportunity. We are going to be doing it with estimates this year, but we do not have an opportunity after the fact on special warrants.

This House was opened on March 24 when warrants were tabled here in this House. Eleven million dollars worth of warrants were tabled and expenditures were over and done with and we had no say in having a discussion, a debate, on those particular expenditures.

There are two avenues to deal with those expenditures. If they are an emergency, they must be expended right away. They could be justified under the Financial Administration Act. I asked the question: What about Hope Brook, the $2 million in special warrants for that? Were they out cleaning up that over the winter? What was happening? Why was that so urgent? Did you know in December? Did you know there was going to be an overrun in salaries, for instance, on RNC in December? Why didn't you bring in a Supplementary Supply Bill and we could debate it and say: We need RNC officers? We do not have enough. We need to have people to work overtime, but we do not have enough. We said we could vote on it and pass it as legislators. That is the way the democratic system works.

The democratic system was not designed to deal with - special warrants were designed to allow government, the Cabinet, to make a decision if a disaster occurred. If something happened out in Badger and something had to be done, the flood. You have to move quickly. If the money was not in the budget, you would deal with it. That is important. If there was a forest fire, and your budget is getting near the end and expended, you do not sit back and wait for the House to come together to decide if we are going to get more water bombers or if we are going to bring in extra re-enforcement to assist in that. In my estimation, they are decisions that have to be made and we cannot wait for the Legislature to come and make many of these decisions. But we do, decisions that came through under special warrants. Some of these things are routine, salary payments. Did we know, for example, back when this House was opened that we could be overrunning on our income support? That we needed a warrant to pay income support? We spent more on social services than anticipated.

The minister said, well, I think one of the responses I heard - in fact, I read it in the newspaper after I raised the issue - was that: Well, we thought the situation was going to be better than we anticipated. We didn't think as many people would be on income support. We thought it would decline faster than it did. Therefore, we need the money; which they did. The fiscal year started April 1, did you know that in December when we left this House? When the House was opened, after it prorogued, with the Throne Speech, there was a motion moved here in the House, Bill 1, notice given. Couldn't we have given notice of Supplementary Supply? Couldn't we have brought in a Supplementary Supply bill and debated that at the same time we debated the bill to deal with Interim Supply?

There is another option, if it wasn't so important that you had to push this in. There is another option. That expenditure could have been carried, if it only came up now, into this fiscal year as part of this Budget. You could have looked for a few extra dollars under Interim Supply to allow for those expenditures. That is another option as to how we could have dealt with this, but we didn't. What did we do? We issued a special warrant. We didn't get a chance to debate that here in the House. We unilaterally indicated that, this is it, we are going to spend this and we are not going to give the elected people of the Province the chance to have input and discussion into that particular area. That, to me, is not the way democracy is supposed to function.

I looked at each of these in detail and there are lot of these that I could jump up and support and we would move them expeditiously through the House. It is near the end of the fiscal year and we find out that the money is running out, there is not enough for income support. Who wants to see someone go hungry because the funds ran out and government didn't budget properly? They were overambitious in thinking it was going to be reduced. In other words, the economy or the income support wasn't as good as people thought it would be. The same as we approved Interim Supply here - the minister said they needed to get their cheques in Labrador and other areas. I am not sure if they got their cheques. I understood that they didn't get their cheques yesterday, that they were delayed. Now, I don't know the reasoning behind that, but whether it is behind or whether it moves into a new fiscal year, whether it is applied against the last fiscal year, I don't have that information, I am not privy to that, to draw a proper conclusion there.

We have abused special warrants in the past, by not tabling when we should on certain occasions and by using special warrants when they were not urgent. Special warrants should urgent, that if that money wasn't approved that it could bring harm to our Province as a result. I am not so sure that applies in a lot of these cases that are referenced here. Why do we have to look continuously, year after year, at an Auditor General filing a report - one just filed here this fall - talking about lack of accountability on government? We feel that something should be done about it.

We actually had a news conference and we looked at releasing information on accountability and how we would deal with it. In fact, we indicated, in that news conference, numerous areas that we feel we disagree with. One is that we feel that government has repeatedly manipulated cash transfers. They have over reported revenues, they have underestimated expenses, they want to try and paint a rosy picture. They have taken one-time payments from the federal government in exchange for ongoing maintenance of assets and services. We have taken advances under the Canada Health and Social Transfer and spent it all in one year.

This year we have taken $42.5 million supplementary money under the Canada Health and Social Transfer. Instead of having that over three years, that was intended in three budgets, the next three budgets, they took it all this year, $42.5 million. The remaining two-thirds is $28.3 million, and it should be coming in the next two years, but we took it all this year and now we have to fill that hole next year and the year after on those amounts to make up for that. That is what we mean by manipulating and giving a different picture than is truly represented by our finances.

They have taken, in confiscated cash reserves, in Crown corporations - last year in Labrador Housing, for example, they budgeted for $10 million. They did not take it; they transferred it into this year's revenue. They took the Housing Corporation and the Liquor Corporation, $10 million each. The Gull Island Project another $3 million transferred to this year, $23 million. They took $37 million in sinking funds revenue from last year that they could have used to show a lower bottom line and they transferred it to this year. Sixty million dollars in deferred revenue they transferred into income for this year. They took all this money in one year, of which $28.3 million was due to other years. That is $88.3 million that you are looking at in this Budget here that is shown as revenue this year that should not be attributed to this year.

When you put that on a cash deficit of $212 million, you have a cash deficit of over $300 million. When you look at it on an accrual basis, that means our deficit now on this accrual basis this year should be showing $749 million, almost $750 million, as the accrual basis because of just those little items right there. That is what we mean, and that is why the Auditor General has indicated there is manipulating, basically, to get the results you want.

That is one of the reason back over a year ago, back in February of 2002, our party came forward and put forth a policy on proper accounting and fiscal management in our Province. We have indicated that our party believed that we should adopt - and we said we would adopt - a consolidated accrual accounting in the preparation and reporting of the provincial Budget and Budget documents. We have seen an accrual this year. We called for it over a year. We said, all revenues should be allocated to the period in which they are earned. We said, liability for expenditures will be recognized when the expenditure is incurred, regardless of when the expense is paid. We said, the consolidated budgetary balance will include the financial balance of all government departments and entities that are included in the Consolidated Revenue Fund and taxpayer supported boards, the Crown agencies and entities that are not part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund but they are in some way dependent on government funding.

It would also require, we said, planning and reporting of government departments and agencies. We have gone on to say: We will require these to report with performance plans and objectives they must put to this House of Assembly before the Estimates are put before the House of Assembly. There will be a report back at the end how they achieved these particular objectives, if they fell short or what happened. We want accountability to deal with these particular issues.

There are numerous areas. One particular area of concern, and one that government uses so often - but things are going great, we have a tremendous Gross Domestic Product or GDP. We hear that word, GDP. Now the Gross Domestic Product is widely used as a score card of a government's economic health and its well-being. Now, there are numerous measures that ideally could be used in assessing economic performance. We could look at productivity, as one, to assess economic performance. We could look at indebtedness; that should be a factor. Employment and unemployment rates should be an overall factor. Labour force participation, net migration, income per capita, are all areas that should used in measuring the fiscal performance and how a particular province is doing.

GDP, for example, takes no account of where profits, tax royalties or revenues go. It does not take it into account. When we look at the GDP of our Province, we are taking into account all of these measures. The profits go to multinational oil companies in the United States and parts of Canada and elsewhere. That factors into our GDP. The royalties that get clawed back by Ottawa are factored into our GDP here in our Province and we do not get a true measure of our Province's fiscal performance or its ability to operate. These are some of the areas that cause great concern.

In fact, an economist at Memorial University did an estimate on the White Rose field. He said that basically on the White Rose he estimated - an economist put forward - I think it was for government, I am not sure, the report - that $2.25 billion will accrue to the federal government from the White Rose field and only $269 million to our Province. So, $2.25 billion in the pockets of feds and only $269 million in the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That is about nine times as much money Ottawa will get from the offshore on the White Rose field as our Province will get. I am not sure if it was done for government, I think it was. That was an economist who made that statement.

Basically, the GDP hides the fact that other areas like Canada, the Government of Canada and the United States and companies therein, are walking off with a part of our resources that we, here in this Province, are having factored into our GDP that we do not share in.

Another very important factor in GDP, when you calculate a resource in our Province - if you look at a natural resource, a non-renewable resource, whether it is $5 billion worth of ore in the ground, it is a natural resource and if it is non-renewable, as we deplete that resource we do not account for the fact that there is depreciation occurring on that asset. If we have a $5 billion asset and you take out half a billion dollars worth of it, we should only have $4.5 billion left. There is a depreciation. As time goes on we get a depreciation and it does not factor in.

The calculation of GDP violates this basic accounting principle, that we are not treating the depletion of our natural resources. We are taking it as income rather than depreciation. If it is an income, when it is all gone what do you have left? What you had was an asset, you took all the income out and you have nothing left. A zero asset value left, and where was the basic depreciation? We should be saying there should be a recognition that any non-renewable resource, as it moves towards depletion, should have a factor of depreciation attached to it. That is a basic fundamental principle when you look at valuating and depreciating assets and so on that are used, whether it is in business purposes or whatever. That should be factored in there. That is not being recognized as a part and we are losing tremendous value because of it.

Overall, GDP, it is the very figure that does not take into consideration, either, income distribution. None of the income associated with GDP is factored into that. Where does it go to? For example, look at our Province. There could be distortions in how that income is distributed. For example, most of the income within oil fields that stays in our Province here is distributed within the greater St. John's area. So, the St. John's area has a pump in economic growth because of that. When you look at other parts of our Province that need economic stimulation and growth, the rural areas are not getting that because the income distribution is centred within a specific area of our Province. That is an important factor, I would say.

In fact, The Globe and Mail recently used per capita GDP to suggest that the Newfoundland economy was about to vault from last place to seventh place. If the Newfoundland economy had grown at all since 1995, our per capita GDP, if it never grew at all, would have received a large boost alone from our population decline of 50,000. Can you imagine if our per capita GDP never changed and the population went down? That means our per capita GDP goes up because you divide the GDP by the amount of your population and we are gone up. What does it mean? Is there any new wealth in our Province? No. Far from it. What happened to those people who went out? Skilled people went out elsewhere. We had probably a brain drain, a drain of skills and talents out of our Province and people thought things were going great, and we are looking at per capita GDP. Well, that is a misnomer. It is not indicative and truly representative of the growth of an economy. What is indicative? Well, factors I alluded to. What determines how well an economy is growing? GDP is one factor. Right back from Adam Smith's, The Wealth of Nations, they have looked at Gross Domestic Product as being a factor, but some other key factors should be looked at. For example, productivity. What is our labour productivity? I alluded earlier today to where we are in the Canadian spectrum. I will not get back to that. We have to look at our indebtedness. What impact does our indebtedness have in determining how we are succeeding, our fiscal successes, and where we are? We have to look at employment and unemployment rates as factors. While our employment has been going up to a degree, the unemployment rate hits bumps but it is a bit lower than it used to be. They are factors that should be considered.

Labour force participation is important. Has your labour force grown? Has the per cent of employment gone up because the labour force is contracted? You have to look at those particular areas when you are looking at a statistic. You have to look at net migration. Are we losing people? Are we losing skilful people? Also, the income per capita is important. Where do we rank on income per capita? If our income per capita is increasing, it means there is more money going into the pockets of our people. All of these factors are important.

In other words, are we going to look at and take just the Gross Domestic Product? Is that what they did? It is a misleading impression of economic well-being. That is what it is. Good examples are, if you look at the Republic of Ireland and you look at even in our Province, when you talk about GDP, you talk about the amount of wealth created. How much? Is it $10 billion, $12 billion, $14 billion or $16 billion? It is not just the wealth that is created or the value of those goods and services in your GDP; it is the dispensation of that particular wealth.

In the dispensation of our wealth in our Province, where has most of the growth in our economy come from over the last few years? It has come from the offshore. Where are most of the benefits accruing from that big rise in GDP? It is not the income; dispensation has not been coming solely to our Province. Even in the House of Assembly today there was a question asked: What are we doing to ensure that money associated with offshore is staying here in our Province? In Leatherhead, England, we allowed engineering jobs. We did not fight. That is right, we did not fight. We did not stand up and demand they come here. How do you build an industry when it is in the embryonic stage if you do not fight for every piece of the market?

Big companies out there can take care of themselves. They have big corporate teams. They have skilful lawyers, skilful economists, skilful accountants, skilful people, a skilful business. Big companies are successful.

We, as a Province, have to fight every step of the way to ensure we get the biggest piece of the pie, and if you do not get in on the ground level, sometimes you lose it. That is why we are seeing businesses associated with our natural resources being taken away to Halifax and other parts of this country.

This government has not been assertive enough. They have been too complacent, Mr. Speaker. They have not been active. They have not been fighters. They have been saying: Well, we are going to try to do better. The reason why this other 20 per cent or 40 per cent - it can be done outside the Province, so we are not going to fight to have it done inside the Province because we do not have to have it done. That was the attitude this afternoon in Question Period. The attitude, I say, should be: Why don't we get every single cent of it? Why shouldn't we get it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Why don't we fight for it? That is what we should do. We should demand it.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: I woke the Minister of Mines and Energy. I woke him from his sleep.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) willing to sell (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister's attitude is, because this 20 per cent we were not supposed to get, so we do not want it. Start fighting for it. Start knocking on their door, and do not accept their first response. Don't accept it. Don't take anything for granted.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) that we never got before, and we are going to get extras out of it.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, yes, I have heard it all before.

MR. NOEL: Why don't you come clean with people, instead of getting on with this nonsense all the time?

MR. SULLIVAN: Now I would like to talk about -

MR. NOEL: Saving your goodies. Your leader said he is saving his goodies until the election is called. Foolishness.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Mines and Energy is being disruptive again. He was the last day and had to be told to keep quiet.

MR. SPEAKER (Butler): Order, please!

MR. NOEL: We have to have some new goodies for people, look, new goodies (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I can tell the Minister of Mines and Energy, he would love to get his hands on some of the goodies the PC Party has for the people of this Province. He would love to get his hands on them. That is what he would do. He can't wait.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: You are going to have to wait, I tell the minister. He will have to wait until the Premier has the gall to call an election. That is how long you will have to wait to see them. Then you will be wishing that you never called for it. You will be wishing that you never saw it. That is what I tell the member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister gets so upset; the minister gets so excited. I guess he is kind of worried. The minister is kind of worried, and he has every reason to be worried, I tell him. He has every single reason to be worried because that big blue wave is going to come into St. John's harbour and it is going to wash right up over Pippy Park, I tell him. He will be swept away in it. That is what is going to happen to him. That is what he is worried about. I heard he has ordered a survival suit already.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) me personally.

MR. SULLIVAN: Now, Mr. Speaker, we have another guy over there trying to jump up and shout out. There is a person, yes, who will silence him in due course, I can tell you. He is getting pretty excited out there now, but he will get his due. You reap what you sow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: There is a member over there jumping up and making false statements here in the House.

I would like to talk a little about another area, and that is the area under the Constitution Act of our Province, Article 36(2) of the 1982 Constitution Act.

The member over there for Bay of Islands is getting really excited. Is he getting concerned that he is hearing an overdose of truth here today? Is that his problem, that he is hearing too much truth here today?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: I can tell the hon. Member for Ferryland that, from my past personal experience with you, I will not get the truth from you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. JOYCE: I can tell you, because you have seen it with your own two eyes. You can say what you like. From past personal experiences, you are not the one to be standing up here talking about the truth.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me, and I would ask you to rule on it, that the member obviously was upset and stood on a point of order, made an accusation and imputed motives on another member in this House, which is clearly - it is not my opinion, these are in the Standing Orders - which is clearly unparliamentary.

I would like to ask the member to withdraw that statement.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: I will withdraw, but I will explain what happened. I will ask the Speaker to make the ruling himself.

If a member of this House goes on Open Line and challenges who is paying for my spouse's ticket, when that man, who with his own two eyes saw her ticket by air miles, stands up and makes an accusation, am I making a false statement? I ask the Speaker if that is saying it is not the truth, when he has seen the ticket with his own two eyes and goes on to say, we don't know who is paying for it, if I am saying that it is not the truth when I know it is the truth, then I withdraw.

I can tell you, the statement I just made, that this member made a personal statement, a false statement, against me when - Mr. Speaker, I ask you to make that ruling, please.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has listened to both sides and I am going to rule that there is no point of order. I think it is a difference of opinion between the two hon. members.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I get back to this, I would like to make a statement in this House, that never has that member - in fact he refused to tell me, when I told him what flight I was going on. He said he didn't have it booked and I have never seen it to this day. He knows fully well, on that point there, he is stating something in the House that is absolutely untrue. He knows it. You can look at him, you can see the guilt because he knows it is not true.

I will move on to my Budget debate now. I could tell more if you wanted to, but I don't think it is the place to put the contradictions there. I will deal with that at another time. This is Budget debate time and I will deal with that here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Maybe I will not get back to this issue. I will get back to more interesting things that they might like to comment on.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure, I will get back to a few others.

I think what I will do is have a look at the record of creating employment and the tremendous growth in rural Newfoundland that this government has talked about for the past fourteen years. We have seen an out-migration unprecedented since this government came to power back in 1989. It has been unprecedented in our history. I will mention some stats here.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) Bull Arm is coming up in the next few days.

MR. SULLIVAN: I can tell the Minister of Mines and Energy who is shouting there that, "A government who robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." George Bernard Shaw made that statement, I can tell him.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) said robbing, Mr. Speaker, he is not allowed to do that.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, if you cannot quote George Bernard Shaw, in this modern day society, I think that is a sad state. The minister does not like to hear from a great literary figure, George Bernard Shaw. Maybe I will quote from a politician. Maybe I will quote from Will Rogers. He might like a quote from Will Rogers. He said, "I don't make jokes-- I just watch the government and report the facts." That is what Will Rogers said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Or Mark Twain, maybe he does not want us to refer to Mark Twain. Mark Twain said: no man's life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session. That is what Mark Twain said. Maybe that fits him. Even better, I will give you one more, Ronald Reagan. He said: the government is like a baby's elementary canal with a happy appetite on one end and no responsibility at the other. That is what Ronald Reagan said. That has a lot to do - and the minister is still wondering what end she is dealing with. She does not know.

I think, Mr. Speaker, we have seen a tremendous net out-migration or immigration from this Province over the past number of years. If you go back to - there was a net loss in 1995-1996 - and these figures, I might add, are coming from official figures too, just like the official sources I quoted today to the Minister of Youth and Post-Secondary Education. I quoted my sources where my figures are, unlike the minister who could not quote any, other than try to throw out information to try to put the facts in proper light. Facts always should stay and sit in a proper light because that is where they lie.

In 1995-1996 there was a net out-migration of 7,436 in our Province. In 1996-1997, 8,130 people in net out-migration; 9,490 in 1997-1998; 5,695 in 1998-1999; 4,263; then 3,541. In a period of just six years we saw 38,559 people less in our Province when you subtract the in and out on a migration basis. That is a significant decline. That is not a mark of success, I can tell you, of a government in looking after this Province. The telling tale is, where did these losses come from? The drops of 15 per cent or greater. Here are some towns -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: The Member for Topsail will find out all about the Marshall plan, I will tell him. He will find out all about it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island will find out about the Whelan plan, just like he found out about the French plan in Conception Bay South, I can tell you. If you want to find out plans, call an election. Eleven less members than you had in the House in the last election. Eleven less members than you had.

MR. NOEL: Eleven less?

MR. SULLIVAN: That's right, from thirty-eight to twenty-seven. Call an election and you will find out what plans we have for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: That is why, Mr. Speaker, they get so disappointed, they get so distraught, they get so carried away, because they have no solutions. They have no solutions for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. People are tired of no solutions. Tired of the same old faces out there, the same problems with no solutions. That is what they are doing. That is what is there.

MR. NOEL: What are your solutions? Tell us your solutions (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The Member for Virginia Waters there, the Minister of Mines and Energy is looking for our plan. Look at the government legislation action in the last year or two. You have seen just the tip of the iceberg of our plans, I can tell you. You will see much more, I can tell you. However distraught you are now, I can tell you, you will be a lot more distraught when you see what we have in store for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I can tell you -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, they will not. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador will have a chance to render their judgement when the Premier, who believes in four-year terms, calls one in four-and-a-half or almost five years. When the Premier who believes in smaller numbers of ministers puts the amount in place that he believes in. How can the people of Newfoundland and Labrador trust somebody when they tell you one thing and they do something different? They tell you they want four-year terms and they want to give you five-year terms. They tell you they want a Cabinet one-third of the size of the Legislature, sixteen, and they give you 20 per cent more. How can you trust somebody who tells you one thing and does something different? You expect the people to go out and say trust me, after the election I will do what I said. After the election, if you had twenty-four members you would have twenty-four in Cabinet, I say, because the direction is going up with the number of Cabinet ministers in this government.

The very first thing I heard him say when he ran for the leadership was that he would reduce the size of Cabinet. Reduce the size of Cabinet. The very first thing he did when he formed his government and formed his Cabinet, what did he have? He had an increase in the size of his Cabinet. He started off on the wrong foot. You can ask Johnny Efford that. He will tell you he started off on the wrong foot. That is why a lot of these people -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Madam Speaker, if you look at communities like Change Islands, they had 21.7 per cent decline in that period; Burgeo 15.1; Buchans, a 17 per cent decline; Gaultois, 24 per cent; Lamaline, 21.4 per cent; Hampden, 16.4 per cent; Ming's Bight, 18.9 per cent; Rose Blanche, 17.9 per cent. These figures here are telling tales of an out-migration. I think, as the Leader said here, they asked one person what image comes to mind on rural Newfoundland that has been created. The Leader of the Opposition said: a U-Haul is an appropriate picture to depict what happened in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Northern Peninsula; I have seen on TV, up in The Straits & White Bay North, I have seen stories carried on television last year and the year before of people moving out, families moving out. There are numerous others. If you look at the Town of Trepassey, 18 per cent; Westport, 24.5 per cent; Seal Cove and White Bay, 25.5 per cent; Rushoon,18.2 per cent; St. Mary's,18.2 per cent - huge figures. Can you imagine a community losing, in that period of time, 40 per cent? Take Trepassey, a community that lost 40 per cent of its population in ten years.

There are bigger communities in this Province that have significant declines in population. In Madam Speaker's own town, in Marystown, we have seen increases that have been significant, between a 10 per cent and 15 per cent decline in the population in that period, in her very own town, in Marystown. People have to leave to search for work all over the United States and elsewhere. Hopefully, we will see an opportunity for people to come back again and get employed here in our Province.

We have seen large areas that have lost people. Baie Verte, for example, 10 per cent to 15 per cent of its population - my colleague from Baie Verte, in his district. Even the Premier's district, Botwood, has similar losses; and Bonavista, and Catalina, and Centreville, and Port aux Basques, all in that range of declining population. There is Gambo, Grand Bank and Harbour Main, Hare Bay and Lewisporte, Norman's Cove and Placentia, towns that are losing population, losing young people. Families are moving away in search of jobs in other parts of the country. What does this government do? It tries to defend a record of inaction, a record of one government failure after another, that has failed to care and fight and protect jobs here for people in our Province. That is what they are doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, if the minister wants some other figures, a little community of St. Shotts - my colleague's District of Placentia & St. Mary's - a 31.1 per cent drop. We have seen in a community of Aquaforte in my district, 22.7 per cent. All over the Province there has been a tremendous reduction.

We have seen some change in a few urban areas. In fact, in Paradise, for example, in that same period we saw a 17.1 per cent increase because that is a growing town there. It is a growing town in Paradise, new people moving in.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen huge drops. We have seen in North River, a 12.4 per cent drop. Ramea lost 30.2 per cent of its population in a five year period. They are figures that do not lie. There are the census, the official figures, I might add, that we are finding. That is why they are so upset over there. That is why they are shouting and making noise over there, because they do not want to see their print on a record for rural Newfoundland and Labrador that has been a record of dismal failure. Rural Newfoundland and Labrador has not been served well by this government. Rural Newfoundland and Labrador is a lot worse off today than it was before this government came to power.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: My colleague for The Straits & White Bay North asked today: What is this government doing to prepare? We knew there were changes in crab stocks. We knew, recruitment rates and so on, there were problems. We have been asking questions continuously, and the former critic and other critics -

MR. REID: What did you do about it? (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Here is the former Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture: What did he do about it? What did the current minister do about it? They are waiting for the federal government to do something. You have to prepare for an eventuality. We have to be more vocal. We have to take on the federal government. Get more active. You jump up and run when the port is changed in Stephenville, after the fact. Does everything after the fact, because of your relationship. Even if you tried, I do not think you could do it if you tried, because you have soured the relationship with the federal government. You have soured it.

The Premier goes up to the same meeting as the Prime Minister, and comes back and tells us we are going to get a break. Now there is going to be change on equalization. The Prime Minister says: No. He has come back and he is the only one who drew that impression. Look, they do not have the respect in Ottawa for the Administration.

Gerry Byrne listened to a Throne Speech and he heard for the first time, a joint federal-provincial committee. In the Throne Speech, our federal member. We should be sitting down speaking with him, encouraging and discussing it. What was this? That is what it was, a lack of consultation with our federal counterparts.

AN HON. MEMBER: They should be (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: They should.

They have lost their ability to be able to achieve things for our Province because they do not have any clout in Ottawa. They have no clout in Ottawa, and the government in Ottawa has not been kind to this Province.

We have seen the Canada Health and Social Transfer change when it was a need basis in this Province to a complete per capita basis. We have heard this government say nothing. When Brian Tobin was sitting in Ottawa at the time, they cut it and they went to a per capita basis, and our per capita has gone down significantly. We, at one time, received $443 million and it went to an all-time low of $272 million under a government that slashed, slashed and slashed. We have the record. The Budget figures show it. You can pick it up and look at successive Budgets, public accounts of what we received each year. It is there in the public record for all to see. That is what happened under a federal regime. What do we expect to get now under one that cannot even co-operate and deal with the federal government? What do you expect we are going to get? We are not even getting the time of day. We cannot even get them to agree on what was said at a meeting, not to say trying to strike a deal for us here in our Province.

All the federal minister got was a better presentation in a rural community from Labrador, they said, than they got for the minister here, a little power point presentation. That was the federal member who said that last year.

There are some of the things happening. There is a lack of drive, there is a lack of desire, and there is a lack of will to run this Province and get the best result for our Province. When you no longer have that desire, when you no longer have that, you throw in the towel and let somebody else do it. There is a time comes when you lack that, when it is time to throw in your jersey and say: Let someone else do the job. Wayne Gretsky knew when to get out. He got out when he was on top, because Wayne Gretsky knew the time was coming when he could no longer do the job, and he wanted to go out with a bit of dignity.

I would say to this government here: If you are so proud of your record, if you think your record is so fantastic, you put your record on the line to the people of the Province and I will accept the results of the people of this Province, whatever they may be. I accepted the results -

MR. NOEL: You have no choice. (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, you have. You can quit. You can go. You have choices.

I will accept them and I will abide by them and respect the right of the people.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) cannot come in here.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Mines and Energy, I will tell him -

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I will tell him that the people are always right. In a democracy, they are always right, I might add. They are never wrong in a democracy, I can tell you. They are always right.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will tell you what Edward Langley said.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Here is what Edward Langley said, "What this country needs are more unemployed politicians." That is what he said.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was speaking, before I was getting interrupted continuously, about rural Newfoundland and the dismal record of this government to deal with rural Newfoundland. The tremendous out-migration we have seen, the statistics here are really scary. Numerous areas, larger towns, smaller towns in this Province, all over rural Newfoundland, we are seeing a decimation of the rural way of life. We are seeing a collapse of the fisheries and we are seeing a lack of initiatives by this government to help maintain rural Newfoundland in this Province. We have seen a complete loss. Communities: Milltown, head of Bay d'Espoir, 21.4 per cent. I mentioned Burgeo, 15.1 per cent lost; Cape St. George, 15.4 per cent; Lourdes, 14.2 per cent; Port au Port West, with 2 per cent; and Felix Cove, 15.2 per cent lost. They are some of the statistics, some of the things that we are finding with out-migration here in our Province. We are finding, Mr. Speaker, that rural Newfoundland and Labrador has lost immensely. There is a -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: There is a reference here, Mr. Speaker: Where the jobs are for many, go west still the best advice. This was an article that appeared, I think, in The Globe and Mail, and it makes reference to Trepassey. It says: There are six pupils in the Kindergarten class at Holy Redeemer Elementary School. The school will close at the end of the year and 100 students will be moved to the local school. It said: At one time, the dropout rate was 50 per cent. Now it is almost zero. It made reference to people who go back and how one of the most prosperous towns in this Province, a town in this Province that employed 650 people in one business in a town that had just 1500 people. The whole area was employed, the surrounding areas. They came from White Bay, they came from other parts of the Province and settled there to help sustain and live in the community, to raise their children there. Many of them live there today. They came here in the hope of getting steady work, work that is not available today. We have looked at -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I listened, Mr. Speaker, to an interview with a prominent individual economist some time ago. He described Newfoundland's decline as a vicious cycle, and he said: The people we are losing are the young and the brightest, and they are lost as potential parents here in our Province. He went on to say: It is significant. He said: The more population you have, it impacts on equalization; increased numbers, you get equalization per capita. This economist said: There are two reasons why equalization falls. One is, a smaller population, we get smaller entitlements and, on top of that, he indicated the smaller population implies that the per capita returns (inaudible), we can pay more of our way. There is really a double whammy because of that. There is a cycle that ongoing, a vicious cycle, that drives downward and it even affects transfer payments that are needed to bridge the gap until our economies can get moving. This economist said: The brightest and the best. Wade Locke was the economist. I referred to his public statement. He was interviewed on radio. He said: They are leaving. The people who are in the position to come up with new ideas and energy and ideals and put them into action are the ones going elsewhere. They are the ones who add to the productive capacity of the economy. We are losing people who are adding to the productive capacity of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, there are many people coming out of school today and they do not want to accept a seasonal job, whether it is to get 400, 500 or 600 hours of work. They cannot live or raise a family. They cannot meet the basic needs and expectations they want by doing that. So what they do, they leave the Province. They want to get more continuous work. When many leave the Province, and are gone for a period of time, they settle in there, get married, have children and many of them never come back again. That new province becomes their home. As they raise their children there, they grew up in that home and they are staying and they are not coming back. Some of these have been the most productive people that we have seen.

When we look at our Province and we look at equalization, I feel the federal government is violating article 36(2) of our Constitution Act. It says, "Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation." Well, we have one of the most highest taxed in the country and we have levels of services that are considerably below others in the country. I am indicated that we are - I did a news release, actually, on this. I have done numerous news releases dealing with this topic back over the past year or so. I have indicated that I feel they are not living up to their commitment. We should be able to live in a country, under this article of the Constitution Act, having comparable levels of taxation and reasonably expect to get comparable levels of services.

Why is the waiting list for medical services in our Province so far behind others? Why do you wait in this Province weeks and weeks to get emergency diagnostic services? Why do you wait to get scans, MRIs? Even emergency ones are not getting done immediately. Why, even with ones that are urgent, do you have to wait long periods of time? Why is the waiting list longer?

Why did a young woman from Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove, who couldn't get a mammogram and had to wait for over a year, in excess of a year, leave and go to Ontario, to a relative, an in-law, and within five days there got a mammogram in a little rural community with 8,000 or 9,000 people. We don't get the access. So, if we are not getting reasonable levels of public services, with reasonable levels of taxation, that has to he addressed under equalization if we are going to keep this country together.

Ralph Klein said he is not going to use the separatist agenda to get more for Alberta. Well, Quebec has used that theme for some time. We know they have been very successful. Quebec has been very successful, as a Province, in using the separatist theme to squeeze more and more out of the Country of Canada. We have seen tremendous input of public dollars, billions, go into Bombardier and other companies within Quebec. Still this government won't even go, as a partner, and look at a means of guarantees to help develop the Lower Churchill. They can give other corporations in the billions of dollars to stimulate the economy. There is one simple reason for that. It is because we only have seven seats and Quebec has seventy-five seats in the Government of Canada, or it did have before the redistribution. That is the main reason why. Do you feel part of a country? Do you feel that you are a recognized and wanted participant in the Canadian Federation, when you cannot get the same access to those services that other people are getting in other parts of the country?

Equalization was supposed to solve that. The Canada Health and Social Transfer was supposed to address some of that. Under that social transfer we were supposed to get 50 per cent return on money spent in income support and social services, as it was called then. That went out the door, under the Liberal government of this Province and the Liberal Government of Canada who scrapped it. We were getting back money based on need in other areas, in health care. Now, we are getting it on a per capita and it is a declining per capita. We are getting squeezed and squeezed further, further and further. That is what is happening here in our Province.

Are we equal partners? Do we feel that we have gotten a fair shake here from this government? No. Why does this government, in an election, the last federal election, come out and say, we are going to lift the cap on equalization? Right now there is a cap on equalization instituted twenty years ago, or twenty-one almost. That cap limits the ability of the government to use equalization to fully equalize within that formula. What happened then? It does not fully equalize. There is a cap. When it was lifted, in the last federal election it was lifted and we got $38 million in revenue by just lifting the cap for that year alone. Now our Province, the Premier goes out and the federal government states - the federal government goes out and says that we cannot change equalization until 2004; we are going to go back and discuss it.

I can tell you, the cap was lifted in the last federal election for one year and put back on. They had legislation and lifted the cap in one year and put it back without even unilateral support of provinces. They did not have it. If you could lift it then, why haven't you lifted it in 1995, 1996, 2000 and today? You are not allowing a full fiscal equalization in line with the limits set down and that is violating Article 36(2) of our Constitution and it is contravention of the ability of our Province to be able to maintain comparable services at comparable levels of taxation. It is affecting it. That does not need provincial consent, to lift the cap. It was put on unilaterally by the federal government and it should be taken off unilaterally by the federal government. It should not be there.

Another aspect of equalization: equalization is guaranteed within the Constitution. Under that, at one point in time there were provinces dropped from it. We now have a five-province formula. Five provinces are factored into the equalization pot. They are, I believe, British Columbia, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Quebec. They are the five. The Atlantic Provinces, lower scale Alberta, are left out of that particular pot. There are five used in measuring the levels of contributions, the standards that are applied. In that, there was always, basically, Ontario and B.C. had generally been - contributors are not net recipients.

British Columbia, last year, moved to be a recipient of equalization, which meant there is only one in that formula now that has an economy that is not a net recipient. That distorts the picture. That does not allow proper equalization.

What is truer than allowing the economies of all ten provinces to go into a ten-province standard? We should have Alberta in there, we should have all four Atlantic Provinces in there, and the ten-province formula should be applied. Why isn't it applied?

We have seen changes -

MR. NOEL: Because we do not have enough influence with the federal government to (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Mines and Energy said, because we do not have enough influence with the federal government. That is what he said. He is admitting that we have accepted failure. He has admitted that we are accepting that because we do not have influence. Well, I say, stand up and create a stir. Stand up and -

MR. NOEL: Why are you trying to twist everything?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am just quoting the minister. If anyone does not believe what he said, for the record, read Hansard tomorrow or check on the Net and you will hear what he said. Those are the true words. Let everyone draw their own conclusion to what you said.

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, what I was pointing out to the hon. member is that the way Canada is organized, our Province does not have enough influence in the way the federal government operates. That is the reason, Mr. Speaker, that we have appointed a Royal Commission to find new ways to get more influence for our Province in the Government of Canada. Changes such as getting an effective Senate for the country, and things like that. That is what we are working on, Mr. Speaker, to try to ensure that we have more say in how this country operates.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is pretty clear what he said. He can try to wiggle out of it, and put his own slant. Everybody can draw their own on what he said. He has admitted that we do not have enough clout with Ottawa to do it, just like our leader has been saying. You lost favour with the federal government. You are fighting with Gerry Byrne, you are fighting with John Efford. You are fighting with everybody out there who represents the Province here, in there, and you cannot agree so you are not getting the ear of the federal government. They are not listening to it. That is why. That is why it is happening in this Province, and he might as well admit it. He is lost. They have lost their ability to have an influence with Ottawa, and that is pretty sad. When that happens, it is time to look for a change. It is time to look for a change. All we have is promises, commitments. We are going to do this; we are going to fight for this. That is all we are indicating. I have gone through dozens and dozens of issues on releases.

Mr. Speaker, there was a proposal to remove non-renewable natural resource revenues from determination of equalization payments. That was, I think, a Senate Committee, a recommendation here. It says: During the Senate National Finance Committee hearings on equalization, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador argued that revenues they earned from non-renewable natural resources should be excluded in determination of the equalization, basically.

It goes on to say: A recommendation asked that the federal government - even the Senate Committee, too, and I just made reference to it - they have asked that we return to a ten-province standard in determining equalization entitlements. The five-province standard is there now.

It does list the provinces here, and the ones I referred to already, and they estimate - here is what the Department of Finance estimates, Mr. Speaker, just to show how important it is. The federal Department of Finance said that a ten-province standard would have provided an additional $14.4 billion during the fiscal years 1994-1995 to 2001-2002. They said, in the case of Newfoundland and Labrador, if they had to apply that ten-province standard, here is what we would have gotten in equalization. It says, $626 million in the case of Newfoundland and Labrador and, in the case of Nova Scotia, they would have gotten $1.1 billion extra, had the ten province standard been applied during those years 1994-1995 to 2001-2002. So over that seven-year period, we would have had $626 million extra. That is a lot of money. Six hundred and twenty-six million dollars could do a lot of things here in Newfoundland and Labrador. It could have paved a lot of roads. It could fix a lot of potholes, I can tell you. They could put in pavement where they have only seen dirt roads. My colleague alluded to here in the House today from Bonavista South, and my colleague from out in Baie Verte, has talked about dirt roads galore. Six hundred and twenty-six million could do a lot. It could certainly complete the Trans-Labrador Highway. It could have been enough money to properly maintain the highway and maintain roads across our Province. That is what would have happened had we done what was right and had we not reverted back to an archaic formula for determining equalization that does an injustice to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what is wrong with this.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Virginia Waters has been on so many sides of the fence, I did not think there were that many sides to the fence. He stood up and opposed the government in one case, then he becomes a minister and he supports it. He jumps all of the place, I might add. We do not know where he is from one day to the next. We do not even know where he is.

I want to reiterate several things. There are several things mentioned here in those Budget notes by each department, and I want to get back to this particular one I made at the beginning of my comments today. In concluding today, in the next few minutes, I am going to mention a couple of other things I said at the outset of this afternoon. It depends, Mr. Speaker, what way you look at things. It depends on how you look at it. Last year, in this Province, we had a significant number of teachers in this Province -

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It is kind of difficult there with the Minister of Education. I am trying to make a point on education but he keeps trying to interrupt, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

The point I am trying to make is that they tried to put the positive spin on things in this Budget. I exposed yesterday how there are only going to be six additional RNC officers. I have indicated today and yesterday the truth in basic tuition, how they are wrong. It is not the lowest.

What a spin they put on teachers, I would say. What a spin! There are 376 teachers, they said, that would be gone. We are going to put back 218. What they could have said was: There will be 160 less teaching positions in Newfoundland and Labrador today, as a result of this budget, than there was yesterday.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: There are 160, and I will repeat that, Mr. Speaker. There is going to be 160 less teachers in Newfoundland and Labrador to teach kids next year than there were this year.

In the district I represent, and my colleague, the education critic from St. John's East, confirmed that there are thirty-six of these positions coming out of that area that takes in all the way from Trepassey, St. Shotts, we will say at the southern tip of the Avalon, into Bell Island and out into Conception Bay, in a part of Conception Bay and all over that area under the Avalon East Board. Other boards in the Province are losing the same amount.

I just want to mention one final thing before I adjourn debate. One final thing is that the Premier had promised there would be $9 million put into extra support so we can have cleaner schools for our children to go to school in. Did we get $9 million? No, $2.5 million on a $9 million commitment. Then we kept out promise. A promise made is a promise kept. Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. I do not believe one thing this government says. I would have to read it. I want to see it in print. I want to research it and check it to make sure it is true because I am too long looking at distortions of figures, manipulation of monies and everything else that has gone on here in our Province. They would make anybody skeptical about politics. No wonder the public are skeptical, Mr. Speaker.

With that I adjourn debate for today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, a couple of announcements before I move adjournment. I just want to remind hon. members again about our arrangement tomorrow. The House will convene from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. tomorrow and our business will be a bit of a combination. We will be doing the private member's resolution, the Member for Gander. Also, we will be looking at the Estimates, the Executive Council.

Mr. Speaker, the Government Services Committee will meet in the House this evening at 7:00 p.m. to review the Estimates of the Department of Government Services and Lands.

I move that the House on its rising adjourn, and that the House do now adjourn.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 11:00 a.m.