The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin today I would like to welcome to the Assembly forty-six

Grade 9 students from St. Kevin's High School in the Goulds; students are from the districts of Kilbride and Ferryland. They are accompanied by their teachers, Cathy Adams and Craig Halliday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Sunday, March 31, the Corner Brook Royals defeated the Flatrock Flyers in Game Five of the best of five series by a score of 5 to 4 to win the Herder Memorial Trophy emblematic of senior hockey supremacy in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: This was the Royals 10^th Herder win since the trophy was established in 1935, but only its first since 1988.

Much to the delight of over 500 fans who accompanied the team into St. John's and after trailing for much of the third period, the Royals', Steve North, using his great speed and superior stick-handling ability, dismantled the Flyers' defense and scored the winning goal with only just two minutes and 30 second left in the game.

While Flatrock pressed for the equalizer in the dying seconds of the third period, the Royal's magnificent goaltender, Kirk Stoyles, shook off a bad case of the Flatrock flu and turned aside all comers to preserve the Royal's win.

To show their appreciation to the many loyal fans, the Royals' held a Fan Appreciation Day on Saturday past that included a three hour autograph and get-to-know-the-team session at the Corner Brook Plaza.

Fans, young and old alike, turned out in huge numbers and were later led by the Royals with the coveted Herder Memorial Trophy through the streets of Corner Brook in one of the largest motorcades ever seen in the city.

Later that night the Royals had a party for its adult fans and sponsors at the Canada Games Center. As part of the evening's celebrations, team photos were given to the sponsors and some lucky fans received Royals' jerseys in a draw that saw individual team members take off their Jersey and give them to the lucky winners.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MERCER: The party, I was told, continued into the wee hours of the morning.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MERCER: All in all, Saturday was a class act by a class team and just as the Deer Lake Red Wings proved in 2001, the Corner Brook Royals again proved in 2002 that, in hockey, as in so many other things, the West Coast is indeed the best coast.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is not much I can add to the comments of the hon. Member for Humber East, but I certainly join with him in congratulating the Corner Brook Royals. I find it strange myself, of course, having cheered for the Capitals for many years and gone into Corner Brook and got pounded from time to time as a player, a coach, and has an organizer. Then, of course, I used to be an old Detroit Red Wings fan too, and when Toronto came to the Province I changed my colors from red to blue. Of course I changed from the Caps to the blue Royals, and I find it much easier to cheer for a blue team, I must say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: I join in congratulating the Royals.

On a more serious note, Mr. Speaker, if I could take the remainder of my time to pay tribute to Mag Davis, a renowned provincial athlete, who passed away last week. I think the greatest tribute that was paid to Mag - and that is the way I will refer to her - is that she has been termed by the St. John's media and indeed, the Newfoundland and Labrador media, as the finest athlete in the Province, male or female. That is quite a statement. I say that (inaudible) any indifference to any other athletes around this Province, but Mag was a true competitor. She played squash, field hockey, ice hockey, softball, soccer and golf. She played all of them exceptionally well. She played on at least thirty provincial teams, her family tells me. She was a fierce competitor. Pat Kelly, at the wake on Friday in Placentia, described her as fierce. For a woman athlete, that is a great tribute. She was a fierce competitor. When she was there she came to play, she came to win. I must say, I have the greatest respect and admiration for her. She competed at the highest levels in all sports. She was a silver world medalist and also, of course, as an all-star (inaudible) all around.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WILLIAMS: If I could just have a moment to conclude?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. WILLIAMS: I did actually say to my daughter Katie, who had the privilege of competing against her in golf just two seasons ago - she went out to compete against Mag - I said: Katie, just watch her, just enjoy the moment. The chance to be on a course, to be on a field, to be on a team, to be anywhere with Mag Davis is an experience you should truly enjoy and nurture because you can learn so much from her. She is truly a role model for athletes all around the Province, and I pay tribute to her today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am honoured to stand and wish Happy Anniversary to Chesley and Muriel Earle of Shearstown today, April 15, 2002.

Mr. and Mrs. Earle both enjoy good health and enjoy taking part in many activities. Mrs. Earle attends church regularly, while Mr. Earle, who is ninety-two years of age, can be seen every day outside fencing or doing his regular spring cleanup. A wonderful couple, proud of their past and admired by all of the community.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me, along with their family and friends, in wishing Chesley and Muriel Earle a happy 69^th Wedding Anniversary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on the evening of March 22, Folk of the Sea performed as part of the Winterfest celebrations at Harriot Curtis Collegiate in St. Anthony. Folk of the Sea was formed eight years ago and held its first performance at the St. John's Arts and Culture Centre, I believe, April 13, 1994. Since then, Folk of the Sea has played at sold out venues from St. Augustine's High in Plum Point to the concert venue of the country, Roy Thomson Hall in Toronto. Along the way, Folk of the Sea has delivered a powerful message, the story of the fishery, and has proudly displayed our culture, our heritage and our aspirations.

Mr. Speaker, while the message of Folk of the Sea is important, there is a bigger reason for its continued existence, and today as fishing vessels and their crews prepare for another season it is one worth noting. The fishing industry has long been and continues to be recognized as the most dangerous occupation in Canada. Every year there are more people, per capita, injured and killed on the job, in the fishery, than in any other occupation. In the late 1980s and early 1990s this Province alone lost on average eleven fishermen to the sea each year. Today, I believe the average is six per year.

Mr. Speaker, many of us know the names. From the District of Port au Port: Ricky Fitzpatrick and Richard Denis. From the District of St. Barbe: Curling Baines and the crew of the Myers III. From my own district: Gerald and Roy Adey. From Twillingate-Fogo: Gary Troake; and from the District of Ferryland: Paddy Coady and the crew of the Patrick and Elizabeth. That is just to name a few.

Mr. Speaker, while you can go to Gloucester, Massachusetts -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the member's time is up.

MR. TAYLOR: By leave.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, while you can go to Gloucester, Massachusetts, and find the names of over 300 Newfoundland fishermen on a monument to those who were lost over the years on Gloucester schooners, you will find no such monument in this Province to the people who died in pursuit of the industry that has been our reason for being. That, Mr. Speaker, is a tragedy almost as bad as the loss of those lives and what, more than anything, now keeps Folk of the Sea going: the desire to one day see an appropriate monument to those who have lost their lives in the pursuit of the fishery.

Mr. Speaker, to that end, I would like to acknowledge the members of Folk of the Sea for their perseverance and to acknowledge and thank Persona Communications and the Newfoundland and Labrador less than 65 foot shrimp fleet for the substantial financial contributions they have made to assist in the establishment of a monument.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a dangerous occupation, the fishery. Every day individual vessels handle miles of ropes that can easily take you overboard. Straining cables and chains are commonplace and there are many cases that many of us have seen where stabilizers, spars and wheelhouse windows have given out in heavy seas.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask all members to join me in wishing the fishermen and fisherwomen of this Province a bountiful harvest this year and offer a word of prayer for their safe return from each and every trip.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay respects to the late John Pike of Harbour Grace, who died on March 19, 2002 at the age of fifty-eight. Mr. Pike was an active member of the community in Harbour Grace, serving on the Volunteer Fire Brigade, the town council, as well as numerous other volunteer services.

Mr. Pike was an avid member of the Fire Brigade which he joined in 1974. He held the positions of crew chief, secretary, treasurer, assistant chief, and in 1981 he was elected Fire Chief. He held that position until 1986. Mr. Pike was involved in the running of the Brigade's Hydrant Club and served as treasurer, secretary, and brigade auditor. At the time of his death, he was serving as secretary of the board of directors on the Scholarship Committee and as chairman of the Brigade's "Top of the Ladder Club", a position he held since the club was formed in 1996.

Mr. Pike was also a dedicated member of the Harbour Grace Town Council and was first elected in a 1992 by-election and served until September, 2001.

Mr. Pike's expertise in both the Brigade as well as the town council was utilized by the members of both organizations. His abundant help and advice were only a phone call away. Having held every executive position in the Brigade, Mr. Pike was a great source of knowledge and experience and was called upon many times for guidance. His dedication has been proven many times and is evident in one of the final requests that donations in his memory be made to the Brigade's Scholarship Fund.

At the funeral service, Mr. Pike's wife, Betty, and his family were presented with the Brigade's Ceremonial Helmet and the Last Alarm was tolled three times as a final farewell to the former Chief.

I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join me in and pay tribute to Mr. Pike and also in sending our condolences to his family.

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.

Mr. Speaker, last week I had a very interesting telephone call from a constituent of mine who has a nephew serving in the War Against Terrorism over in Afghanistan. She talked about her nephew as well as the other Canadians and Newfoundlanders over there taking part in this wartorn country, and the dedicated services they are providing to not only Newfoundlanders and Canadians but to all the world. She talked about soldiers going out and entering caves. She talked about going out and being out in the desert for weeks at a time. She talked about the highlight of the soldiers returning to base camp. She talked about the highlight they would have when mail day arrived.

Apparently, first when this war started, mail would come every week. Now it comes approximately every two weeks. She asked what we could do, as an Assembly here, to show some appreciation and to send something to base camp that they could display and be proud of. She talked about schools from other parts of Canada sending shoe boxes over. It is a big day when mail arrives, and everybody shares the goodies that come with it.

She talked about her nephew being there for three months and having three showers since he has been there. I said: Madam, what did you have in mind? What do you suggest that we bring forward? She said: Maybe if we had a banner or something.

Mr. Speaker, what I have decided I would do - and I thank your office for providing the Newfoundland flag - I ask that every member of this Legislature sign their name, with their district beneath it, on this Newfoundland flag, return it to me, and I will make sure that it is returned to the appropriate people to be hung proudly at base camp over in Afghanistan.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the passing of the Queen Mother on March 30, in her 101^st year. The Queen Mother was renowned for carrying out her duties with dignity and with grace. In recent days, many statements such as "a genuine universal sense of loss" and "one of the most outstanding women of our time" have been used to try and capture this phenomenal royal and the effect of her passing. Mr. Speaker, such statements attest to the respect and admiration that she evoked in all people of the Commonwealth and, in fact, around the world.

Mr. Speaker, the close relationship the Queen Mother had with this Province deserves to be recognized. In 1939, the then Queen and her husband King George VI came to the City of St. John's. For the people of the then Dominion of Newfoundland, this was a monumental visit at the time. In subsequent years, she visited various parts of the country and said "to be here is to be among true and lasting friends." Again in 1967, this Province was graced with another visit from the Queen Mother. Once again, she impacted all those she encountered in this Province by bringing such a humanness to the monarchy.

Mr. Speaker, one cannot overlook the admiration this royal won from her subjects during the Second World War when she remained by the King's side in Buckingham Palace, despite the eminent daily threat of harm from the bombs that tore through the heart of the City of London.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure I speak for all of my honourable colleagues in this Legislature when I say that all people throughout the Commonwealth will fondly remember the Queen Mother as the royal who touched the hearts of many, regardless of age, and became known as the monarch of the people. Again, Mr. Speaker, may I say that we are very saddened by her passing, but I am sure that her presence will always be felt among members of the Commonwealth, particularly here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

We would like, on this side of the House, as the Official Opposition, to join with the Premier in echoing some of the sentiments that he has expressed on behalf of the Province.

We would like to add this as well, that the Queen Mother, besides being the Queen Mother, was an extraordinary human being. She held many titles throughout her life, not all of which I will mention today, but some: Chancellor of the University of London for over twenty-five years; Colonel-in-Chief of the United Kingdom overseas regiment; Commander-in-Chief of the Royal Air Force Central Flying School; and was president or patron of some 350 organizations in her life. None more significant a title than the one Queen Mom, for it personified, in our view, what she meant both to the world and indeed the people of Canada and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Just, I suppose, as Prince Charles was her favorite grandson, so too was Canada her favorite Nation, as the Premier has already alluded to. Her first visit, as the Premier said, was in 1939, just before the outbreak of the war, and she returned again in 1989 on the 50^th anniversary of her first visit. Throughout her life she made fourteen separate visits to our country.

She came here in 1939, just before the outbreak of the war, as I said, World War II, a war that she met head on. As we all know, she became a legend in her own resolve not to leave her home, London, during the most tumultuous blitzkrieg bombings in world history.

Her ability to connect with the public earned her the title as Queen of the working class. This was personified in 1987. At the age of ninety-five she pored her own pint of Guinness in an east ended pub and drank her whiskey neat.

For members of the Royal Canadian Legion, she was a symbol of longevity. She was as witty as she was passionate at her age and it was a reflection of her own vitality and her own spirit as part of the human race.

At age ninety-five, Mr. Speaker, she officially opened the Victory for Europe commemoration - the 50^th anniversary commemoration in London. While old in age, she remained young at heart. She maintained a passion for horse racing, loved the sport, and was loved within it. Certainly in Canada, the Ontario Woodbine Race Track is the official site of the Queen's Plate.

Strength, love of life, indomitable spirit, all of these can be taken from this very extraordinary and outstanding woman. History will always remember the Queen Mother, for so much of her life was a history that has come to represent us all.

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 pleased to join in recognizing the passing of the Queen Mother, who I think we would all agree was probably the best loved of all the royals of this century. Some young people may wonder why she was so well loved, and the Opposition House Leader mentioned a couple of things that endeared her to the people, but the thing that struck me the most - and both previous speakers have mentioned - was her resolve during the Second World War to stay in London and indeed, her family stay in London in Buckingham Palace during the bombing of London, particularly the east end.

One of the comments during her funeral and mourning for her that struck me the most interesting and probably very striking at the time, was during the bombing of London, where people were dying every night through the bombing - as I said, particularly the east end - Buckingham Palace itself was in fact bombed. The Queen Mother's reaction was: I am glad, because now I can look the east end of London in the face.

I think that really made people think how close she was to the people of England in particular, and it was a principle reason why the people of England, the United Kingdom, all the Commonwealth actually, recognized her humanity, her essential dignity and decency, and loved her for it. Indeed, she had many honours of course. As a person of royalty she would, but her humanity and her endearment to the people is what held her in such high regard and such respect. I think that is something deserving to be recognized by this House, and I am glad we are doing this here today.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend today all of those who have been involved in this absolutely, phenomenal weekend which we have just experienced with JUNOfest. From the opening reception on Friday night, The Premier's Gala on Saturday, to the televised show on Sunday night, the 2002 Juno Awards have been a tremendous success.

Hosting the 2002 Awards was an exciting opportunity for Newfoundland and Labrador to show the rest of the country the high calibre musical talent we have here and to further promote our cultural tourism industry. This was one of the best attended Juno Awards since its inception in 1970. We have received an overwhelming response from the media, the nominees, the industry representatives and, most importantly, from the people of this Province.

Over 1,000 people attended The Premier's Gala and Awards Show. They were treated to a true Newfoundland and Labrador display of hospitality.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: They were tremendous.

Kim Stockwood and Seamus O'Regan did a magnificent job as hosts and the performers - Crush, The Fables, The Ennis Sisters and Damhnait Doyle - portrayed the diversity of this Province's musical talent. I congratulate Mary Sexton and Rink Rat Productions for producing this wonderful evening.

The highlight of Saturday night's celebrations was the presentation of the best new country artist award to our own Ennis Sisters.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Congratulations to Maureen, Teresa and Karen. I expect this is just the beginning of the success they are going to experience nationally and internationally.

The show last night was fabulous. It was the biggest night in Canadian music and it was seen in over a million homes across Canada and internationally. We will be waiting with some great excitement here of what the actual ratings are, which should come out tonight or tomorrow. Great Big Sea, who led off the show, brought the house down, brought thousands of people to their feet with their rousing renditions of traditional Newfoundland music.

Mr. Speaker, the Junos have also provided a unique opportunity for both the industry and for the people of this Province.

The Music Industry Association of Newfoundland and Labrador did an outstanding job in organizing a local music extravaganza - JUNOfest 2002 - Music from the Edge. This was the first time a provincial celebration like this has been connected with the Junos and sanctioned by the Canadian Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences. Hopefully, its success will make this an annual event wherever the Junos are held.

One other unique aspect of it, the Songwriters' Circle, was a highly successful event and a fitting tribute to the late Roger Skinner. It will continue to honor his contribution to the music industry in this Province through the establishment of a scholarship for Newfoundland and Labrador musicians.

Mr. Speaker, the 2002 Juno Awards weekend is proof that we can provide a first class entertainment event. I thank all of those who have contributed to the success of this weekend. From the musicians, to the producers, to the Canadian Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences and its Board, to the Music Industry Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, officials in my department, and of course the many, many volunteers.

It is certainly going to be a challenge for anyone else to match the success of these Awards. We have raised the bar. What we have achieved here this weekend will now set the standard for future Juno events.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion the benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador and its tourism and cultural industries are many. While there were many visitors to the Province over the weekend, what we have gained from the exposure in 2002 Juno will be returned again and again.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I join with the minister in sharing the congratulations to the artists and to the organizers, and even the fans who were involved last night. It was an absolutely tremendous evening last night. A huge success. I must say, I was honoured to even be in the building. For those of us who had an opportunity afterwards - even to watch it on television, the television production was extraordinary, the way it showcased the building. For those of us who were involved in putting that building there in the first place, as part of the organization of it, it was a night of tremendous pride for those of us who were there and everybody who watched it. I must say, they did a superb job of producing it, which is where it showcases all across the country, and that is where we get our real mileage and our real leverage from a tourism perspective. So that in itself was tremendous.

I joined with my family in a feeling of great pride when Great Big Sea opened up with: We'll Rant and We'll Roar. I got the goosebumps that everybody was charged and everybody around us were coming to their feet. That was a great moment as well, when the Ennis Sisters came on and were acknowledged for their award and the applause for them. Again, my pride even swelled more, I must say. That is only the tip of the iceberg for artists in this Province.

We had an opportunity, of course, to showcase our talent, people like: Barry Canning, Ron Hynes, Damhnait Doyle, Crush and Bucket Truck; just some of the performers who had a chance to perform on George Street and at the other venues. Again, as well, we also saw Kim Stockwood and Seamus O'Regan who were hosts at the Premier's gala. For those of us who were fortunate to be there and got a chance to be at the Premier's gala, thoroughly enjoyed that. Hats off to the remarkable talent that we have. Of course Mary Walsh was Mary Walsh, and she was wonderful in her own inhibitive way.

One final thing, just on a lighter note, I must say I was delighted to see Nickelback in the Province for the Junos. Of course, if the Premier and the Minister of Mines and Energy sign the deal that they want on Voisey's Bay that will probably be the only time we will ever see nickel back from the bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was a great weekend for the City of St. John's, and for all of Newfoundland and Labrador to host the Junos. It was a tremendous opportunity to let other people see, firsthand, the multi-talented people that we have here; to allow people to come and visit Newfoundland and Labrador from the music industry. These are people who have big audiences and big followings. They were saying very positive things about this Province and telling people to come here and see for themselves. The TV production was fabulous. It was a first- rate, first class production. It showed off the new stadium. The whole event, I think, was a tremendous boost for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Ennis Sisters getting a real round of applause, and in the background was the Premier, he could be assured of getting applause if he went on stage with the Ennis Sisters because they were such a delight to the audience having won the best New Country Artist of the Year Award, which was a tremendous boost to them and a tremendous recognition for this Province. I want to congratulate the Music Industry Association for, themselves, participating fully in hosting the JUNOfest, and particularly -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

By leave, for a second?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: The Music Industry Association did a tremendous job in showcasing local talent and allowing a lot of people to see acts. The enthusiasm around this city was tremendous, Mr. Speaker. In fact, it is interesting to note that more nominees for awards came to St. John's for the Junos than went to Toronto or Vancouver, which is another indication of what great appeal the culture and the people of this Province have. We were tremendously pleased and proud to have a chance to showcase that to the rest of the nation and anybody else who watched it.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As hon. members are aware, the Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada is in the Province today holding public consultations. This morning I had the privilege to present our Province's submission to Commissioner Roy Romanow and I want to inform hon. members about that presentation.

The submission focused on the themes that increased federal funding and seamless health care are necessary to sustain the health care system in Canada.

We are currently spending forty-five cents of every provincial program dollar on health care, and growth of this share would only serve to constrain other important government programs. The Canada Health and Social Transfer, CHST, which is intended to support social programs, remains considerably below funding levels that existed under the previous transfer arrangements. Our submission calls upon the federal government to restore the CHST support, removing the ceiling on equalization payments, and restore the ten province average equalization standard.

The Province's submission also suggested that national goals for population health would be useful. Mr. Speaker, one of the fundamental goals of the health system should be to improve the wellness of the population, particularly the need to reduce the risk factors such as smoking, inactivity, and unhealthy eating, which contribute to chronic disease.

The Province also supports a co-ordinated, interdisciplinary approach to primary health care. We need to reform our system so that it takes into account all aspects of a person's health and builds a seamless system. A major part of this reform will be to continue to build teams of professionals who work together in an interdisciplinary environment so that people are no longer receiving fragmented services.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador cannot take sole responsibility for change in the health care system. Co-operation and support is needed from the federal government, particularly in the area of increased funding. We are calling upon the federal government to work in partnership with the provinces and territories to ensure a sustainable health system in the future.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is committed to building on our current strengths to create a better health and community services system for the future. Later this spring, I will unveil a Strategic Health Plan for our Province. This plan will put into action the commitment of government to provide quality health and community services to improve the health and well-being of individuals, families and communities.

A copy of the Province's submission to the Commission is available on government's Web site.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I say to the minister: Thank you for giving me a copy of your statement in advance. I would also like to say to the minister, that we obviously support any efforts that will convince the Government of Canada to restore the billions of dollars of health care funding that they slashed from this Province's transfer when they established the Canada Health and Social Transfer.

We believe it is critical to move back to needs based transfers, instead of population based transfers that discriminate against this Province because of our dispersed and aging population. We believe in reinforcing the national standards currently in the Canada Health Act that have been allowed to fall by the wayside to the detriment of the people in this Province. We also believe the provincial government has a lot to answer for when it comes to the management of the money it does receive.

Number one: Where is the comprehensive provincial health care plan? We have been waiting for thirteen years, and this -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: - Administration is still operating on a crisis-to-crisis band-aid approach. Why did the government proceed with deinstitutionalization without ensuring that community based care was in place to pick up the slack? Why do we have people waiting in expensive hospital beds because a lack of government -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member doesn't have leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, we do have serious difficulties in this Province with health care, particularly because of funding and the lack of federal funding. In fact, what has happened, Mr. Speaker, is that federal funding has been reduced by successive Tory and Liberal governments in Ottawa, hand in hand with the development of a rate argument for privatization. Mr. Speaker, we do need more federal funding, we do need a national pharmacare program, and we need a national home care program for the benefit of the people of this Province. What we need from this government is a commitment to fight for that and to fight against privatization, and to make sure that we don't introduce user fees in this Province that are going to be detrimental to our citizens. These are the kinds of commitments we need from this government that we have yet to get.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am certain that all members of this honourable House are aware that on April 2, the arbitration Tribunal handed down its final aware with respect to the Newfoundland and Labrador/Nova Scotia Offshore Boundary Dispute Arbitration. I rise today to thank our team for their tremendous work on this file and to thank members of this House for their encouragement and support during the proceedings.

Mr. Speaker, this government stood firm on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: The Nova Scotia line was not a fair line to this Province and we rejected any suggestion that it was binding on us. We demanded a line to which we were entitled: a line determined in accordance with international maritime boundary law.

A strong team of professionals was assembled from within government and the private sector to prepare and argue our case. Led by Professor Donald McRae, our team represented this Province effectively and honourably. I know I speak for all members in conveying congratulations to our team for a job well done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, this Province presented a strong and compelling case. This is reflected by the Tribunal's decision; almost 70 per cent of all of the area in dispute between the two provinces was awarded to Newfoundland and Labrador. Our challenge is now to move beyond this dispute and open this area to exploration on both sides of the line. I am truly hopeful that both provinces will be the recipients of new discoveries and developments.

Mr. Speaker, this government is taking the necessary steps to encourage new exploration. This year, an increased focus will be placed on area such as the Laurentian Sub-basin in our promotional activities. We have also been working with the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, C-NOPB, to prepare for negotiations to convert old federal exploration permits to exploration licences in this area. These negotiations will commence shortly and we are confident that this will facilitate substantial exploration activity in the years ahead. Industry interest is also shifting from the Jeanne d'Arc Basin to deeper water parcels in the Flemish Pass and South Whale Basin. It is hoped that these new areas will yield new discoveries capable of development.

Mr. Speaker, this government will continue to work hard to grow our offshore oil and gas industry for the benefit of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We certainly join with the minister in expressing our pleasure with the decision, and we congratulate the team led by Professor Donald McRae as a result of the finding by the arbitration Tribunal; but we have to state, though, while it is encouraging that Newfoundland and Labrador has been given approximately 70 per cent of the area in dispute, in time only geology will determine if our side of the Sub-basin is rich in oil and gas reserves. Furthermore, the onus is on the government to market our share of the Laurentian Sub-basin to the oil companies and to ensure that we are fully prepared to reap maximum benefits from the exploration and development of the resources in this area. We hope that government has had the wisdom during this lengthy process, during this lengthy dispute, to lay the groundwork to bring maximum benefits from petroleum development in this area to Newfoundland and Labrador. Therefore, the question that must be asked by members on this side of the House and indeed by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is: Are we ready? Are we ready for the great opportunity that this decision has now presented to us?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, rise to congratulate the team that led the fight for this Province in achieving the share of offshore that we deserve. I think it is important now to encourage new development, now that the boundary dispute has been settled. It also shows, Mr. Speaker, I think, the need to continue to fight over the equalization system that is in place between this Province and Ottawa; because all of these reserves, when they are developed, the potential for this Province will not be realized until that is a much fairer system than it is today. We have to be able to achieve, Mr. Speaker, the type of benefit in our offshore oil and gas such as Alberta receives, Alaska, and other places that are benefitting from their oil and gas reserves.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to advise hon. members that on March 28, Husky Energy and Petro-Canada sanctioned this Province's third offshore petroleum project known as White Rose.

Mr. Speaker, this project will provide numerous benefits to the people of the Province. Over its ten to fifteen year life, it is expected to generate over 1,000 jobs, $500 million in royalties, and a $6.8 billion increase in the Province's GDP.

The project proponents have committed to ensuring that 80 per cent of all production phase employment will occur in this Province. Also, 80 per cent of the development phase work that can reasonably be completed in this Province is expected to take place in Newfoundland and Labrador. Provincial participation in the strategically important areas of project management and engineering, as well as topsides fabrication and installation, will be impressive. We will play a substantially greater role in these critical areas than we did going into the Terra Nova Project. This is in keeping with our goal of building stronger local capabilities in the offshore industry with each successive project.

Mr. Speaker, government expects that the White Rose project will also increase the demand for local supplies and services, creating new benefits and opportunities for our business community. Our skilled workers will continue strengthening their abilities, creating more opportunities for attracting future work to the Province, and new infrastructure needed to attract and encourage new development in the Province will be constructed and utilized.

This is also a very positive announcement for the Marystown Shipyard. As most of you now know, Peter Kiewit and Sons have recently taken over ownership of the yard. Also, Aker Maritime Kiewit, a joint venture between Peter Kiewit and Sons and Aker Maritime of Norway, has been awarded the topsides fabrication contract for the White Rose project. This means that the shipyard at Marystown will play a major role in the White Rose project and new life will be injected into that facility. The shipyard will be responsible for more than 60 per cent of the total topsides fabrication work. This is expected to generate direct employment at peak times of 500 to 600 workers at the Marystown facility over the next few years. Additional topsides work will occur in other centres outside of Marystown. St. John's will play an important role in topsides fabrication and we are hopeful that Bull Arm will also be utilized. Across these facilities, over 80 per cent of the Project's total topsides work will occur right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I am confident that the future of our petroleum industry holds great promise for new exploration, discovery and development. I look forward to the fourth quarter of 2005 when we will mark first oil from Newfoundland and Labrador's third producing oil field - The White Rose Project.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We note that the proponents have made commitments to a high level of the work being done in this Province if it is feasible to do so. We hope, and members on this side, that the companies, government, and the fabrication industry commit their very best efforts to capturing work for Newfoundland and Labrador and ensuring that we realize the full potential of this energy development.

Mr. Speaker, the objective of capturing a large majority of the benefits from an offshore development for Newfoundland and Labrador is nothing new. We had similar assurances when Hibernia and Terra Nova were announced, but when we got around to the details of the contracts on these projects a lot of the work that we anticipated would be done here, and that we were capable of doing here, Mr. Speaker, was not done here. So we have to be mindful of that. We have to ensure that, once again, we truly reap the benefits of what this particular industry means to us.

With respect to Marystown, Mr. Speaker, we have to realize that this particular project could indeed have a very short lifespan. We have to do more to ensure that the Marystown Shipyard is much more than just one project. In other words, Mr. Speaker, much more than project specific, a start/stop facility like Bull Arm. The government of this Province has to put in place a major shipbuilding and ferry construction strategy that promises a long life and stability to the Marystown Shipyard and the Burin Peninsula. What that translates into, Mr. Speaker, is truly what is in the best interest -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - for all of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to start by saying that we, too, are pleased to see that the Marystown Shipyard will be utilized in this endeavour. We all know the history of the Marystown Shipyard and the troubles that have been happening in that area during the past number of years. It is great to see that they will receive some work.

Mr. Speaker, I also note in the second paragraph of the Minister's Statement, he talks about the Province receiving $500 million in royalties. He does not say how much of that will actually remain in the Province after the clawback provisions of the equalization formula is applied; how much of that will remain in the Province to benefit the people here.

Also, Mr. Speaker, in the final paragraph the minister states that the industry holds great promise for new exploration, discovery and development. What is glaringly omitted, Mr. Speaker, is that there is no statement by this government or by this minister that talks about vigorously pursuing -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: There is no omission or any statement by the minister, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that this government is vigorously pursuing any secondary development of these industries which, of course, is for the real benefit and where the real jobs are for the people of the Province. Until that happens, Mr. Speaker, we may have resources of oil and gas, but we do not have an oil and gas industry.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Premier. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance, in her 2002 Budget, indicated: "...our deficit target can be achieved with no cuts in social programs, no major public sector layoffs or wage rollbacks..."

Mr. Speaker, according to announcements made since the Budget was brought down it appears that more than 1,000 jobs stand to be eliminated; more than 200 teaching jobs will be cut, some 300 full-time equivalent public service positions will go as a result of the 5 per cent reduction in government salary budgets, and as well, recently about 500 reductions in health care have been recommended by the HAY Report.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier if he considers the elimination of 1,000 jobs to be minor?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

A couple of weeks ago, when we brought down the Budget, we put forward a fiscal plan that we can live within this year. We identified many areas that we know are challenges. We all recognize in the current world we live in, based on what happened in the economy of the country and internationally, we put forward a plan that we believe is achievable. We also have recognized - for example, in education, following the Sparkes-Williams report, there were recommendations to take over 400 teachers out. We did not do that. We left those teachers in the system.

Mr. Speaker, we also acknowledge, and we live the reality that you cannot be all things to all people, but you have to do what is right. You have to put forward a fiscal plan which you can live by. This year our government put forward a wage increase for our public sector employees that showed the greatest, general economic increase across the country because we believe they deserve it and they need it. We stand by that.

Every budget has a fiscal plan. Our plan is there for all to see. What we are doing now, with respect to the health care, with the analysis, this has been talked about for many months. The record will show -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: - that we have increased our health budget by over 46 per cent over the last seven years. We are not cutting the system, we are living within those increases.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Finance and the Premier made it very clear to the people of this Province and the Members of this Legislature that there would be no significant layoffs in this Province. It was very clear, unequivocally clear.

Mr. Speaker, the loss of 1,000 paycheques in a Province that has lost 55,000 people over the last five years is very bad news for the people of the Province and indeed, the people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. The impact of those job losses will be absolutely devastating. Could the Premier please confirm that a significant number of these job losses - in fact, I think 160 of 208 teaching positions - will occur in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and will further threaten the survival of our rural communities?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, one thing is becoming increasingly clear. It is very easy to criticize when you do not have to assume responsibility for delivering the services to the people of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, we put forward a fiscal plan. We recognize that we have to live within a fiscal plan and yes, Mr. Speaker, we did implement a 5 per cent and 8 per cent reduction with respect to travel and operating. We also said that we did not want people in our public sector to be laid off if their jobs were considered urgent and critical to the delivery of public services.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to teachers, the plan for teachers is not my plan, it is not the Minister of Education's plan, it is not the Premier's plan, it is not the government's plan; it is the plan that was put forward by the Sparkes-Williams report that was done in consultation -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: It was done, Mr. Speaker, in consultation-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) responsibility for it.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: We assume full responsibility, Mr. Speaker. Let there be no mistake, this government assumes full responsibility; but what we are saying, Mr. Speaker, is that it is not the plan we devised as a government. It was a plan devised by the Sparkes-Williams consultation group in consultation with the school boards.

What the members opposite want to portray is that we have taken way too many teachers out of the system. What we have done is followed the report this year, acknowledging that over 200 teachers more are still left in the system, Mr. Speaker. We all acknowledge, and members opposite would acknowledge, that there is a declining student population.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: What we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is following those recommendations that have been done at an arm's length perspective.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Anybody but us. This government continues to blame it on anybody but themselves.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: (Inaudible), health boards, school boards.... God help the new Commissioner of the Terms of Unions; I suppose they are going to blame all those problems on whoever gets appointed for that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Once again, the Premier is in the spring doldrums. He is not interested enough to answer any questions about rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, using a very conservative multiplier, it is safe to assume that one job in the public sector creates another two jobs elsewhere. Therefore, total job losses associated with this budget would be in excess of 3,000 job losses.

Can the Premier please tell this Legislature if he considers that to be striking the balance, as indicated by the Minister of Finance, or is it just one more broken promise by your government, Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do recognize that we did a terrific job of striking the balance in the budget, and it has been recognized in Newfoundland and Labrador by those people who take a realistic look at these matters.

What is interesting today, Mr. Speaker, in the line of questioning, is again that the Leader of the Opposition is showing his total consistency with being inconsistent. Mr. Speaker, on the day of the Budget he criticized the fact that our deficit was too big, that we were spending money we did not have. The line of questioning today, Mr. Speaker, is this: that he suggests - erroneously, by the way, totally in error about these particular layoffs because they do not exist other than directly in teaching, Mr. Speaker.

The whole point, Mr. Speaker, is this: they are now suggesting, if you use their math, the line of questioning is that we should be putting an extra $10 million or $11 million into the budget to leave the teachers in the system. So, the deficit that was already too big on Budget day, if they were the government, the suggestion is that they would make the deficit even bigger, Mr. Speaker. That is the inconsistency of the argument.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador know exactly where we stand. They always have the benefit of knowing what our plan is, in detail. They have no idea, on any one day, what the Opposition stands for.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Because one day we are spending too much, and the next day, a day like today, we are not spending enough, and they want more money spent to have more teachers, to have more money spent on top of the extra funding we have put into health care and to not do the reductions of 5 per cent and 8 per cent -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - that we are doing in the public service with no layoffs attached to it, Mr. Speaker. We would like to know what their real position is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will tell you what we are doing, Premier. We are doing our job over here to the best of our ability.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: What you should do next year is look for the Oscars, because you have better actors over there than we have anywhere in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: Now that I have your interest, and now that you are interested in rural Newfoundland, why don't you explain to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador why you haven't bothered to permanently fill the position -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: - vacated by the Deputy Premier, who has flown the coop, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development? Why haven't you put a permanent -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I remind hon. members that questions ought to be directed towards the Chair.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: My question for the Premier, Mr. Speaker, is: Why haven't you filled that position permanently? Is it because you lack the talent in your caucus or on your backbench? Is that why, Premier? Or is it because you lack commitment -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I remind the hon. member that the questions ought to be directed to members of the Government through the Chair.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my question for the Premier is: Would the Premier explain why he has failed to fill that position permanently? Is it because his caucus and his backbench lacks the talent to fill that position, or is it because he and his government lack commitment to the people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the line of questioning demonstrates, for the people of the Province, perfectly again the inconsistency of the Opposition.

The Member for St. John's Centre, I think it is -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, that's me.

AN HON. MEMBER: East.

PREMIER GRIMES: St. John's East.

The Member for St. John's East, who was the spokesperson on all issues while the Leader of the Opposition was vacationing and resting during Easter, which he deserved and was the right thing to do, made the comment on behalf of the Opposition that we should not be filling half the positions over here because the Cabinet is too big. I take it, Mr. Speaker, that is the position of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: So, again, we do not know today - the people of the Province do no know today - whether the Official Opposition thinks the Cabinet is too big or the Cabinet is too small. We have a Cabinet of this size today for a particular reason. We will always explain to the people of the Province what our choices are, because we do make it clear. We do not have one person say one thing on one day, and then somebody jump up the next day and say the exact opposite, because it leads to total confusion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Mines and Energy.

Last week, the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board deferred its offshore land sale for the year 2002, and this somewhat troubling decision has raised many questions in the industry. Many people are simply asking, why? What is government doing in response to C-NOPB's decision last week, or is it simply prepared to sit on its hands and not question this significant decision in any way?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In answer to the question, it is not a case of not questioning the actions of C-NOPB. As a matter of fact, C-NOPB conferred with both myself, as Minister of Mines and Energy for the Province, and the federal minister - we both concurred that this year, given the results of land sales in the last couple of years, and given the consolidation that is taking place in the industry because of corporate mergers, et cetera, and given the fact that the plays now seem to be, and the companies seem generally to be more interested in deep water plays and deep water drilling, given the fact that there was a low-level of expression of interest in land sales in shallow water areas last year, and we anticipated the same this year, we thought it would be prudent to agree with the C-NOPB that they would do this year as they have done in 1992 and 1994 when there were, in those years prior to that, low land sales, to not have a sale this year, to allow some of the consolidation in the industry to go forward, to allow them to pursue the deep water drilling activities that they have planned; and also, in anticipation of a very favorable ruling that we got on the boundary dispute, -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: - to allow time for C-NOPB, along with government -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: - to deal with the conversion of permits that were under federal licensure to exploration permits under provincial C-NOPB licensure as a result of the very favorable decision we got in the Laurentian Basin area. This year will be a very, very significant and active year in terms of land issues -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: - with respect to C-NOPB and ourselves.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, in the context of recent disturbing decisions in the industry - and I am referring specifically to Exxon Mobil's decision to seek a transfer of its existing offshore licences and, secondly, Chevron's decision to discontinue ongoing activity respecting the Hebron-Ben Nevis project - in the context of those decisions, wouldn't it have been better, Mr. Minister, to show a sense of promise and optimism and have the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board not defer but, in fact, offer a land sale that would show the optimism that this particular industry needs at this time?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I guess it is a matter of perspective in terms of how you look at things in life. The hon. member, the critic, chooses to view a couple of decisions that were recently taken as being very negative and very dismal with respect to the offshore, but we happen to take the view that we have had some very, very good days in terms of offshore announcements recently.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: We acknowledge that the standing down of the Hebron-Ben Nevis project was not something that we welcomed. We said that quite clearly. I expressed my disappointment. I have been talking regularly recently with respect to the fact that we need to get refocused on the whole issue of additional exploration in the offshore. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we also acknowledge that there is a third major project worth $2.35 billion in investment going forward since this House last met. We acknowledge that we have achieved about 80-odd per cent of the Laurentian Basin under our management for jurisdictional purposes with respect to the offshore. We acknowledge, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: I'm sorry?

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. MATTHEWS: I will conclude my answer.

We acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, what is good that is happening in the Province. The startup of the Marystown Shipyard tied to the offshore activity is another positive announcement. The hon. member can focus on what is not happening, we choose to focus on what is happening and work on the problems and the challenges in areas (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Members ought to wait until they are recognized by the Chair, otherwise Hansard will not be able to record what the member is asking.

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We acknowledge much of what the minister has just said and we said as much in terms of our response to the ministerial statement, but we must also recognize what has happened with respect to the decision by Exxon Mobile and the decision concerning Chevron. C-NOPB, Mr. Speaker, has used very vague and uncertain descriptions of its reason for this deferral. For example, officials of C-NOPB are quoted as saying: we think that our offshore area is going through a period of transition. They also say, Mr. Speaker, the industry itself is in a period of transition. Is such a weak declaration and explanation, I ask the minister, satisfactory to him? Will government tell the people of the Province why a deferral at this time is truly taking place?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I am more than happy to tell the people of the Province why -as best we can tell and judge with respect to working with the industry - there has been a diminished interest in land sales in shallow water areas such as the Jeanne d'Arc Basin. It is based, number one, Mr. Speaker, and premised on the proposition that most of the major discoveries is predicted to have already taken place in the Jeanne d'Arc Basin. It is based on the fact that the companies are now focusing more in deep water plays. It is based on the fact that while over the last fifteen years we have had some very successful land sales, there have been some years - I think it was 1991 and 1993 - where we have had some very low land sales.

Mr. Speaker, the land sales issue is an activity that goes forward year over year, or is deferred year over year, based on the expressed level of interest by the industry in them having access to land sale options in a particular year. At this particular point, the level of interest being expressed by the oil companies in the areas that are yet unexplored was at a level where we deemed it, and we agreed with C-NOPB's analysis, actually, that it would be better to defer this year to allow the industry consolidation to take place, and to await the ruling of the boundary dispute -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: - which we are very delighted was favourable to us and which will spur significant new development exploration-wise.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Education. Mr. Speaker, wall-to-wall concerts this Juno weekend certainly demonstrated to Canada, as a Nation, and certainly the Canadian Music Industry, that the talent pool in this Province is second to none. But I ask, Mr. Speaker: How many of the talented musicians were turned on to music by their teachers in the schools? Susan Knight, renowned Director of the Newfoundland and Labrador Symphony Youth Choir says that is where she got her start. How many young athletes, how many young artists, got their start in school as well?

Mr. Speaker, I say it is impossible to remove 208 teachers from our school system this year without seriously impacting programs, especially specialist programs like music, art and physical education.

Can the minister, I say, Mr. Speaker, tell how many music teachers, how many phys. ed. teachers, how many art teachers, are lost as a result of the minister's decision to take 208 teachers out of the classrooms of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows full well that we have left 218 teachers in the system -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: - at a cost of $13 million to the taxpayers of this Province. Clearly, if we were to follow the formula spelled out in the Sparkes-Williams Report, Mr. Speaker, we would, in fact, see many more teachers removed from the system. This government made a conscious decision not to remove that number of teachers, because we recognize that we want to ensure we have as many programs as possible, the best quality educational system in the country.

Mr. Speaker, for the information of the members opposite, we, in fact, have the best pupil-teacher ratio in the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: In fact, Mr. Speaker, if you look at our numbers, we have thirteen point four students for every one teacher, compared with sixteen for every one across the country. Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of our record of education in this Province and the commitment that we have given to ensure that we take care of the students in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again I say to the minister, I am talking about programing and the lost of programing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Let me be more specific, Mr. Speaker. The Avalon East School Director, Mr. Shortall, recently said his board would have to make serious adjustments throughout the district, even going so far as cancelling advanced placement math, in order to accommodate the loss of forty-one teachers. Now, the minister knows, Mr. Speaker, that our students' math performance on the last standard Achievement Indicators Program test declined since 1997.

So, I ask the minister: Are we facing even more decline in critical math skills as a result of the minister's decision to take out 208 teachers?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker. In fact, we are doing everything we can to enhance our mathematical skills for our students.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: In fact, Mr. Speaker, we have introduced a new math curriculum because we recognize that we have had some problems with our math in this Province. In fact, the testing that the member refers to is testing that was done on the previous curriculum, not the new, improved and enhanced math curriculum that we have introduced in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, let me say again that it is not the intention of this government to do anything to reduce programs that our students are getting in our school system. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker. It is our intention to enhance those programs and we continue to do that on a daily basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Health and Community Services who presented to the Romanow Commission this morning. During his presentation he said that government is skeptical about user fees for things like doctor visits and emergency room visits because it will likely result in discouraging people who cannot afford the services to get the help they need. He also said that government would consider privatization of some publicly funded hospital services such as diagnostic testing.

My question to the minister is this: is he considering privatization of our health care system? Is he skeptical about it or is he opposed to it, Mr. Speaker, which the vast majority of the people of this Province are opposed to the privatization of our health care system?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I commend the hon. member for having the interest to be at the hearings this morning. Important hearings they are, as they certainly are an important move towards trying to address and redress some of the major health concerns in this Province, and indeed in this country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SMITH: To the issue that the hon. member raises, in terms of the diagnostic services, he will recall if he looked at - the reference in the presentation was, in fact, based on information that was gleaned from the forums that were held by my predecessor throughout the Province. This is one of the issues that was pursued by stakeholders who participated in that. They were asked to respond to a number of issues related to health care and the delivery of health care services in this Province. The reference in that is indeed, to that.

Also, if the hon. member would be fair in terms of quoting from the presentation, it was certainly clear in my presentation to the Commissioner, that at this point in time, in this Province, the support, the direction of this government - and that has been reinforced by the people of the Province - is to a health care system that is fully funded and supported by the public purse, and certainly, in terms of the private health care, as the hon. member is trying to suggest, is not a route that we are prepared to go.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr .Speaker.

That is the very problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: He said in his presentation this morning that, at the current time the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is opposed to the private purchase of medically necessary services.

My question to the minister is this: Is this a temporary position that the government holds, or is it committed to fighting for a full publicly-funded health care system and not go down the road of user fees and privatization that has happened in other provinces with other governments?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the hon. member is, in my opinion, playing games with a very serious issue. When we are speaking through this House -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SMITH: - to the people of this Province who are sitting at home today -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is willing to tolerate interruptions at particular times, but members are now beginning to interrupt constantly and continuously and ignoring the Chair when he calls order, so I am asking hon. members to please respect the order and the decorum in this House.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, getting back to the issue that the hon. member has raised, I think it is a very important issue. I think it is very important that the record be set straight. The hon. member, in my opinion, is suggesting that this government and this minister is somehow communicating to the people of the Province that we do not have the commitment to sustain and make sure that health care is available to all the citizens of the Province. That was not the message that was conveyed by this minister in the report that was presented to the Commissioner this morning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: I am surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member would rise in his place this afternoon and suggest that he is saying to me: Well, you said at this point in time....

Mr. Speaker, I or any minister can only deal with the reality as we find it today. If the hon. member is asking me -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SMITH: - to look twenty, thirty, forty years out and see what the landscape is going to be or what the situation is going to be, and prognosticate or make predictions on the basis of what or what may not be -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SMITH: - that is the not the situation. The issue at hand here, as was demonstrated today, is that we are committed to publicly-funded health care in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Time for one quick question.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the newly appointed acting economic czar of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, the Minister of Justice and acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. An important question.

In documents obtained from his department, it is clear that this government's use of consultants is both flagrant, is without guidance, is without merit, and I would like to ask him today: Could he table, for this House, a set of criteria or guidelines on how his department and his government, and his Premier, choose consultants. Why is it, in choosing such consultants, that public tenders are not offered? And, could he table the contracts for those consultants that they have already hired, and what they actually do, either for the government or for the people of the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr .Speaker.

I have only been there a very short time, but with regard to the information requested, by all means, whatever the guidelines are that the department uses for hiring consultants, I would be more than happy to table those here. This government, true to form, its mantra is openness and accountability. Anything that can be, shall be tabled in this House, as requested.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I give notice of two motions, both of which are related. One depends on the other, actually. It is setting up the Estimates Committees and naming the members to those committees. Mr. Speaker, I give notice and ask leave that the following Heads of Expenditure -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, if hon. members wish to converse across the House, I suggest that they do it outside the Chamber. The Chair has recognized the hon. the Government House Leader and he should be the only member speaking in the House now.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I give notice and by leave move that the following Heads of Expenditure be referred to the Government Services Committee: Municipal and Provincial Affairs; Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation; Environment; Works, Services and Transportation; Finance; Public Service Commission; Government Services and Lands. And, that the following Heads of Expenditure be referred to the Resource Committee: Fisheries and Aquaculture; Forest Resources and Agrifoods; Mines and Energy; Tourism, Culture and Recreation; Industry, Trade and Rural Development; Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs. And, that the following Heads of Expenditure be referred to the Social Services Committee; Education; Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education; Human Resources and Employment; Labour; Health and Community Services; and Justice.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, to the related motion, I give notice and by leave move that the following committees be composed of the following members:

Government Services Committee: the hon. the Member for Carbonear- Harbour Grace; the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis; the hon. the Member for Humber East; the hon. the Member for Bay of Islands; the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the hon. the Member for Labrador West; and the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

The Resource Committee: the hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island; the hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North; the hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West; the hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale; the hon. the Member for Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for St. John's South; and, the hon. the Member for Carbonear- Harbour Grace.

Finally, the Social Services Committee: the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's; the hon. the Member for Harbour Main -Whitbourne; the hon. the Member for Trinity North; the hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West; the hon. the Member for Port de Grave; and, finally, the hon. the Member for Humber East.

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

You have heard the motions.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

Motions carried.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present yet another petition which I received today. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I spoke to the Mayor of Nippers Harbour just a few hours ago. She said she is sick and tired of sending petitions to this House of Assembly because of a gravel road that she sees still, in the year 2002, seventeen kilometers of gravel road leading to their community.

Mr. Speaker, she writes a couple of interesting points also. That community has been, in the past, and has a history of being, a prosperous fishing community. Some nine longliners are still down there and some thirty-one small boats still using that facility, that harbour there. She says throughout her petition about how they feel that they have contributed to this Province and deserve at least some attention to it.

When you think about it, Mr. Speaker, besides the gravel road and the safety measures and so on, she really stressed again this morning the fact that the school children still get up at 7:00 a.m. and take this seventeen kilometers of gravel road again. At the same time, then they go on to the La Scie Highway, which is one of the oldest and worst-conditioned roads in the Province. So they are hit by both: the gravel road, which is deplorable, and at the same time they go on to the La Scie Highway, which is probably worse again. So, they have been hit twice. To ride on those buses with those school children, which I have done, just to experience it, there is no wonder that children do not feel like going to school in the morning when they have to face that every single morning. I wonder how many Members of this House of Assembly would like to face that every morning, Mr. Speaker. I do not think very many.

The fact is this: The roads in this Province over the years, especially over the last decade, are now, I believe, out of control. We have still over 900 kilometers of gravel road, as the minister knows, not counting the gravel roads still in Labrador - that is just on the Island portion - 900 kilometers of gravel road; and, further to that, still another 1,500 kilometers at least - these are at least, conservative numbers - of pavement in this Province that is twenty-five years or over.

Again, the minister stands up this year, and he knows as well as anybody else that the demand for road work in this Province has gotten out of control. As one person described it in the district: It is like a bad credit card that has just gotten out of control. For the last five or six years - I will even go back further, Mr. Speaker - there has been an average of some $16 million to $20 million of money by this government spent on provincial roads around this Province. A lot of people get confused by it some years when the government puts out their budget and talks about $100 million. Well, the truth is, Mr. Speaker, a lot of that is Roads for Rail money doing work on the Trans-Canada main trunk roads. The truth is that this government has put somewhere in the area of $18 million to $20 million in provincial roads money in this Province for the last five or six years, and maybe even longer; I have not gone back that far. At the same time, we still see a community that has being giving to this Province, trying to take care of themselves, and still going over those potholes. On top of all that, the mayor this morning tells me that she phoned the depot to just have the road graded and the people at the depot, the minister's own employees out there trying to do the best they can, Mr. Speaker, told her that it was no good to go over it because it is no good to even grade the roads anymore. It is not even worth sending a grader over there. How far it has gone when it comes to gravel roads in this Province.

Tomorrow, I have another petition here from another area of the Province in Jackson's Cove and Harry's Harbour. The same situation, gravel roads. Then I go talking to people who use the La Scie Highway, twenty-five or twenty-six year old pavement that is deplorable. As a matter of fact, the word used lately is impassable.

I have been out to the minister's district just a few days ago.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to conclude.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SHELLEY: There is a lot of work that needs to be done. A long-term plan is needed, Mr. Speaker. It is no good every year stepping up to the plate at the last minute to see who is going to scramble the most for the last few dollars. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, the idea is to have a long-term plan so we can really address the problems of roads in this Province, which is not being done by this Administration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition to present today on behalf of residents of Labrador West.

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

WHEREAS the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund was set up with $347.6 million from the federal government for transportation in Labrador; and

WHEREAS this Fund requires that money in the Fund be used for the maintenance of marine and ferry services to Labrador, construction of the Trans-Labrador Highway, and other initiatives related to transportation in Labrador; and

WHEREAS the Liberal government announced in its 2002 Budget that $97 million would be taken out of this Fund and added to the general revenues of the Province to be used for purposes outside this Act.

We, the undersigned petitioners, believe that the raiding of the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund is a gross violation of the purposes of the Fund and a breach of trust with the people of Labrador and hereby petition the House of Assembly to direct the government to immediately reverse this decision and that the money in this Fund be spent solely on transportation initiatives within Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the roads in Labrador are in continuous need of upgrading. To take the money from this Fund and spend it for purposes other than outlined in the Fund itself is irresponsible of this government and should not be allowed.

Mr. Speaker, if you drive the roads in Labrador, all of them are gravel roads with the exception of the streets within the communities. A section of pavement from the Quebec border - I say to members opposite, if they want to stand up and talk on this subject, they will have ample opportunity to do so during the Budget debate. Right now I would appreciate it if they would give me the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to say what I have to say on behalf of the people I represent.

Mr. Speaker, the section of paved highway from the Quebec border to the towns of Labrador West is in a state of disrepair. It is heavy construction and heavy traffic that uses that highway and there are ruts in it that make it dangerous for the public when they are driving to and from the nearby Town of Fermont. In addition, Mr. Speaker, all other roads are gravel, and this time of the year in particular need a fair amount of money spent on them to keep them up to par, to any kind of condition that will allow you to drive without doing serious damage to your vehicle and making it indeed unsafe to drive at all.

I have been on sections of that road during the Easter break, Mr. Speaker, and I can tell you that the sections of road that I have driven in the last week or two certainly need a lot of work done right now. It needs grading continuously and, as the government pointed out by taking this money - $97 million - all we get in return is a promise that work will be done six years after the EIS study is completed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am certain that I will have -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, the Chair would like to remind hon. members that before presenting petitions to the House, the petition ought to be cleared with the Table Officers in the House. I understand that has not been done. There is no way that I can judge whether or not the petition is in order unless some of the people at the Table have had an opportunity to see it. So if members are not going to cooperate in this respect, then if a point of order is raised the Chair will rule the petition out of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

WHEREAS the roads in the areas of Jamestown and Winter Brook are in very poor condition and are in desperate need of paving;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland to pave approximately 1 kilometre of road in Jamestown and approximately 6 kilometres of road leading to and including part of the community of Winter Brook, as in duty bound your petitioners will every pray.

Mr. Speaker, over this past two weeks with the thawing and with some of the wet weather that we have had, I have had numerous calls from people living in Winter Brook complaining about the conditions of the dirt road that leads to their community. Back in 1995, this particular road was upgraded and made ready for paving. Up until the present day - and at that time, I might add, the people in Winter Brook were led to believe, and promised, that this particular section of road would be paved the following year.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Government House Leader is trying to get my attention across the floor. I know that he is familiar with this section of road because this section of road was at one time in the district that he represented, the District of Terra Nova. It is a section of road where people have been putting forward their plea since I have represented them in 1996. Since I live in close proximity to the communities of Winter Brook and Jamestown, I talk to people there on a regular basis. I know what their needs are and I know that the first desire that those people have right now is to have that particular road paved. They are not coming forward here. Nobody has ever asked me for any other services. Nobody asked me to provide street lights in Jamestown or Winter Brook. Nobody has come forward and said that we need a sewer system or we need a water system put in those communities. Mr. Speaker, their pleas to government, their pleas to me, have always been one item: Give us a decent road to travel over.

We are living in the twenty-first Century and there are not a lot of places, I say to people opposite, that do not have the luxury - I suppose I can call it a luxury - and do not have the convenience of being able to open their windows in the summertime. They do not have the convenience of being able to hang their clothes on the line, which is a common thing around Newfoundland and Labrador. The people in Winter Brook and Jamestown have never been able to do that unless government came forward and put some kind of a solution of calcium chloride on the road, which then is tracked in over their floors, over their houses and causes another problem. The people in Winter Brook and Jamestown have been unanimous in asking government, and asking the minister, to be included this year in a capital works program to have the main road leading to their communities paved.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that it would probably be the cheapest pavement that we could lay this year on this Island. The road has been upgraded. The road has been made ready for paving, but because it has been since 1995 that this particular road was upgraded, now we find that the class A material that was put on the road to give it the kind of -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - top that it needed, is now out in the ditch or plowed away because of the continuous operation of looking after the roads.

Mr. Speaker, I understand my time has lapsed here but I put in the plea to the minister, again, to include this section of road when he brings forward his capital budget in the coming weeks.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Motion 5, the hon. the Minister of Environment to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Control And Management Of Water Resources In The Province, Bill 4.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Environment to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting The Control And Management Of Water Resources In The Province," carried. (Bill 4)

On motion, Bill 4 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, to move "That This House Approves in General the Budgetary Policy of the Government." I know that a lot of hon. members want to speak in favour of that motion.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly thank members on both sides of the House for that warm applause. I am not so confident, I say, Mr. Speaker, that I can agree with the Government House Leader, that we are going to approve in general the budgetary policy of this government. I can assure you the policies of this government have not been one that creates much excitement, I might tell you, on this side of the House, certainly from an endorsement perspective, I might add.

While it took about an hour and six minutes to read this by the minister on Budget Day, it probably took endless hours to put in the political word and try to put the cosmetics to make it sound like they were giving us a good document for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I did not know where we were living, Mr. Speaker. I thought we were in Alberta, where we just eliminated the debt in Alberta; when we talked about a glowing economy, outstripped this country in economic growth. I did not know what the minister was going to do with all the surplus revenue she was taking in. Then she tells us: there is a $93 million deficit; but she did not tell us the real truth. Now the real truth will come out in late November of this year when the public accounts will be tabled in this House. We will find out what the real truth is. She stood in this House last year and told us the budget was only going to be just over a $30 million deficit and came back this year and had $63 million after failing to take into consideration another $300 million or $400 million. Just to look at it on the surface, Mr. Speaker, just a few aspects of that budget.

The budget that the minister read in this House, putting forth the government's proposal in the fiscal manner for this year, showed that there is going to be an operating deficit, she indicated, of $93 million; but the minister did not tell the real truth, did not tell the real story. The real story is in the public accounts and the Auditor General's Report. That is the story that will tell us that this government over the last four years, excluding this past immediate year, ran up a debt of $1 billion. In this fiscal year we will see what the debt is after the public accounts come out. I am predicting it is going to be another $500 million put on top of that debt.

Can you imagine, this government has put us $1.5 billion in debt over the last five years. So much so that the second highest payments that we make in this Province now is paying interest on that debt. Hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars a year we are paying out to pay the debt. We pay more out to pay on the debt than we pay in every other single government department, except the Department of Health and Community Services. If we had those hundreds of millions of dollars - in that five period it is in the billions, that we spent on servicing the debt; a debt that is allowed to escalate and get out of control. We are told what a fantastic economy you have, how great our Province is. We stand up and try to tell the real truth, that it is not as great as this government is telling us. They say we are fear mongers, we are negative, and we are putting forward - they call us what? Nattering nabobs of negativity, basically. They try to say we are because we try to tell the truth of what is happening in the budget.

If you look at the $93 million - just look on the surface. Lets not look at the cruel method of accounting even. Lets look on the surface at just a few big items that this government falsified or put forward in a wrong perspective in this budget. The Labrador Transportation Initiative - a fund set aside - they took $97 million of that and put it into the revenue category of our Province. We received that as a revenue from the federal government back in 1998; we received that from the federal government.

MR. MANNING: What did Roger Grimes say about that?

MR. SULLIVAN: I will get to that, I say to my colleague from Placentia & St. Mary's. I will get to those particular aspects a little later, but they took $97 million - that we have now received it twice. We double count it, we are counting it again.

On top of that $97 million, put that on top of the $93 million that is showing, we have a $190 million deficit just on these items. Then let us look a little further. Let's look at what we are doing with deferred revenues, for example. There are $51.7 million that this government is taking in deferred revenues. What does that mean? That means it is money we had last year and should have gone on the books of last year, but they said: oh no, we won't use that because our financial position will look good, it will show a surplus on operating. We will keep this and put it into next year; $51.7 million of that. That is manipulation, and the Auditor General identified it as such, manipulating to get whatever result you want with the finances of our Province. The minister used another term on it here, that I will get to in due course.

If you look at that $51.7 million in deferred revenue, revenue that was in last year's Budget that they are counting this year, that came primarily from the Sinking Funds. Now, there is $28.7 million of that which was in Sinking Funds. They had the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation; they budgeted last year for $10 million and they did not take it. They are taking it this year. They have taken the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation, another $10 million, and in GIPCO, the Gull Island Power Company under Newfoundland, we say in Labrador Hydro, another $3 million. You add these up and you will $51.7 million. Put that on top of the $190 million I talked about and we are up to $241.7 million. Put on top of that, the money we took out of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, dividends, this year's budget, we are looking at $44 million worth of dividends we are taking out off Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and we are taking another $14 million in guarantee fees, for $58 million. Put them all together and what do we have? Three hundred million dollars. Three hundred million dollars should be the operating deficit, not the actual real deficit. That is going to be more like $500 million.

Mr. Speaker, we are not getting a true picture. This Budget is a false budget. It is a document written for political purposes and to put forth a political goal, not to represent truly the financial affairs of this Province. We have been advocating in our party that we should be presented with the facts. Whether they are good or whether they are bad, the people of the Province should be told the actual truth and given the proper figures. If this government has not done it, I can guarantee you, if this side of the House comes into power, it will be done immediately. We will be going through an accrual system of accounting. We will be getting the full picture, and we will be seeing it exactly as it is, because the people of this Province do not need to be given the cosmetics, the flashy stuff that is not true, and not given the actual figures that are there. Usually the Budget, with all the flare, comes out with all areas, the cosmetics, to make it sound good, and we will get the true picture in late November or early December when we see the public accounts; much less fanfare, much less visibility, and that is when we will get the real truth. The truth should be on Budget Day. The truth should be here in this House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, and the people of the Province have and deserve a right to know.

When you look at revenues, where is our Province going in terms of revenues? Just look at one item of revenue I just want to touch on briefly, the payroll tax. Now, the payroll tax is a tax called the health and post-secondary education tax. It came in as a tax - health and post-secondary education.

Right now, do you realize that governments are now paying 53 per cent of the payroll tax and our Province pays 42 per cent itself? Forty-two per cent of what we take in, in payroll tax, we pay it ourselves. We take it in and pass it out. In other words, payroll tax would be 58 per cent less, a 58 per cent difference, only 58 per cent of what it is now, we are paying ourselves and spending ourselves. That is an in and out item. It does not register. The federal government is paying another 9 per cent, and municipalities 2 per cent. So, levels of governments are paying 53 per cent of the payroll tax. Businesses pay 47 per cent.

When you look at the Budget here and see what the payroll tax is, and what we contributed here, we look at the payroll tax here as being 84.5 You look at 47 per cent of that and we are talking about only $40 million is coming from businesses. Should we have it anyway? We have always been a strong opponent of payroll tax. Don't you think, if we were not collecting that, that our economy would not be hamstrung by an anti-job tax?

When you put a tax on jobs, that is what it is; it is a tax on jobs. The more jobs you create, the more you pay. Isn't that the wrong way to promote jobs and growth in our economy? Shouldn't you give a reward probably? Maybe we should reward people for creating jobs. Maybe we should be rewarding businesses for showing the initiative to expand its company, to increase its payroll, to go out and grow in the market, not penalize them for doing so.

Maybe the time has come. The time has long come, I say, Mr. Speaker, to look at getting rid of a very negative tax that is frustrating business and frustrating economic growth here in our Province. One, by the way, that our Province pays half of that itself. Can you imagine? We tax ourselves $40 million a year. We pay it to ourselves then we pay it out, an in and out item.

Municipalities in our Province pay another couple of per cent of that. When you look at it overall we have seen, basically, no increase this year in provincial revenues due to growth in the economy. When the economy grows - the minister stood and boasted about the tremendous growth we are facing in the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. Tremendous growth she has indicated; but, when you increase growth it creates jobs. We are being told that the employment level is at its highest in our history. There are more people employed today in Newfoundland and Labrador than ever before. What does that tell you? That tells you there should be an increase in personal income. There should be an increase in real disposable income when you get an increase in jobs and increased growth in the economy.

I am just going to get to that in a second. I am going to look a little closer at that, and why we are not getting that, and look at comparisons to what it used to be.

Use provincial revenues, for example. Shouldn't we get more provincial revenues if our economy is so robust? Let's look at what we got last year. Last year we took in, they are indicating, $2,223,398,000 we took in last year in provincial sources of revenue in our Province. What are we proposing to take in this year? If you count the Labrador Transportation Initiative, which we already have in a fund, we are not taking that in so we cannot count that, do not count that, and we are taking in $2,176,420,000 we are taking in this year in provincial source revenues. How much is that? That is $57 million less we are taking in, in revenues this year from provincial sources, than we took in last year. In other words, our Province - those are figures that are here in this Budget, taken right from this Budget as produced - we are taking in $57 million less dollars in provincial sources of revenues this year.

Can you tell me, in a growing economy with the highest job numbers we have ever had, when growth and economy increases personal income because more jobs, more income, there should be more taxes paid. You should have more real disposable income on that. Why isn't there more provincial revenue? Why are we seeing a decrease of $57 million budgeted in provincial revenues?

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) taxes.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I am getting to that.

Last year in provincial taxes we took in - I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands, the minister who said: taxes. Income tax last year brought us in $612 million. This year we are proposing $611 million. Yes, a loss of $1 million in an economy that is growing; tremendous economic growth, leading the country in GDP growth. You have to realize you can lead in GDP growth, but real GDP growth, not nominal growth. Nominal growth means nothing if the jobs are not staying in our Province, if they are going to the Eastern Seaboard.

Answer this: How can we have the most prosperous economy ever, the greatest growth - when growth produces more disposable income, more personal income, why are we are taking in less income tax? Why are we taking in $57 million less dollars in revenue in our Province this year if we are not taking any more tax cuts? By the way, we have increased tobacco tax $14.5 million. We would have taken in $14.5 million - if we did not have the tobacco tax increase - and add that on to $57 million. We would be $71.5 million less in revenue this year than last year. Answer that. Can anybody out there give us the economic sense or rationale, why we are growing in the economy and we are not getting the revenues associated with it? I will tell you why; because the growth in GDP is a nominal GDP growth. It is not a growth that is putting the jobs in our Province. Most of the growth there last year, the year before last - most of the increase in growth, not the growth. Most of the increase in GDP growth came from oil revenues of which do not create extra jobs in our Province. The jobs are created whether - if you had to be processing jobs here in our Province, you get - the economic rents on this are staying in our Province and therefore you are getting the jobs created here in our Province.

The minister even said here in the Budget, on page two: "For 2002, employment is expected to reach a new record high and the unemployment rate could decline further, possibly to its lowest level since 1989. This will contribute to higher personal income and real disposable income. For the first time retail sales are expected to surpass $5 billion." Why then, minister, are all of these figures going up and provincial revenue is $71.5 million - if you leave out the tobacco tax increase? Count the tobacco tax, $57 million less. There is an answer for that, the economy is not growing in real growth. We are getting nominal growth.

The jobs from our oil are going to the Eastern Seaboard and other parts of this country. They are not going here in our Province. We are not being the major beneficiaries of the Atlantic Accord. We are not the recipients of our resources, and we are not benefitting a fraction of the federal government. It is estimated that the federal government benefits ten times more on offshore oil than we are going to benefit; ten times the benefit. You look at a comparison of $269 million to our Province for about $2.35 billion federal. It is crazy. It is outrageous that we cannot even claim one-tenth of what the federal government claims on resources from our Province in their benefits and in their clawback on equalization. It is not proper, I say, Mr. Speaker. It is not right.

When you look at GDP growth - it is a very interesting thing when you look at GDP growth. I want to make reference to a comparison between GDP growth and personal income in our Province. Let's compare our Province - let's go back to the 1980s in our Province and look at where our GDP was, right up to the present time, and what our personal disposable income was in our Province. This is taken at 1997 prices - so we can make a comparison based on 1997 prices. In 1981, for example, when our GDP was $8 billion, our personal disposable income then was at about $6,800. There was a fair comparison right through into the 1980s. In the mid-1980s, right into the late 1980s, we saw a very consistent comparison or graph between our Gross Domestic Product and our personal disposable income. We went through the early 1990s - we got into 1995. In the mid-1990s we saw a fair parallel. As GDP went up, personal disposable income went up accordingly, until we got into the mid-1990s. What happened then? We seen something tremendous happen, something very negative for our Province. For example, in 1992, about $8,400 was the personal disposable income. If you look at in total billions - let's look at the total - we had about $8.4 billion in total personal disposable income in our Province in the early 1990s, when the GDP was just over $10 billion. In other words, it was 80-some per cent, the personal disposable income of the GDP.

Let's look at 1995 as an example; personal disposable income was about eight point five and the GDP rose up to eleven, which dropped to less than 80 per cent of GDP. Where are we today? Let's look at 2000. GDP has reached almost $13 billion and personal disposable income was still at eighty-five, eighty-six; eight point five, eight point six. In other words, it was only 60-some per cent of our GDP. What does that tell you? It means, in fact, our personal disposable income did not go down. In fact, in 1989, when this government came to power, our personal disposable income was about $8.3 billion. Today it is about $8.6 billion. There has been no change in the personal disposable income in our Province in the last thirteen years. We have seen GDP grow from that time, from the time they came to power, from about 10.2 up to in the 14 range. So, we have seen a 40 per cent increase in GDP, but we have seen no increase in thirteen years in personal disposable income.

Now, what does that tell us? That tells us our policies are failing, they are not creating jobs and employment in our Province, they are not putting money in the pockets of consumers, they are not putting money into our economy, and we are getting a false sense of growth by a lot of jobs that are low paying jobs. They are close to minimum wage jobs. The economy is growing and the value of the export of our goods and services has increased. Why? It increased because we are exporting commodities at a high value but we are not creating the jobs back here.

Look at the fishery, as an example. When the groundfishery constituted a significant part of our Province, at a lower market price, a very high number of people worked and a lot of jobs, a lot of income paid, a lot of revenues in our Province, and so on. Today we are dealing with only half as many plant workers in our Province over the last decade, half as many. Many of these out there can't get enough to qualify for EI, basically. The average plant worker in Newfoundland and Labrador, over the last year, made $5,500 working and another $5,500 on EI; $11,000.

We have spread our resources so thin, now nobody can survive. We are spreading poverty. The Member for The Straits & White Bay North said, we are spreading poverty. That is what has happened. People cannot qualify. It is going to be worse this year in many areas. We have taken twenty-some thousand workers, and it is down to eleven, and we don't have labour intensive types of products, as the groundfish was. That has been one part of the problem, the discrepancy between GDP and the personal disposable income.

There are other areas. Look at the jobs that were created in the forestry, at the manufacturing level, and look at what is happening now -

MR. REID: Any more room for crab licences?.

MR. SULLIVAN: Any more room? The Minister of Fisheries is asking me for advice now on crab licences. You should have asked your predecessor. I would say to him, he should have asked his predecessor. John Effort, a former Minister of Fisheries, will go down in history in this Province as the worse Fisheries Minister we have ever seen in the history of this Province, I can tell you that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I can tell you, the clock has been set back twenty years in the fishing industry of this Province, and we will have a job to come out of it. The minister knows full well what I am talking about, basically, in terms of the industry. You might profess to be a prophet out in the land, but history will show. People out there in the short term, you consider to be great, but what you do, your actions, determine your place in history along the way. That is why I have said - and it might be an unpopular statement, and I will make another one. That is why Brian Mulroney, by other offices was hated, but when you look at policies and various things he will go down in history as one of the better Prime Ministers in our country for advancing the economic agenda of our country, even though it was not popular at the time and no one wanted to associate with him. It was almost devastated, the party just about got wiped out. The same thing will be said of John Efford, I can tell you. The complete opposite will be said. That is because, when decisions are politically motivated they are not necessarily the best decisions.

Enough said on that for the moment. I am going to stay on my train of thought of the financial aspect. I will get to other areas a little later on.

It is a shame what is happening. It is a shame to see a personal disposable income move from 80-some per cent of Gross Domestic Product, now to see that it is only about 60-some per cent. That is not a sign of a prosperous province. That is far from a sign of a prosperous province, I might add. When you look at some areas - for example, what contributes to our Gross Domestic Product here in our Province? Gross Domestic Product isn't everything. There is nominal growth. You must have real growth. That is what counts. We have the service producing industries, for example. Oil, people might think. Oil only contributes a very small portion, a single-digit portion, to the GDP of our Province, when the biggest factor in it, 70-some per cent of it, the service-producing industries are important. Very important. They produce over 70-some per cent toward the GDP of our Province.

The primary industries, for example, about 20 per cent almost, in the 20 per cent range, like agriculture, fishing, being very significant, mining, oil and gas, are in that 20-some per cent. They are the main part of that 20-some per cent in contributing to the GDP. They are the main part of it. It is becoming more significant, an increased part in the future, and we give credit for that, but unless the jobs from that growth are creating spinoffs in our Province, not on the Eastern Seaboard of the United States, not in the central part of this country, we are not the beneficiaries. We are sending people out of here to go to work in areas of this country and elsewhere, that we created the raw materials to create the jobs. That is having a negative effect not only on the taxes we will be paying in our Province but on equalization and numerous other effects, in Canada Health and Social Transfers, and in any particular federal transfers because they have now become per capita based.

GDP is a pretty relative term, a pretty simple term. I mean, you just take the price of something by the quantity you have and that is what you have as the GDP. It is easy to take quantity: How many tons of newsprint? What is the price per ton? How much barrels of oil? What is the price per barrel of oil? The nominal GDP can go up. It might increase, but you might be getting no increased benefit. What benefit, for instance - let's use an example. If we are taking 150,000 barrels a day out of Hibernia, and we have out on that platform, at one time, about 160 people, eighty one shift, eighty the next shift, and we are taking 150 barrels out there with the same number of people, and now we take out 200,000 barrels with the same number of people, we haven't created any more jobs. We have increased GDP. We have increased the value of our sales. We have taken the barrels at the price and produced more barrels at a higher price but we have no more jobs created by doing that, or very little. A little more traffic to move it out of there, a minimal increase in jobs.

That is why we were very concerned and we wanted to look at the specifics, when we increased the production levels of barrels out of there, because if we are going to drain the pond a little earlier now, we have all these lost jobs in the process that would have been there longer if it was at a slower production level. Our Province said: Well, we are going to get some money, revenues back quicker. But, revenues we get back and benefits we get back, if they are getting clawed back federally, what is the benefit? You have to look at what is the best long-lasting impact and the bottom line in our Province in place of jobs and revenues for us to be able to sustain and operate ourselves as a Province.

Economic activity could be occurring. Generally if there is increases in production from this activity it increases GDP, but if it is not creating more jobs, it is not producing more impacts. In other words if the rent follows out of the Province the real GDP is not going up, and that is the most telling tale. The real GDP is important, not the nominal. You can do 200,000 barrels a day with the same number of workers out there, with 120 on the rig, or you can do 150 with 120 on it and they get the same wage, the same amount of money, the same income taxes coming in, the same shopping to do on that money, the same amount of retail sales and that, and what do we get? By increasing it, we get to the break even faster. We get a quicker return, basically, on it, and what does that do? It gets clawed back, 70 per cent of that gets clawed back again, and what is the benefit in analysis?

They are the type of things we have to be looking at and being a lot tougher. We were not tough enough in the beginning. Andy Wells had to take up the fight for government on the engineering jobs in Leatherhead, England; the jobs went there rather than here. We never build an industry unless we are tough and we make them come and do it on our terms and establish the base, because then we are up and running, getting started. It is important.

Halifax is going to become the centre for Eastern Canada in offshore. We are letting opportunities pass by. We are letting opportunities to increase the real GDP here and the job growth increase our economy. We are going into a deeper and deeper hole. The minister might stand up and say we are fearmongering. When you increase your debt by 1.5 billion in five years, that is a pretty serious situation. When the interest you pay on your debt is far more than any other department in this whole government, except one, we have a major, major problem.

The money we use to pay the debt, hundreds and hundreds of millions a year, billions in the last few years, and the minister stands up and talks about a glowing, growing economy here. You wouldn't know but we would all have to wear shades, it is so bright and it is so great. Everything is hunky-dory, they tell us, hunky-dory.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: We talk about our resource industries have been very important to us as a Province, and they have been very important in creating jobs here in our Province. We have seen the fishery, what devastation has gone on in the fishery in our Province. We have seen the fishery gone from twenty-some thousand plant workers down to half of that. We have seen the average wage is $11,000. Half of that is in income earnings and half of that is coming in EI. Next year it is going to get worse, I can tell you, because I see it happening. I have watched the industry. I have been a part of that industry all my life. I spent twenty years in the industry and I see the signs, I see the signals. We are hanging on a shoestring on one species here, and that species this government has had very regressive policies - this government - not to count what the federal government has done. What the federal government has done has been shameful. It is shameful what the federal government has done on a resource. We are being allowed to suffocate, Mr. Speaker. We are being allowed to suffocate here in this Province and not capable of being able to do something about what is going on off our shores.

We have to question, you know, how has Confederation served us? How has Confederation served us in our resources? We have been neglected. We brought into this country vast resources. We brought in great wealth under our soil. We brought in tremendous wealth in the ocean, a renewable species; far more benefits (inaudible) see from oil or any natural gas off our shores; any of these. The benefits from a renewable resource that will be far greater. Our forestry and our fishery and utilizing the ocean for generations to come. We should never have allowed our Province to slip to the level that we are in now. We are down on our knees, basically, in the fishing industry in this Province. That has been allowed to happen, partially by the provincial government and to a great part by the federal government.

Our mining has put a billion dollars a year into our economy. The fishery, looking at sales - and all the Province talked about was picking the good one line from the fishery and saying our sales were $1 billion, but when our sales were $500 million we were employing twice as many in the fishing industry. People were making more money from earned income in the fishery than they are making today, from a processing perspective. Harvesting is making more because we are dealing with a higher priced species. We are dealing with shellfish, primarily. That is the main stay of our industry. Over 50 per cent of our industry in sales depends on one species, crab. Another 20-some per cent depends on another species, shrimp. All the species that sustained us, back since the beginning of time, as a Province here, are a small paltry, several percent; different species here and there, and just a few percent in some cases. It has gone from a proud industry which employed people in almost every community.

There was enough fish out there almost to put a fish plant in every community at one time. In fact, almost every community in my district had one, and other districts in other parts of the Province had them. They sustained and made us a decent living. There was not a person in Grade 6 without a summer job if they wanted one. From Grade 5 and Grade 6 up, everybody in the community had a job. They supplemented their family income. They bought their school clothes. They bought their books. They provided other recreational funds, and the money lasted them well into the winter and contributed to the family income. We have seen that change. We have allowed ourselves to become a product of that change. We have not been the initiators of that change. If we were the initiators of that change we would have done it differently. We would have made the right decisions. We would not have made political decisions. Sometimes you wonder, should those decisions ever be in political hands? Should they be done independently? It makes you wonder. Should they be done in the best interest - all decisions, most decisions that affect communities and their livelihoods are done on emotion. We have to look at the long term. Are we interested in the short term, the next four or five years, survival of a community or are we interested in putting together a future for us in our Province? Because there are no young people today going to Memorial University, the College of the North Atlantic, the Marine Institute, or any other private institutions around here, going there with the intention of coming back and going to work in a fish plant in this Province. Very few. Very few, if any. In fact, many people today in rural Newfoundland - when you ask high school students how many plan to come back and live in the communities in rural Newfoundland, they will tell you they don't plan on coming back. That is what they tell you.

My colleague from Bonavista South, I think he made reference to Bonavista before, when he spoke in the House last year, on the same issue. I talked to people, teachers and other people within various communities and they are telling us the same story. So who, I might ask, is going to work in the fishery of the future? Why aren't people looking at it? Because they do not see it as one of hope. They do not see it as one - that we have our act together. They do not see that we are planning out a policy for the future.

My colleague from The Straits & White Bay North has indicated, we do not see a plan that would put trust and faith and hope in young people out in rural Newfoundland today. We do not see it. They see their mother and father coming home at 3:00 in the afternoon with three hours work and waiting for a call the next day or the day after. I have seen people this year getting $60 to $100 a week on unemployment; many people. The majority at certain locations are in that category. Others happen to do a bit better. I have seen people live on subsistence wages. They could not get social assistance because they made a little too much. A little too much for social assistance but not enough to live on. They are decisions and tough decisions that people had to make.

At one time in this Province - there were so many people working in the early 1990s that $1 billion a year came into this Province in EI alone, under UI; $1 billion. In 1991-92 there was $950.8 million that came into this Province under the UI program alone. In the early 1990s people in Central Canada - I went down with Lloyd Axworthy - he was at the Delta, the Radisson it was called then - and Brian Tobin, our federal minister. They went down and tore the guts out of this program and treated everybody as if they were a criminal out trying to defy and beat and work ways around the regulations. Now everybody in this Province is not a criminal. Everybody is not a criminal. He tore the guts out of the program.

AN HON. MEMBER: What program?

MR. SULLIVAN: The EI program, UI program, when they did it. They made changes. In other words, they did not look at the seasonality. We have important industries in our Province. We have an agricultural industry that is generally - certain parts of it is on a seasonal basis. The fishing industry in this Province works on a seasonal basis. We cannot neglect those basic, primary industries in our Province. We need people to work there and there has to be some type of insurance program to help. I do not support abuse of a program but I think a properly administered program, taking into affect the regional disparities that exist across our country, could have served us well. We went down to 40 per cent of that. That is a loss of revenue to us, $600 million a year coming into our Province, just in those particular areas alone. They called it UI reform. They now call it Employment Insurance, basically. They gave it a new name and a new title.

The minister stands and tells us how important, and what a great Province to do business in here, and what our tax level is in this Province. I would like to just take a look, for a second, at tax structure and personal income tax and just compare with provinces across this country. For example, this Province has different tax rates, and I am going to get to that in a minute. I am going to go back to what the Premier and the Finance Minister said in 1999. I am going to tell you what they did today and how they manipulated, moved and convinced people they were giving them a tax break when they did not get a tax break at all. They did not get what was said.

First of all, I am just going to look at the personal income tax structures across this country and see where we are and how we stack up. How do we stack up with other parts of this country? There are three basic tax rates in our Province, provincially. They are frozen at a certain level. The lowest tax rate is at $29,590. The second one is at $59,180, and the third one is above that. The federal rates were the same as that at one time, but the federal allowed inflation. They eliminated bracket creep and allowed your disposable income to at least keep par with inflation. But our Province said: No, what you get in inflation we are going to take back on you. And they froze it at those levels. Now the lowest tax rate in this Province is at 10.5 per cent. Where else in the country do they pay that rate? Eleven point two five in Saskatchewan and sixteen in Quebec at that rate. We are the third highest taxed in the lowest tax bracket in the country. If we go to the second tax bracket, we are the second highest in the second tax bracket in the country at 16.16 per cent. The only one higher than us is Quebec. At the third bracket, we are 18.02 per cent. We are the second highest in the country. In every single tax bracket, we are either second or third highest in the country.

We were told back in 1996 in a release - I think a statement in this House by then Premier Brian Tobin and then Finance Minister Paul Dicks - that as of January 1, 2000, that basic personal rate of tax shall be reduced from 69 per cent of the federal tax - that is at the basic federal tax - down to 62 per cent. We were told one year later, in January, 2001, that rate would drop down to 55 per cent, and then we were told the following year that it would go to 49 per cent of the personal income tax rate. Now, if you take the federal rate at the time - here is what happened. When they realized that the federal was dropping their lowest rate from seventeen to sixteen, he separated the tax from the federal tax. I am going to take it from the separated rate and just show the comparison.

At the time the federal rate was 17 per cent in the lowest bracket - and if you took our 69 per cent of that, we would have been paying 11.73 per cent in the lowest bracket. Right now we are paying 10.57 per cent; which is 62 per cent of 17 per cent, even though the federal rate is 16 per cent. Had we dropped it to 55 per cent of what was the federal rate - and I took 17 per cent. I did not take the new federal rate of 16 per cent. I took the old federal rate before we separated. We would then be paying, as of last January, 17 per cent; and 55 per cent of that would be 8.3 per cent. We are not paying that now, we are paying 10.57 per cent. If you took 17 per cent of the 49 per cent that we were supposed to go down to this year, we would be paying 8.33 per cent. So the lowest income in this Province today are paying 10.57 per cent of their taxable income. It would have been 8.33 per cent if they kept their promise. They have only given us one step in the three. They are telling us two. They have only given us one. In other words, people now are paying over 25 per cent more in taxes in the lowest bracket than we were promised that it would be in 1999. That is the game they played.

Anybody who filled their income tax out this year, look at it. Look at how much federal you pay, and provincial. Most people are paying 70-some per cent of the federal rate. We are paying a higher percent of the federal rate than we did before they ever gave us a tax break. Then we say, what a fantastic place to spend your money in this Province, and they make money on that. What they done, Mr. Speaker, is played a nasty game at hitting the disadvantaged. I am just going to make a couple of little comparisons to what they have done.

Basically, when you look at your basic personal exemption, they have given you a lower rate on that than federally. They have given you a lower rate for spousal amount on a non-working spouse; a lower rate for the disabled; education deduction is lower. Every facet of the provincial tax table here is lower. They are lower deductions than we get federally on each of these. If you look at the Schedule NFS2, Newfoundland NF428, the Schedule 1 on federal tax, do your comparisons. I have done them. I have looked at each area, and they are nickel-and-diming low income people, I might say, to death, when they said we were going to get a tax break.

What did they say back in 1999? What did they say? They said: Newfoundland and Labrador is leading the country in economic growth, and future prospects are positive. Now is the time to reward taxpayers for their patience.

If that is the type of reward that taxpayers waited for, God help the taxpayers of this Province. This government has not lived up to its responsibilities. They are trying to tell us they have lived up to two-thirds of them, and they have only lived up to practically one-third of what was the old federal rate. In fact, they have completely misled the people of this Province. They have misled the people and tried to tell them they are getting a break, but the people filling out their tax forms this year know different. I raised the question in the House to the minister. People who made the same income, they put this year's income on last year's form and they got less. They had to pay more taxes this year than last year. I know people with less income this year than last year paying more tax this year. That is not a tax cut, I can assure you.

I go on to say here: Minister Dicks noted that this is the second time government has enacted major tax reforms. He talked about the HST. That is another one, the HST. We were told that all the provinces of this country were going to harmonize and we were going to have the one tax and a simple tax system, a simple efficient tax system. What happened? Prince Edward Island said no. Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland went along with it and what happened? Where did the jobs go? The jobs went to Prince Edward Island, the province that would not participate in the process. One of the conditions of participating in this process should be, the jobs should go to one of the participating provinces or in some forum. The same thing with the Atlantic Lottery licences, most of the jobs are in New Brunswick. They go to New Brunswick. They go to Prince Edward Island. We have lost a severe chunk of our federal jobs over the last five or six years. Federal jobs are going out of this Province. We have less. We now have less then one-half, probably as low as one-third but certainly less than one-half, less jobs of a federal nature per capita as anywhere else in this country. In other words, they are taking our revenues and they are not putting proportionate jobs here.

How many military installations and places do you see here? How many federal offices here do you see here in our Province? How many do you see here compared to the rest of the country? Cutting back, yes, Goose Bay. The weather office trying to cut back in Gander, all federal, jobs going everywhere. Federal forestry went to New Brunswick. We have seen cutbacks. How many people have we seen clamoring and making noise that we are losing those federal jobs? We have less than half per capita of the federal jobs than any other part of this country. It is not acceptable. That is eroding into our tax base, affecting us, and making it a lot more difficult for us to be able to survive.

Then, they stand up and tell us, what a great province. What is the great tax break? It is not in this tax form that this government provides. It is not here. The minister cannot stand in her place and say so, because she tried to sell us a bill of goods and smoke one over here on the people of our Province.

Most people know that lower taxes generate higher returns. In fact, if you look at the federal - just take a couple of examples on the income tax form, of what this government has done. Anyone who fills out their own tax form has to take the federal form and they have to take the provincial form now and they have to look at: What can I deduct, for instance, as spousal? If your spouse is not working. Federally, they will allow you to deduct $6,243. Provincially, you have to do another form, $6,055. Disability, federally, $6,000; $4,233 provincially. If you have students attending university and want to claim a deduction, the federal form is $400 per month, provincially it is $200 a month. You have all of these, every single category, every area of federal and provincial, all separate.

One of the biggest frustrations people are having this year is filling out a form, not only a separate form, but filling out forms of all different values and different numbers. Basically, you need an accountant to fill out the form unless you are fairly familiar with the tax system. It is crucifying. Disabled people are paying more. We have people, students, we have parents of students paying more, the spouses who are not working, and their families are being hit harder as a result. We are not moving in proportion with inflation. Anybody will tell you, economists will tell you, the minister does not believe it. She said: Oh, well, tax breaks are not going to have that much of an effect.

Look, if a small tax is going to have an effect, a big tax break would have a bigger effect. She said: Unless we can give you a big tax break there is no point in giving you any tax break. That is the minister's strategy. That is what she said in the House.

Anybody will tell you, during the course of history - and they doubted that even back in the United States when the first tax breaks came in. One of the first ones was the Harding-Coolidge tax reduction. It went back in the Twentieth Century. There were three episodes: the Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge era, the John F. Kennedy one, and the Ronald Regan era in the United States. They said, we are cutting taxes so immensely we are going to lose all of this income tax revenue. If you lower the tax rate, we are going to lose revenue. But, it did not happen. They said, lowering taxes stimulates the economy, gives you more disposable income, you spend it, it creates more jobs out in the service industry and everywhere else, and therefore the economy grows. That is what happened; the economy grew.

Are we afraid the economy is going to grow? Are we going to have real growth, real GDP growth, rather than nominal GDP growth? Is that what we are afraid of? We cannot stand the prosperity that we are going to see if we look at benefits. When you free up the purse strings of people, money gets spent. You have more people working in the department stores in St. John's. You have more working in a supermarket out in rural Newfoundland. You have more people working at a car dealership. You might have more people working in a clothing store, more people working in construction. More people want work done around their house, their garden, their driveways paved. They want new siding, new windows, and they want other things done with their property. All of this creates jobs. That is what disposable income does; it creates activity. Lower taxes give you more disposable income.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You would be surprised what it would do.

Florida does not have any state taxes and they get enough from other tax generated activity because they do not have it. I know we cannot compare us to Florida; there is quite a difference overall. The former Minister of Finance might be a little more of an expert on that one.

MR. NOEL: First you criticize us for not spending enough. How are we going to spend more (inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN: I do not know what the Minister of Government Services and Lands is saying over there, but he is certainly entitled to stand up in this House. I will give him leave on my time to stand up and tell us what he wants to say, and I will sit down and listen, and then I will get up again.

MR. NOEL: I do not need leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: He does not need leave, he does not want to get up. He only wants to clamor and sing out from his seat. That is what he wants to do.

He stood up one day in Question Period and one of colleagues said: Oh, that is how tall you are. I was always wondering how tall you were. I never knew how tall you were.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Some people are deceptive. They look short when they are sitting down; when they stand up, they look so much taller.

I just want to make some reference on the debt and talk about our Province's debt. That is something the Finance Minister is getting acutely familiar with here, from what she is rolling out here on our annual Budget. She is getting very familiar with debt.

The net consolidated debt - now, when I talk about debt I am not talking about what the minister rolls out in her Budget. We are talking about the real figures of our Province, what the Comptroller General produces, the public accounts of our Province that tell the real truth, and the one that the Auditor General makes reference to, I might add.

We had consolidated net debt in 1997 of $7.434 billion. That is from the government's own documents that were tabled here in this House. Last fall, last year, they tabled on November 28, I believe, was the date that it was tabled here in this House, public accounts, and showed the debt is now $8.437 billion. That is an increase of $1.003 billion of debt in five years. Can you imagine, that Administration since 1997, that crowd over there from 1997 to 2001, have put us $1 billion in debt. That is not counting last year when this Finance Minister had control of the steering wheel on finances. We are going to show, when the public accounts come out this fall, the debt will have risen by another $500 million. God help us if they keep him in that position much longer. God help this Province when we have seen $1.5 billion in debt in five years. It is outrageous to see such horrendous debt. When we are talking about consolidated debt, we are talking about the total debt. We are not talking about the stuff that the minister throws out and hides, that they hide when they talk about debt. We are talking about in this, for instance, health boards, and I will just make reference here to various health care boards in this Province.

They had to draw this out of the minister to get her to table it here in the House. Last year, on November 21 actually, it was tabled. It shows that hospital boards then, just up to 2001, up to last March, 2001 - not even counted by this Province, these numbers were not even counted by this Province. Ninety-seven million, that is the accumulated operating deficits of the twelve operating health boards in our Province. There are eight institutional boards that also take in responsibility for certain community services, and there are four community health care boards also; $97 million. Since then, that has now grown to about $110 million; another $110 million they do not want to count. This government does not want to own up to those boards.

How do you think the hospitals are operating? Where do they get their money? They get it from this government. You are going to count the money you are giving them, and you are not going to count the debt they have. Well, their debt up to last year, also - that was just their deficit. That is not even converted into debt. That is just their deficit. That is how much less money they have to do the work and pay for the services. That is how much money they have given services for and they have no money to pay for it. That is service that the people of Province got up to a year ago; $97 million. Now it is $110 million, not counting the debt. Hospital boards have debt. So, the Province says: Oh, that is not our debt. The hospital they built here, the new Janeway Hospital and the refurbished St. Clare's: That is not our debt, they said. They are not going to count that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you saying we shouldn't have built the new Janeway.

MR. SULLIVAN: I did not say that. I was at that meeting, at the very announcement, and I followed it very closely. I can talk all day long on the circumstances that went around there and I might just get to it yet. I might not get to it today. I can tell you, I will give you the chronological sequence of everything that happened, I say to the former Minister of Health. I can tell you.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Perhaps you need a holiday (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Finance said I need a holiday. Well, I can assure you that it is no holiday in here trying to keep an eye on the financial disarray that this minister has put this Province in. She decimated Health and then they moved her into Finance. God help us! We are seeing a worse fate here now, then we saw in the previous department. Then she runs away, does not want to hear any more of what is happening here, does not want to own up to the responsibilities that come with the position.

This particular document that we have tabled here in this House, that we forced out of the minister to get tabled here, shows that the regional boards have a long-term debt - that is just up to last March, not counting this year - of $208 million. Look at these numbers. This government does not want to count these numbers. They say: Oh, that is not our debt. Well, whose debt is it? The hospital boards are appointed by the minister. They are appointed by the minister, they are subject to the minister, they can be fired by the minister, or even dictated to by the minister in many cases. The buck stops in on the desk of the Minister of Health. That happened before, and we are in desperate shape because of it. There is no sense in planning. Even Mr. Peddle at the Health Care Association talked about it. I mean, this government doesn't have a plan. Our critic has mentioned it. We don't have a particular plan that shows where we need to be. I mean, as you say, if you don't know where you want to go, how do you know when you are going to get there, how can you set out a plan to get there.

Can you imagine? We have a debt run up here, and the current Minister of Mines and Energy knows full well. He was in that portfolio for a couple of years and I had the pleasure of keeping him accountable in that capacity. That is when the decision was made to build a new Janeway. I said at the time, and I will just state briefly here - and we will get back to it in more detail later on in Budget Debate - but I said at the time, I am in favour, all in favour, of reducing bricks and mortar costs and saving money on operating facilities if we can get the money directed into patient services. If we could spend more money in three locations and less money on structure, on heat and light and other things, and we have millions to save to put into that, go for it, if we can do it. They said: We are going to do it. They said it will cost $70 million to put it there. Then, before the year was out, they said: It is going to cost $100 million. They just said: Oops, it is going to be $130 million now, and now it is going to be $150 million, and now it has gone so much higher.

That is not counting the tens of millions they spent out, I think, financed over twenty years, if I recall. The St. Clare's one, if I remember, was bought for $6.5 million to be financed over fifteen or twenty years, and there would be a payout in that amount of close to $20 million. The Grace Hospital was financed, I think, over a five-year period, and I think they paid around $4 million. I stand to be corrected on the specifics, but it is the ballpark; in the vicinity of $10 million or so for two of them, and the payouts were going to be in the $20-some million dollar range. That is not counting other capital costs that are being provided. So we are looking at a tremendous capital expenditure.

I went to the very first meeting of the Health Care Corporation of St. John's at Holiday Inn. I went there and I asked the question, and I was told at the time they were up to the $100 million figure, when this meeting occurred at the Holiday Inn, the first ever meeting. They said: There is going to be a $100 million cost to refurbish St. Clare's, to build the new Janeway, and to put in the facility. What we are going to do out of that, we are going to finance this. We are going to pay this off now over twenty years. We are going to put $10 million a year into our debt over twenty years. That is $200 million. That is what it would cost to finance it, $100 million for the cost and $100 million for financing. We are going to pay $10 million a year over twenty years to pay it off. They said: We are going to save $20 million overall. So, $10 million is going to towards the debt and the other $10 million we are going to put into services.

The cost grew to $130 million. It grew higher than $130 million. Then other costs came in. They had to furnish it and then they had to do other things. What happened? All of it got chewed up, there were no savings; no savings to be put into services. It is all gone, it is all gone to pay the debt. The debt now is over $145 million. Work that out and find out what it would cost to pay that off over a period of time. There were no savings now because of that. There are extra costs incurred and we are having to pay those costs. Now we are still trying to scrounge and scrimp to get a maintenance on basic services, and that is why we are seeing waiting lists getting longer, that is why we are seeing people frustrated with the process, and that is why we are seeing people getting on airplanes and being sent to Cleveland, Ohio. This government is paying them to go to private clinics to get cancer treatment because oncologists here cannot deal with the unsafe waiting periods for people to get treatment. We do not have enough of them, and the ones we have are not paid nearly as well as the ones in the rest of Atlantic Canada or the rest of the country, not even on a par with our sister provinces in Atlantic Canada. We do not pay them enough and they work twice as hard. They have twice as many patients.

One doctor, I think, had over 400 patients. I spoke with one who left here just back two or three years ago. Everyone left. Everyone of the medical oncologists left. They had to replace them all. Now they are back again and they have said: We are going to deal with what is considered a safe number. That is all we can adequately treat. I mean you cannot run yourself into the ground. People in other provinces get a higher income, they have a family life, and they can at least enjoy some of the years of their life when they are in the workforce. They are not having to wait for retirement. Today retirement might never come at the rate people are dying at an early age with cancer and other related heart and circulatory diseases.

So I am finding that, basically, we are in a dilemma. I am going to leave that to debate a little later, maybe tomorrow when I get back on that again or later today. I am going to talk in more depth about the health care and what is happening here in our Province today, what some of the problems are, and, yes, what some of the solutions are. I have said all along, I have said in the past, what the problems are, and I have also indicated what the solutions are. I have stated that and I am on record as stating that, but government does not want to own up to it.

We often get asked here in this House: Oh, look at the debt that the PC Party brought into this government. I will tell you what the debt was back in 1989. Some of this debt came prior to 1972, and I think at the time it was about $700 million. In 1989 - that is according to the government's document here - the total public sector debt was in the vicinity of $5 billion.

When we get the full books on this year in November, our debt is going to be close to $9 billion. Can you imagine? We have almost doubled the debt of this Province in thirteen years under this government. I have the list here and I researched it back right into the sixties, right back into the fifties, I might add, and looked at what the debt of this Province was, and they had run us into the ground.

When you are spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year on paying interest on the debt, that is money you do not have to give for health care, money you do not have to give for education, money you could be using, and you would not have to be borrowing.

If you mortgage your house for $40,000, and find out that you cannot pay it and next year you remortgaged it for $45,000 and have to remortgaged for $50,000 and $55,000 and $60,000 - the house is only worth $100,000 - they are not going to let you remortgage it for $120,000 because it gets called in. You are not going to be able to get the financing. They are going to foreclose, . they are going to put it on the market, they are going to sell it and take it on you. We are coming close to losing fiscal control and responsibility for our Province's finances. Something has to be done about it. How many people want their children to be paying a burden because of their inactions or lack of appropriate actions? Maybe what they will do is take the easy road out: get on an airplane, a U-Haul, get out of this Province and not have to worry about paying the debt of this Province.

As the population of this Province shrinks, our per capita debt gets higher, a burden on each individual gets greater. We are into a vicious cycle, an inward cycle of greater and greater debt per capita, and they are moving out of this Province. Did you ever see a province, or ever see a country in this world, that led in economic growth three of the last five years in the country, one of the greatest growth of GDP anywhere, and seen such an outward migration, out? It did not happen because our policies are not geared to job creation. They are not geared to a climate to grow, to build a business. We are not committed and tough enough in negotiations to demand that if they are going to rape our resources, there is a price to be paid and it is going to be paid up front in jobs and economic growth. That is the price. It is our resource. If you are coming in to get a loan of it, if you are coming in to develop it on our behalf, that is the answer. Whether it is the Lower Churchill, or whether it is Voisey's Bay, or whether it is our offshore oil and gas, it is ours. If you want it, you develop under our terms that we consider competitive but we will become the major beneficiaries of our resources, not shareholders situated in the United States, whether it is eastern townships, Bay Street, or wherever they may be, or all over the world in other countries. There is a price you have to pay. You have to consider the cost of exploration, the cost of development, the industry. I mean, we are rational people. Most people who deal are rational people. If we have to look at companies making a profit and doing business, do that. I spent twenty years in business. Profit is a healthy word. It is not a dirty word. It is a good word. Profit drives ambition. It drives growth. It drives new jobs. It drives for better wages for people because they made profits. That is what makes the economy grow, and that is what enhances our Province and gives it a degree of sustainability.

The question we ask: Are we sustainable as a Province on the road we are on right now? A $1.5 billion debt in five years. Can you imagine, $1.5 billion in five years when it took us decades to get close to that? From 1949 right up to 1972 for $700 million. We came into this country with a surplus. How have we benefitted? What have we done? We haven't reaped the benefits.

MR. NOEL: Are you a separatist?

MR. SULLIVAN: Are you asking me if I am a separatist?

MR. NOEL: Are you ready to separate?

MR. SULLIVAN: Am I ready to separate, the Minister of Government Services and Lands asks. He should be an expert on that. He accompanied our former Premier on the Meech Lake there. He was his advisor on that issue. I am telling you, he should be an authority and I would be willing to hear from him when he gets up in this House. I would like to know where he stands.

I can tell you one thing, that this Government of Canada hasn't played fair ball with our Province. They have not played the rules. They have been dictated by the power brokers of Ontario and Quebec. We are only the small tail on a dog that will never wag the dog until we create a great amount of attention to it. We have to rise up. We have to rise up and tell the Government of Canada that we are not going to take it any more now. We want something done about this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I sat in the gallery in the House of Commons last Thursday and watched the proceedings, as people stood up and asked the Minister of Fisheries - and said: You are breaking the law. There is a boat tied up here in Newfoundland that has taken American plaice and cod, two species that are under a motorium. Breaking the laws!

The minister stood up and said: The member knows full well he is not telling the truth, that we are not breaking the law. He knows that, he indicated. Minister Robert Thibault, that is what he said.

There was another question asked on the same thing. He said, we are not breaking the law. The reason they are not breaking the law? Because there is no law. NAFO has no teeth. The Government of Canada's job is to do something about it and they have not done it.

We, as a Province, have been severely hurt. Our fishery has been destroyed by being a part of this country. It has been destroyed. The responsibility for running this fishery shifted from the shores of the Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador; it shifted to Ottawa, and they do not give two hoots about us. They want us as a piece of territory that has access.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is all (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't care what government - the Government of Canada. I have not distinguished which Government of Canada at all. I have not distinguished it.

All Premier Tobin did when he was the federal minister was put on a show that meant nothing. He took the Estai. I know we are all familiar with that. We gave everything back. We did it for a show, and what benefit? We are no better off. They come into our ports now - they should shut down the ports of this Province to every single vessel of a foreign registry and fishing out here that breaks one law that we consider to be a proper law, not NAFO law. What we consider to be improper, we should shut it down. They are not coming into Canadian ports. If this government has to hire someone to stop them from coming into Canadian ports, the federal government does not do it, they should do it. That is what they should do; they should take aggressive action because it is the only thing that is going to wake up people in Ottawa who are living in their own little world up there. They are living in their own little world.

Newfoundland and Labrador is not even a (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Won't even show up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Show up.

That is why, we have a chance now in this Province with two by-elections federally, we have a chance to show people in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have an opportunity to put a shot across their bow. What are they going to do? We had Brian Tobin, the federal minister, who was supposed to be a powerful minister. We had John Crosbie in the federal government, a power minister. We have had Don Jamieson. We have had them all. Where are we? What is John Efford, Beaton Tulk, or anybody else, as far as that goes, going to convince the Liberal government to do to change the ways here? They are not going to do anything. It is useless. To send people up to do that, to be a part of the process, they will sit there and do what they are told to do. They might mouth off, they might sound popular, but they are not going to get it changed. The only change that can be brought about is a change in democracies with effective oppositions that get change, and it does not matter what government stripe we are talking about. If we do not have effective oppositions and we do not have people who are going to stand up, you are not going to get the results.

We are rapidly becoming a smaller and smaller part of this country, and when we have the next federal election we will be a smaller part of the House of Commons because other areas of the country have experienced growth. We will be a smaller part. While the number of seats might not be able to be reduced by a law of Parliament, basically other provinces will increase theirs in line with the population growths and we become a smaller part of that pie after the next election in Canada. Instead of seven seats in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, out of 301, we will be seven seats out of 309 seats, I think, or 308 seats in this country. We are only a little spot in Ottawa and then we are going to send more people up, we are going to send more people up of the stripe so that they can kick us harder and keep us down so we have less people up making noise and singing out. We should send everybody up there of a different stripe until the Government of Canada gives us what is justly ours. That is what we should do, and maybe we should be all out campaigning for that in this Province. That is what we should do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: What is right is a say, an important say in what is happening off our shores, in not allowing a Minister of Fisheries to stand in the House of Commons and tell us when other boats can catch cod and American plaice and it is legal to do so, and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians cannot do it. To me, it is a double standard. One for the Europeans, one for the rest of the world, and one for us. That is a double standard. That should not be allowed to exist.

What have we done about it? Not a squeak. Every now and then, for political purposes, he will jump up and make a statement. We should be every day on our feet. We should have a delegation going to Ottawa. We should be up in Ottawa now with a delegation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: We should not come out of there until we get a hearing with the Prime Minister and the federal ministers. That is what we should be doing. We should rattle the doors of Ottawa and Parliament Hill, that is what we should do, until we get a result.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) get together with Stephen Harper and create an effective opposition, if you want better opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: I have to be convinced what is going to be effective opposition in Newfoundland and Labrador. Stephen Harper has not said anything to convince me that he is going to solve the problems of Newfoundland and Labrador, but I will tell you one who certainly convinced me he is not, and that is Jean Chrétien. He has convinced me he is going to do nothing to enhance the position of Newfoundland and Labrador in terms of control over our resources and having a say in what goes on off our shores. It has not happened.

Let's talk about Ottawa. Let's get back to Ottawa. I am getting to some other big issues. I am getting to some other important issues, I can tell you. The Premier went up, and the Premier attended the same meeting as the Prime Minister. The Premier came home and told us he has some breaks on equalization. The Prime Minister says no, and Tobin agrees with the Prime Minister. So, the two people sat in the one meeting and they came out with different stories. They cannot even agree on what goes on in the one meeting. They are going to have to bring somebody in to record it and then come out and play it and try to let us know what goes on.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Nonsense! Gets on with a pile of bull, a pile of crap, a pile of nonsense. That's what is going on. That is basically what goes on.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That's right, and we are the victims. We are the victims of it.

Now, I would like to talk about another area. While I am on the federal area, by the way, and talking about that, there are areas of concern. One is the Canada Health and Social Transfer. I want to get back to that because this government allowed that to change without a fight. We threw in the towel. This government threw in the towel in our Province. I just want to look at a little bit of that history.

Since 1994-95 - I went back over the last statements, ones provided by this government. I took their own figures because they could not say then that I manipulated or used other figures. I took them from the figures that were tabled in this House on Budget day in each of the last several years. When I totaled up, right back to 1994-95 - and I did not even count that year because there was even more money that year under the previous forerunner to the Canada Health and Social Transfer. I even left out that highest year. I went to 1995-96, prior to that there were two programs federally serving us under a social basis. They were established program financing.

Established program financing was money provided by the federal government for health and post-secondary education. The Canada Assistance Plan went to assist in meeting the ongoing needs of social services costs. That was done on a per capita basis. If we spent $200 million, we got $100 million toward it. Back then - and I took some figures and totaled them up. Just since 1995-96, up to the present time, up to last year, based on our projections, we lost $776.5 million over the seven year period. That is what we got less from the federal government because they changed that program to a Canada Health and Social Transfer. What did they do? They took away the per capita, or they took away the needs basis and they said per capita. We are going to pay you on a per capita.

How many people think that we can serve the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador at the same cost? We are down now to 520,000 or 513,000 people now. How many think we can serve people in this Province, from a health perspective and social perspective, as cheap as you can serve 500,000 people in the City of Toronto, just in the section of the City of Toronto? We have only a fraction of the City of Toronto. For example, Ottawa's population - the City of Ottawa is 50 per cent bigger than the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador population-wise. Do you think it is more costly to serve the people of this Province from a medical perspective? Sure it is. Look at the vast land of Labrador, to serve people there and tend to their health care needs. Northern Newfoundland, remote areas - take Ramea, Fortune and Bell Island - that we have to access other than by roads. We have numerous area like that in the Province. It is very expensive to deliver service in this Province, and we threw in the towel. We threw in the towel back in the mid-1990s and we allowed the federal government to take a needs basis out of that. Now we are on the per capita. We are paying the price today. We paid $776 million in that price alone just over the past seven years.

Back in 1995-96 we were getting $427 million a year under that program, and the very next year right after that, we got $342.5 million. We lost $84.5 million in one year. The next year we only got $280 million. We lost $133 million less than we were getting before, and it goes on and on each year. Can you imagine what $750 million would do to our Province in what they have taken by changing that formula? It has affected our education budgets. It has affected health care. It has affected social services. We have changed, and we have ran up debts. What has it done? It has shifted the balance out of Ottawa's coffers into debt that we had to float out on the market to be able to sustain it. One-and-a-half billion dollars more debt on a consolidated basis in our Province just in the last five years alone. One billion dollars from the Public Accounts over four years, and I am predicting in the $500 million range would be for the past year. So, $1 billion in four years, we are looking at - had we had that $776 million, we could have had that much less debt. We could be paying tens of millions of dollars less in interest. That could be going into other services that we are paying out on the debt. These debts have to be met. The market out there is not going to allow us to have debt out there and not pay interest. We have to pay our bills. Money is out on the market and we have to pay.

It is a pretty sad situation that we have allowed ourselves to get into such a deep rut. A lot of it is because the federal government has ignored us, but mainly because we have allowed the federal government to ignore us. We have been too complacent. We have been too wrapped up in our own provincial and other affairs, in the politics of it all, to be able to spend time and devote our energies to the bigger picture. We are too interested in the small cosmetic gain. I know our previous Premier spend too much time in five years nurturing that picture and promoting himself on the national stage that it has cost us a lot, and I think that is a price, a burden, that we have to bear because of that. I sincerely believe that he has cost us immensely because of that, and not willing to take on the federal counterparts. You have to fight and squeeze every single cent you can out of people at that level.

The Minister of Finance made a statement - in fact, on December 11 of this year. When the Premier went away, I think, he was supposed to get some type of an agreement. Here is what the Minister of Finance said: The reason our Premier signed that agreement at that point was contingent on the fact that they were going to do something about equalization. In other words, she said, we will do something about it now. We will all agree now on this agreement; runs away and gets their little signatures and comes back. What did they do about equalization? Absolutely nothing.

This is an area I am going to talk about soon, on equalization. I have a lengthy comment on equalization, where our Province has been, what we have failed to do and where we should be moving. This government has lost the sense of accountability; responsibility for our actions, but most importantly, responsibility for the dollars we are spending on behalf of taxpayers. This government was going to be transparent and accountable. It is more difficult getting statements and things out of this government than it is trying to extract heat out of a hen, basically, and that is no exaggeration. I do not know if you tried it, but we have a job. I think one of my colleagues wanted - how much money did they want for a report there to release some information? Was it $10,000?

AN HON. MEMBER: $10,000.

MR. SULLIVAN: Ten thousand dollars. The Opposition critic wanted information released and they said: Well, give us $10,000. We would like to have the cheque first, I think they said to one of my colleagues who requested information. The critic for Works, Services and Transportation asked for information - as critic he wanted to have it to be able to do his job properly, and he was told, under the Freedom of Information - they wrote a letter under the Freedom of Information and said it is going to cost hundreds of dollars on another piece. They contacted him: We would like to have the cheque first. In other words, we do not trust you to pay it. I mean, we have to pay for information that should be in the public domain. That is the transparency and that is the accountability that we are talking about in government.

Well, under accountability I certainly want to comment on special warrants. That has been an issue that the Auditor General has brought up on many occasions. I want to make reference, Madam Speaker, to what the law says of this Province, then I can let people draw the conclusion as to who is breaking the laws of this Province. The Financial Administration Act was brought in to allow this government and to allow any government to bring public expenditures to this House of Assembly. This House of Assembly is comprised of forty-eight members: the Speaker of the House and forty-seven others. Laws are passed in this Province, and we have to approve expenditures of government. Government brings in a budget, they lay out their costs. We debate that for endless hours, and it is voted on. They have to abide by it, but this government has broken the laws of the Province. They do not spend money approved by this Legislature. In fact, they go beyond and spend money that they do not even bring to this Legislature. They break the laws.

The Financial Administration Act states: When the Legislature is not in session or when the House of Assembly has been adjourned for more than thirty days, an expenditure not foreseen - something they did not see - and is not provided for in the legislation in respect of a new service, if it is urgently and immediately required for the public good, then, upon the report of the minister, if there is no provision, the minister having charge of that service and feels that it is urgent, giving reasons for that opinion, and if this expenditure is not made, there shall be grave damage to the interest of the Crown or the public will result if that is delayed. That is the only condition they can bring it to this House, that they can go out and spend money. If there was a fire, a massive fire, and we needed to bring in water bombers (inaudible) and the House did not sit, that could be a good reason to proceed and spend that money, but this government can never do it. They are never allowed to do it when this House sits.

Last year, and again this year, this minister allowed warrants to be issued, special warrants outside this House and Cabinet, for $33 million, to be spent without the proper adherence to the laws that we passed here in this House. That minister, that Cabinet, and that government broke the law. I asked, before the Budget this year, if there was going to be any more money spent this year. The House is now sitting. Can you bring those expenses to this House? We will debate them, and if we feel they are appropriate expenditures we will support it. But this minister would not do that.

The very day this House sat, on March 27 of this year, just last month, this minister allowed $48,256,800 to be spent in violation of the law that she is sworn to uphold here in this House of Assembly. That, to me, is a lack of accountability and it is a complete contempt for the members who are elected to come into this House. That is the type of government we are seeing here entrusted with our taxpayers. No wonder we are $1.5 billion in debt in the last five years. No wonder they are manipulating and shifting money, as the Auditor General said, to suit their own political purposes. That is basically what she said. She said they are manipulating and moving money to get the result they want, and the want is a political want. It is a political purpose.

I will just use some examples. On March 27, when we were sitting here in this House, they were signing off a warrant in contempt of this House for $3 million in one area, $3.3 million in another, $14 million in another warrant, another one for $3.5 million, another one, Supreme Court salaries, $23.8 thousand, another one, $387,900 and another four on the very same day for $820,000, $10 million, $6.4 million and $4 million. The very days that this House sat.

Two weeks prior to that, they also approved $1.9 million in a special warrant and another one for $720,000. Almost $50 million that this minister allowed to be spent in contempt of this House and contrary to the Financial Administration Act and the act of this House. To me, that is utter contempt and utter breaking of the laws of the Province. I asked - it is not like she did not know - I asked before the Budget in this House, in Question Period, questions on the very same issue. That should not be allowed to happen here.

Who do you expect to guard people's trust and protect the laws of this Province other than the ministers who are representing them and their departments? If the ministers are not going to do it, who is going to do it? If somebody else goes out and drives a trike over a highway and they are not allowed, they get ticketed. If someone else speeds, they get a ticket. If someone is damaging someone else's property, there is a price to pay and they are charged. There are avenues in the courts to deal with it, but there is no court in here to rule and make decisions on ministers blatantly breaking the very laws of the Province on accountability.

We would not allow to happen - and I repeat - we would not allow to happen, this lack of accountability that is happening in this Province today if we were in that position. Myself and the Leader had a news conference and we outlined just a very small part of what would be a very comprehensive plan and policy. We outlined the policy. We have done it on several policies. They wanted to hear from our policies. If we sat down, we could list off all our policies that are already implemented here and numerous others there.

We have taken positions on numerous areas and one in financial accountability, I might add. I am just going to remind some of the hon. members here some of things of accountability that we will do. We have said outright we will adopt a consolidated accrual accounting in the reporting and preparation of our provincial budget and documents. We will do it. All revenues are going to be allocated to the period in which they were earned. We are not going to manipulate and take tens of millions of dollars that are supposed to done in one year and shift it to give the perception where we did not have a big surplus one year, we did poorly, so we can go out and debate with unions and say: Well look, our situation is worse. When they are negotiating, our situation is bad. When we are up reading a budget, it is hunky-dory and everything is fantastic. They talk from both sides of their mouth. One day in the House they are talking from one extreme, and down the road, in another month, from another extreme.

We said we will produce a consolidatory budgetary balance and it will include the financial balance of all government departments and entities that are included. We talked about: We will require performance planning and reporting for all government departments and agencies, and each department and government funded agency will be required to put annual performance plans to this House of Assembly on or before the date when the main budget estimates are presented to this Legislature. The plan must include a statement of goals and specific objectives, key strategies for achieving each goal and objective, the costs and benefits and the performance measures that would be used to track those results. At the end of each fiscal year, departments and agencies will be required to table annual reports here in this Legislature that compare actual performance results for the fiscal year with expected results in their performance plans.

They are just generalities of dozens of specifics, dozens and dozens, that you would be finding out from a government, if formed by this side of the House, that is going to be accountable. One thing you can guarantee, the public are going to know the books of this Province, they are going to know the situation. They are going to be told that and they are going to get an honest report on it. They are not going to get one that is camouflaged with a pile of words, a pile of cosmetics added to it, and the real truth comes out eight and ten months down the road.

Talking about accountability: The Auditor General of this Province has produced very damming reports on this government. This government has been identified by the Auditor General as the least accountable government in all of this country. That is not something that we would want to put on a resume, or a finance minster would want to have on her resume, that she presided over the least accountable government under her department of any government in this entire country.

The Auditor General, after ten years monitoring here, makes some reference in winding up her report. She stated publically, that the government accountability is the worst in this Nation, and in at least one area, she said, compliance with the Financial Administration Act has gotten worse not better. In other words, compliance with the act, in other words, obeying the law of the Province, has gotten worse not better. You would think, from year to year, when the Auditor General points out what is wrong with compliance - she did not write the acts. This Legislature approved the acts, they set the laws. She reads and specifies whether there is compliance with specific acts in terms of proper accountability and control over public money. The public have a right to know how we are spending our money, they have a right to know that the safeguards are in place to see it spent properly, and that the appropriate decisions are made. They have a right to know about that.

There is no results based performance criteria for any government department or agency. There is none. They are not required to report to the Legislature here in this Province, and they do not. So, who is the watchdog and what is going on here? The Auditor General has repeatedly documented non-compliance by departments and agencies with the Financial Administration Act. I just spoke a few minutes ago about warrants that this minister took to this House, $48 million in March when this House sat in contempt and violation of the very laws of the Province that were passed and endorsed here as appropriate laws for the Province. The minister breaks the law, nothing happens. When somebody else in a department, or some innocent person out on the street, does something, they have to sometimes bear the heavy hand of the law. Who seen to be above the law are people in positions of authority.

I made reference to special warrants, and not only have special warrants continued to abuse it, it has gotten worse. It has gotten worse since 1997. It has continued to be abused more than it was in the past. In other words, the government has become too oblivious to what is going on. They have become too arrogant, too unaware of adherence to its own laws. They just want to spin out some good news, news that might enable them to get re-elected down the road at some point in time. The best way for re-election is to run an honest government, to deal with the things, to make transparent to the people and to the public what is happening, and justify your decision that it was a right decision. What better way to present to the people than saying: Here is the decision we have made, here are the facts we had in the decision, and we think it is the best decision for the people of the Province. No one can question, then, the integrity of a decision if it is made on a sound economic, a sound financial or a sound social basis. All decisions do not have to be financial decisions. Some decisions can be social decisions which sometimes takes precedent over certain financial aspects.

The Auditor General has said this government can create whatever deficit it wants to create, and they have done it this year. I made reference to it earlier. They have taken $58.1 million in deferred revenue. Here is revenue they had last year. This is revenue that should have been gone into last year, to show a lower deficit, but they did not use it. They shifted it and now they are using it this year, and they are showing this as revenue in our Province this year. That is dishonest, it is wrong, and it should not happen.

We have, in our Province, a very serious situation. We have just seen some statistics of what is happening with trends in our Province. Since 1996, our Province has seen a drop of 40,000 people. Can you imagine, 40,000 people? The results of that were shocking, to say the least. They say our Province dropped down to 513,000, I think, from 553,000 in that period. In 1989 our population was about 583,000. We have seen 70,000 people leave our Province. What impact does that - just think for a moment, without looking at rural Newfoundland and the decimation and things that I will get into a little later, what impact - take the City of Corner Brook, the City of Grand Falls-Windsor and Stephenville. Take those three out of our Province and you have taken 40,000 people out. Can you imagine our Province without Corner Brook, Stephenville and Grand Falls-Windsor? Look at the money spent in housing, look at the revenues, look at the jobs. Just look at the infrastructure, just look at the people employed. Look at this area and take that out. What a huge hole. That is what we have lost in five years. Imagine! In five years, that has been the loss. How much money would we have taken in from all these people in income tax, in sales tax, in spending money in all these stores, creating jobs for other people? Those jobs created jobs down the road for other people. They would be spending money in stores, more people working in the supermarket, more in other grocery stores, more in hardware stores, clothing stores, more cars being bought, more contributions to the economy of our Province, all of these things if we had people, because people are what make a place.

Now, all these people have not been plucked out of three areas but they have been taken out of every single area all over the Province, so you have less people in Stephenville, Corner Brook and Deer Lake, St. Anthony, less people in Trepassey, less people in Springdale and Lewisporte paying taxes to the town. They are struggling to improve their tax base. They are finding it more difficult to make ends meet. They are having to deal with the local people in rural Newfoundland on increasing their mill rate because of their properties. Many people are not building new houses, their properties are not growing in number. A lot of areas are being devalued. As the evaluation goes down, it becomes devalued and you cannot get the same revenues so they increase the mill rate to get the same revenue. All of these decisions are going on every single day in rural Newfoundland. It is a sad situation.

Back some time ago I picked up The Globe and Mail and I read a story. This was back in March. In the silent darkness outside his grocery store in Trepassey, Newfoundland, Tom Sutton sees what has happened to rural Newfoundland over the past decade.

It went on to say: The seaside road he scans was once known for its traffic jams as more than 500 people went to work at a fish plant in the Town of Trepassey.

The census does not tell the real story. The last census, from 1996 to 2001, the recent one, said it lost 18 per cent, but when you go back to the previous census of 1991, in that ten year period, it lost 40 per cent of its population. Can you imagine any town in this Province with 1,500 people - it had 1,485 people in the 1991 census - down now to 880 people? I think that is what is showing here, in that ballpark. It lost 40 per cent. What town has lost 40 per cent of its population in ten years, that had a population of 1,500? Take a town of 2,000 losing 800, down to 1,200. Take a town of 10,000 going down to 6,000. I do not see a town of that size being so significantly impacted in ten years with a 40 per cent lost of population, from the census. That is devastating.

It goes on to talk about how 500 people worked in one particular plant there, and where are they working now? They are gone Brooks, Alberta, they indicated, and construction jobs in Ontario and British Columbia. In fact, so much so that houses have been bought up by people from the U.S. I think there were three that sold for $100 each. I know people have bought houses for $3,000 and several thousand, houses that were $45,000 houses, three bedroom bungalows that were built years ago - that was a fair price at the time - being picked up for about one-sixth or one-seventh of that value right now. That is an example just in one area. I am not going to belabor it by going into any deep discussion on that, but it just goes to show the decimation that has occurred in rural Newfoundland.

When this government stands up and says that 63 per cent of the new jobs created are in rural Newfoundland today, I challenge and ask them: Where in rural Newfoundland are the jobs? Please table a list. Please provide me a list of the 63 per cent of new jobs created in rural Newfoundland, what they were and where they are? Let us see where the growth is occurring. I do not see it. I do not see it. What I do see in front of me are sheets here showing that Trepassey is down to 889 people when it was 1,485 ten years ago. I do see one showing that places even close to St. John's, Conception Harbour, are down 10 per cent, and places even very close, Bay Bulls, showing a minus 4.6 per cent. There is new housing and so on going in that area; it is just that there are less people in each household now. There is some housing going up and it is at least a stable area, or a growth area some time in the future.

We are seeing that Baie Verte, for example, has gone down between 200 and 300 people on 1,700; 12.7 per cent. All over the Province, I am looking all over and declines are up to 30 per cent, 10 per cent, 15 per cent. Where are the jobs being created in Newfoundland and Labrador today? Where are the jobs the government are talking about? Can they produce them? Can they show us, give us the communities? The minister is nodding his head. The Minister of Mines and Energy said he can produce them. Show them, please. Show me where the jobs are going in rural Newfoundland, 63 per cent over what they used to be.

I will show you what jobs were in Newfoundland ten years ago. Back in the 1980s, in the fishery, there were tens of thousands of jobs in rural Newfoundland that are not there now.

MR. MATTHEWS: You do not believe the statistics. You do not believe the information.

MR. SULLIVAN: I believe the statistics. I am looking at official statistics released, that are showing the population growth. The true story is in the immigration of people. The true story is in the people who are now living in Fort McMurray and other parts of Alberta and all over Ontario and other parts of this country.

If you just look at out-migration since 1995-1996, we have seen about 40,000 people, the net out-migration that has gone out of this Province just in the last number of years. We have seen devastation occurring in this Province. We have seen devastation in rural Newfoundland. If anybody living in rural Newfoundland today sees the prosperity that this government talks about, I think you need to have an examination. I think you need to have an examination, yes. They should make an appointment right away.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: It would have to be with a psychiatrist. I cannot see who else we should make the appointment with, because I do not see it. I see some jobs created and others being lost. Where are they? Can anybody over there tell us? Where is the 63 per cent of new jobs in rural Newfoundland? It is not happening.

When you look at the impact of this - and I was listening to an interesting discussion on radio on the stats when they came out March 12. This was with Jeff Gilhooly, On the Go with CBC. He interviewed an economist at Memorial University. He made reference that Stats Canada describes Newfoundland's decline - Jeff Gilhooly said - as a vicious cycle. That is because most people we are losing are young and therefore lost as potential parents. He asked this economist for his views, basically, his reaction to this dip in population. He said he was not surprised that it dropped, but he was very surprised by the magnitude of the drop.

He also went on: when you look at how significant it is, that averages 11,000 people a year. What are the implications for this Province? What are the implications from a population drop? He said: of course, the more population you have the more equalization you get. In equalization we are looking at 2,000-some, I guess, when you look at - other transfers are in the $3,000 range, $2,856 or something it works out to. Almost $3,000 for every person we lost; that is $3,000 times 40,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the Government House Leader, you are some lucky I am. You are some lucky I am.

Mr. Speaker, 40,000 people times $3,000; that is $123 million we are losing just on equalization on this population drop.

I know it is getting to that time of the day. They are begging me to take a break. I will come back again tomorrow and finish the other 90 per cent of my comments that I have to make on this budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, the second part gets better, and the third part gets better again. There are a lot of things happening, I say to the minister, in this Province that I am not too excited about. There is a lot of manipulation on the handling of budget figures that I am not too excited about. I was stopped from speaking previously when I was on limited time on a bill, but I am not prevented from speaking now because I have unlimited time on this budget. I expect to say what I intended to say -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: If it takes me another twenty minutes, I will do it. If it takes me another day, I will do it, but I am not going to be stopped because there are things I want to address that this government is getting away with.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I would say the soaps (inaudible) down today Loyola, you were on all afternoon.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I agree. I think you might even shut them down for the next week or so. They might shut down the soaps today because nobody will be watching, I might add. I am sure the minister will want to get home to get the tail end of the ones that he usually follows.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: With that, and not to unduly delay the hasty exit of the minister of this House, I now adjourn debate, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, in view of the heavy Committee work that members have to get themselves ready for, I move that the House do now adjourn.

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