November

18, 1997

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 32

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, I would like to

welcome to the House of Assembly today, the Deputy Mayor of Mount Pearl, Mr.

Steve Kent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

Labour.

MR LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the

important issue of air quality and to inform hon. members of progress that has

been made in dealing with a number of environmental matters at the Come By

Chance oil refinery, particularly matters relating to air quality.

Approximately 130 countries, including Canada, will be

meeting in Kyoto, Japan, from December 1 to December 12, 1997 for the Third

Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change. Mr. Speaker, this is a major international conference dealing with the

global problem of climate change from greenhouse gas emissions. In preparation

for this international conference, a joint national meeting of energy and

environment ministers was held last week in Regina, Saskatchewan. I am pleased

that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador co-chaired this meeting with the

Province of Alberta. The meeting was useful in providing the federal government

with advice on a national position with respect to climate change issues.

The simple fact that so many nations are meeting in Kyoto,

Japan, to deal with this single issue clearly demonstrates the importance of air

issues on the international agenda. Mr. Speaker, air issues are important in

Newfoundland and Labrador as well.

The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is not a major

contributor to the climate change problem. However, Mr. Speaker, government

recognizes its responsibilities in this area and we have given assurances that

we will work towards meeting the national commitment to reduce greenhouse

gasses. As well, Mr. Speaker, government is committed to addressing air quality

issues on the whole and not just those that relate to climate change.

In this regard, Mr. Speaker, there has been considerable

public attention on the need to reduce emissions at the Come By Chance oil

refinery, particularly emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO 2 ). Therefore,

over the past few months, I have met with company officials to discuss a number

of outstanding environmental concerns, including emission levels. While these

discussions are ongoing, I felt that it was appropriate at this time to inform

the hon. members of the status of these discussions, particularly with respect

to priority items.

A

schedule of reductions has been agreed upon between the

government and the refinery owners and operators in an Environmental Compliance

Initiative. Mr. Speaker, government intends to hold North Atlantic Refining

Limited to the commitments made under this agreement.

As a result of discussion with North Atlantic Refining

Limited, the company has committed to install equipment, and have it operating

within six months, at an estimated cost of $4.6 million which will reduce the

sulphur dioxide emissions by 14,000 tonnes annually. This represents a decrease

of approximately 33 per cent from last year's emission levels. We will continue

to work with North Atlantic Refining Limited to ensure that further improvements

are made in this area.

As well, Mr. Speaker, the company has been directed to treat

and dispose of a stockpile of sour water at the refinery. Sour water is a

by-product of the refining process and is composed of hydrogen sulphide and

ammonia dissolved in water. In this regard, the company has improved the

efficiency of their existing sour water stripper and also improved operations to

reduce sour water production.

Mr. Speaker, another key environmental issue at the refinery

relates to the impounding basin which serves a containment function in the event

of leakage or a spill. Based on concerns expressed by the Department of

Environment and Labour, work has begun to increase the capacity of the

impounding basin by raising the height of its wall. This work is expected to be

completed by December 31, 1997. Mr. Speaker, this is a positive development at

the refinery as it will provide greater assurance that any leakage or spill of

petroleum liquids will be contained on site and not released into the

environment.

North Atlantic Refining Limited has also been directed to

complete a comprehensive waste management plan by December 31, 1997. The

objective of this plan is to have the company prevent or reduce waste before it

occurs and to ensure proper storage and handling. The waste management plan will

be reviewed by government for approval prior to implementation.

Mr. Speaker, government is satisfied with the level of

cooperation that we have received lately from North Atlantic Refining Limited,

and acknowledge that environmental conditions at the refinery have improved

since the company has assumed ownership. To this end, the company has spent in

excess of $16 million over the past three years on improvements that will

benefit the environment. We fully expect North Atlantic Refining to continue to

take steps towards addressing environmental issues at the refinery, including

further efforts to ensure environmental conditions at the refinery meet

acceptable standards.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I would like to thank the minister for providing me a copy of

his statement prior to the House opening.

Mr. Speaker, through his statement, he said the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador is not a major contributor to climate-change problems.

I hope that this is not a message presented in Japan because Come By Chance is

amongst the worst, not in Canada but in the continent, Mr. Speaker, for emission

problems.

Mr. Speaker, they are saying that this year they are going to

decrease the emissions by approximately 33 per cent. The Come By Chance target

last year was 35,000 tons, if I remember properly, which represented an increase

by 24 per cent of their target, Mr. Speaker; so I ask: Do numbers mean anything

here?

I am asking that the minister keep a close eye to this and

other projects in our Province, and I would like to say that our Party is in

favour of industrial development and the creation of jobs in our Province. We

have to do it in an environmentally acceptable standard, Mr. Speaker, so I hope

that this minister will do a better job than this government has done in the

past on controlling emissions in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, members of the House are aware

that the TAGS program is scheduled to terminate in May 1998. This is a matter of

great concern to over 20,000 individuals - and their families - who through no

fault of their own, have been displaced from their traditional livelihood, as a

result of the federal government's decision to close the ground fishery. It is

also a matter of great concern to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Members of the House will also know that TAGS was

implemented, with the expectation that the ground fishery would recover in the

near future. TAGS was meant to provide support and assistance during the

transition period in which the ground fishery was expected to recover.

Recent scientific evidence by the Department of Fisheries and

Oceans now indicate that it is unlikely the ground fishery will recover to

significant levels in the foreseeable future.

In light of this reality, there is a clear need for a

successor program to the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy Program. This has been

acknowledged by Prime Minister Chrtien and Federal Fisheries Minister David

Anderson. In our view, this is one of the most significant public policy issues

facing our Province today, but it is also a national crisis that the Federal

Government cannot ignore.

Mr. Speaker, we were very encouraged when the House of

Commons Fisheries Committee recognized the urgency of the issue. They agreed to

come to our Province, to see first-hand, the devastating impact of the

groundfish moratorium on individuals, on communities and on the social and

economic fabric of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

In doing so, the committee will hear the views of those most

affected by the failure of the ground fishery. It is their views which should

guide the Federal Government in addressing the challenge which arises when more

than 20,000 people find themselves without their traditional livelihood and

without the kind of support that has been afforded by TAGS.

Mr. Speaker, while we are encouraged by the decision of the

Commons Fisheries Committee to come to Atlantic Canada and indeed, visit

communities such as Tors Cove, Marystown, La Scie and others, we are very

disappointed that their proposed schedule, as communicated to me by Committee

Chairman, George Baker, does not include many of the other communities in our

Province which were hardest hit by the moratorium. I refer specifically to the

North East Coast of Newfoundland, the Great Northern Peninsula and coastal

Labrador. The Committee has not scheduled time to hear from those individuals

and groups that have been most affected.

As the Chairman of the Fisheries Committee indicated this

morning on VOCM, the TAGS decision is likely to be made in early January. It is

therefore imperative that the Fisheries Committee change its

schedule to hold

meetings in the hardest hit communities in our Province during their current

visit.

Unless MPs hear from displaced fisheries workers, those

workers will not have a voice in how this continuing crisis should be addressed.

It is the fisherpeople of Newfoundland and Labrador who stand to lose and we

cannot allow the Federal Government to dictate a solution in a vacuum without

consulting those affected.

On that note, Mr. Speaker, it is with this in mind that I

have provided this information to members of the House so that they can contact

the members of the Fisheries Committee.

Thank you.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is the first time that I have ever had the news release

that I published two weeks ago, read in the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Word for word, I say to the hon.

minister.

Mr. Speaker, I called for exactly this two weeks ago. I

called for this and I talked about the minister's cousin up in Ottawa, Mr.

Baker, who said I jumped the gun, I did not know what I was talking about. He

said I should have conferred with my Leader.

In afterthought I said: Maybe I do not know something so I

conferred with my Leader. Mr. Baker said that he had consulted him, that he had

wanted the meeting and this was his proposal. The Leader of the Official

Opposition in this House has never spoken with George Baker in his life, has

never talked to a member of the Committee. That is the shame in this.

I say to the members opposite, how about Bonavista? How about

Fogo, Twillingate, and those other places on the Northeast Coast that are not

included in this particular itinerary? How about the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs' district? The Members for Bellevue and Trinity North, not a

queak on the people in their districts that have been devastated by the closure

of the Northeast Coast fishery.

The other thing is, how about our own government? How about

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador? Where do you stand?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: What are your proposals to help us out in

this situation?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: So I call on members opposite and I call

on the minister to come forward and consult with the federal Minister of

Fisheries and Oceans, consult with the federal Minister of Human Resources

Development, consult with the Premier's close friend, the Prime Minister, and

get their ear to make sure that this Committee visits the Northeast Coast of

this Province to hear first-hand the devastation that has been caused by the

closure of the fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise today to ask hon. members to join me in acknowledging

November 16 to November 22 as Drug Awareness Week in Newfoundland and Labrador.

This year's theme, "Discover the Magic! Be Drug Free,"

targets the youth of our Province by raising awareness about the use and misuse

of alcohol, smoking, prescription drugs, and addictive behaviours through the

School Health Curriculum. This is a most appropriate theme as it is based on

magician Gary Summers' innovative Magic Show concept which teaches children how

to make the right choices with respect to drug use and misuse. The activities

taking place in many communities throughout the Province this week will serve as

the launch of the Magic Show program Province-wide.

In recent years the use of contraband products, the abuse of

prescription drugs, and addictions amongst youth has received increased

attention in our Province. In 1996, the Addictions Services Division of the

Department of Health administered the Newfoundland and Labrador Student Drug Use

Survey to students in grades 7, 9, 10 and 12. The results of this survey

indicated a substantial number of young people are consuming alcohol, using

tobacco products, and experimenting with stimulants that physicians did not

prescribe for them.

One of the recommendations arising from the 1996 survey was

the need to develop additional drug prevention programs for students. As a

result, a well-known magician, Mr. Gary Summers, began working with the

department's Addictions Services Division to create an innovative and unique

idea for teaching children the hazards of substance abuse through the use of

magic.

This is a very important week, a very serious week, and I

would ask hon. members to acknowledge this week as a national event organized to

raise awareness about alcohol, drugs, and other addictions.

The 1997 provincial committee is a cooperative effort which

is largely community-based and is composed of a number of dedicated individuals

from police and community groups, as well as government, who have formed a

partnership to raise public awareness surrounding these issues.

They include representatives from the Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Department of Health's

Addictions Services and Health Promotion Division, Community Health Regions,

Allied Youth, Health Canada, and the Department of Education.

The Program was launched earlier this morning at the RNC

Headquarters and will be available to school children in grades Kindergarten to

8 across the Province. I was fortunate to attend the ceremony this morning,

along with representatives of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, Robinson

Blackmore, and students from Brother Rice High School, as well as having the RNC

introduce their new poster program designed to target youth in our Province.

I would like to also today acknowledge in the gallery, RNC

Inspector Connie Snow, Sergeants Paula Buckle and Sean Ryan, the Director of the

Addictions Services Division of the Department of Health, Ms Beverly Clarke, and

other departmental officials, Carol Ann MacDonald and Ellen Chalker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: - and two youth representatives from

Brother Rice High School, Jeneane Cannizzaro and David Tipton, who give their

full support to this program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to

present each hon. member with a Drug Awareness Week Kit. The Department of

Health will distribute 6,000 of these kits to school children, community groups

and businesses throughout the Province in preparation for the campaign.

I ask all Members of the House of Assembly that we do our

part and join the people of our Province today in marking this week, November

16-22, as Drug Awareness Week in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for providing me with a

copy of her statement before she read it here today, and as well, of course, to

congratulate her on reading her own statement.

The House, join with you today in supporting this particular

project and this program. We as well today, welcome the members of the board to

the House today and we would urge your department of course, to stay involved

with such programs throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, and I guess, where to

start and the right place to start is with our children at a very early age so

as they get older, they will certainly realize the dangers of drugs throughout

our Province. They are on the go, they are everywhere and I think this is

certainly a move in the right direction, so we, on this side of the House, fully

support this endeavour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Premier and they deal with the

Churchill Falls Development.

Now, over a year ago, the Premier went on a national public

relations tour to change the Upper Churchill Contract. In fact, he stated

publicly since that he is renegotiation that basic contract. Will the Premier

admit today that, the basic contract is not on the negotiating table and explain

to the people of this Province why he continues to mislead them?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to get into

an exchange about a negotiation which, for the moment, between Newfoundland and

Labrador and the Province of Quebec is still confidential, but I can tell the

hon. -

AN HON. MEMBER: Everything is confidential (inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, a negotiation is like that. The

member opposite may not realize it and until such time have something to bring

forward to the people of the Province, something to bring forward to the House

of Assembly - but I can tell the member, to quote the words of Mr. Bouchard when

we met last year at the Conference of New England Governors and Eastern

Premiers, that we are discussing all matters, the past, the present and the

future and looking at all the opportunities to increase the viability, the take

and the benefits to Newfoundland and Labrador and to the Province of Quebec, and

co-operating together with respect to hydro developments; and if the Leader of

the Opposition wants me to stand up piecemeal and to get into a private

negotiation on the floor of the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, I am not

prepared to do that because it is not responsible and not in the best interests

of this Province.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oh, how times have changed in a year! A year ago he would not

negotiate and he went across this country on a crusade and he would not sit down

to the table and now he has changed re receiving 3 mils per kilowatt hour, now

it is two-and-a-half and it will be two by the year 2016. I want to ask the

Premier one, simple question, nothing to do with the details of negotiations.

Can you tell us here today if it is on the negotiating table for the

renegotiation of the basic rate and the basic contract with Hydro Quebec?

I have been informed by officials within the Quebec

Government that it is not. Can you tell us the real truth?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I find the position of

the Leader of the Opposition to be rather odd.

A year ago, I said on behalf of the people and the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador that the current contract is totally unacceptable

as it stands, and that while the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is

prepared and would prefer to negotiate a better arrangement - and I invite him

to go back and read my speeches - at the end of the day, if a better arrangement

is not negotiable, then the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will take

unilateral action to put an end to the current arrangement between Newfoundland

and Labrador and Quebec, and the Leader of the Opposition said I was

irresponsible, that I should be sitting down talking with the Province of

Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, we are now talking with the Province of Quebec

and I am hopeful that something constructive will come out of it, but I can tell

the Leader of the Opposition that if something constructive does not come out of

it, we will exercise any and all other options open to us. For the moment, there

is a constructive dialogue that we intend to continue.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I remember

quite well, a year ago, when I said you should be sitting down negotiating, you

passed it off as not having an interest in the future of this Province. I

remember that, Premier; you were in Montreal at the time.

The Premier has not answered whether it is on the negotiating

table, he is avoiding the question.

Now I want to move to another aspect of the Churchill

Development. The Premier is finally acknowledging the Lower Churchill has a

cheap and environmentally clean source and I called a year ago Premier to start

negotiations there when you did not. Now it took the Premier a while but he is

finally cluing in. Now can the Premier tell us today if he is negotiating with

American companies or any other Canadian provinces, other than Quebec, to

develop the Lower Churchill? If he is, what is the status of those developments?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition

has made such a constructive contribution to this debate, figuring out a year

ago - most people figured out twenty-five years ago that Lower Churchill power

is clean and environmentally friendly. He has made such a constructive

contribution. I hope he goes on making that contribution for many years to come.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, one day he will have the responsibility for sitting on

this side of the House and trying to do what is in the best interest of the

Province. Now, Mr. Speaker, I can see that that meets with the consent

unanimously given and enthusiastically expressed of his members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition

that we are doing our best to ensure that a fair share of the benefit of the

Upper Churchill, the Lower Churchill, the hydro developments of Labrador flow

through to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Every government of this

Province of both political stripes have attempted to change this circumstance

negotiated, Mr. Speaker, back in the 1960s. A year ago when I went to Montreal

to say that we were serious about this, that we wanted a renegotiation or other

actions would follow, the day that I arrived there the Leader of the Opposition

to ignore us, that a contract was a contract and that nothing could be done to

break the contract. He undermined the position of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is the same party that said that a

trans-shipment facility would never get built, that it was a negotiation that

would never bring a positive result.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: This is the same that said there would

never be an industrial facility at Argentia. Mr. Speaker, this is the same party

that is interested only in failure. Mr. Speaker, on this side we are planning

for success.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier forgot to mention one key point, I was quoting

the former Minister of Mines and Energy who said in this House in response to my

question, `a contract is a contract,' I say to the Premier. That is the little

white -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that he is now on a supplementary

and it needs no

preamble.

MR. SULLIVAN: I asked the Premier a very simple question,

Mr. Speaker, and that simple question is, are you negotiating with any US

companies or Canadian provinces for the development of the Lower Churchill? If

you are, could you give this House an update on the status of those

developments?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we now have the Leader of the

Opposition saying he is quoting somebody who is no longer here in saying, `a

contract is a contract.' Is the Leader of the Opposition saying we should merely

accept, lay down, lay quiet and accept this contract from now to the year 2041

because we are not prepared to accept this contract. We don't accept the Leader

of the Opposition's assertion that a contract is a contract. We say this

contract is so bad it has to be changed and we need a fair shake of the value of

Upper Churchill power! That is what we say!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard such an

irresponsible position from an officer of this House than the notion that a

contract is from now to 2041 Newfoundland and Labrador should lay down and take

it on the chin? There is not a chance in this world we are going to do that, Mr.

Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier cannot tell us confidential information whether

he is renegotiating the Upper Churchill contract. He cannot tell us if he has

talked to people in the US or Canada on developing the Lower Churchill. What

does he know? What does he know, Mr. Speaker?

MR. J. BYRNE: Ask him again.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not sure if I will ask him again

because he does not know the answer. He does not know who he talks to.

Potential investors have said that they need a detailed

proposal. That is what they have indicated. I ask him, what is the status of

this proposal and will the people of this Province have a chance to see it

before another Liberal government goes off on a photo op instead of making the

best deal for the people of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know where the hon.

Leader of the Opposition was. Are we talking to American investors? I went and

gave a speech before the Canada-New England Business Council in Boston to about

350 energy investors about the Lower Churchill project. Yes, we are having

discussions. We had a meeting in St. John's last week with a consortium which is

internationally based which has a total of $35 billion in sales which has met

with myself and the Minister of Mines and Energy and has said: In the event you

do not pursue to conclusion negotiations with the Province of Quebec on the

development of the Lower Churchill, we - this is one consortium - are interested

in being involved in this project. We would be interested in being involved in a

variety of ways.

So yes, I must confess - and I hope you go and tell your

sources in Hydro Quebec whom you represent with the view that a contract is a

contract - that it is not the only partner we are talking to, nor is it the only

partner we are willing to sit down and do a deal with, if it means increased

benefits for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Leader of the Opposition is looking worried that we might

have more success and prosperity forced upon the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. I say, get ready for it! The next twenty-four months are going to see

this Province take off with a bang!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to

tell the Premier I have no fears of that happening while he is in that chair. I

have no fears of that.

The Premier has spoken with a major company. He just told us

he is negotiating, and he has with a major company. Have you provided to them

what investors have called for with a detailed proposal, and could you name that

company you are now negotiating with on the Lower Churchill?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, this is all very interesting,

but it is very clear that the real concern of the Leader of the Opposition - and

frankly, the people of the Province are able to make a judgement on their own -

is that there might be a bit of good news in the Province, that there might be

some positive development.

IOCC in Labrador City has discovered 1 billion new tons of

iron ore to keep Labrador West going for the next fifty years. Not a word from

the Leader of the Opposition. The Hibernia offshore oil and gas field has come

into production one month early; the reserves have been pushed up by 100 million

barrels; the daily production from 135,000 to 170,000. Not a word by the Leader

of the Opposition.

The Conference Board of Canada, the Atlantic Provinces

Economic Council -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: - all of the chartered banks have forecast

that Newfoundland and Labrador will lead the country in GDP growth next year.

Not a word from the Leader of the Opposition!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the only word from the Leader

of the Opposition -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier to conclude his answer.

PREMIER TOBIN: - is the same sound the Grinch makes. He

is unhappy with the possibility we might have a happy Christmas in Newfoundland

and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm delighted with

the great Tory offshore project where oil is coming ashore when nobody else

believed in it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: John Crosbie (inaudible) Hibernia and the

offshore when the Premier sat in Opposition and complained about it! That is

what I say to him. Now the Premier wants to take credit for discovering 1

billion tons of iron ore. Where were you for the last ten and fifteen or twenty

years, I say to the Premier?

The Premier and this government are allowing private

companies to dam off rivers all over this Province. We have heard of Fig River

in Labrador, with Star Lake and the attempt on the Humber, and numerous others.

I ask the Premier, will he admit that these developments are going to jeopardize

the development of the Lower Churchill?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think it is time -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think it is time for the

Leader of the Opposition to put...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please! Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think it is time to get the

leader of the new Newfoundland Party back as a research assistant to the Leader

of the Opposition.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I must say, his responses are very pertinent and very

informative. We have learned a lot today in response here, I say to the Premier,

very, very much.

It is very interesting to note that private developers,

buyers and investors are chomping at the bit to get into the Hydro market. Yet,

the Premier is now only talking about potential investors for the Lower

Churchill.

I ask the Premier: Where have you been all along? He has

known of increased energy demands since taking office. I ask him: What is his

government waiting for to get development under way?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the river developments that the

hon. member is talking about are four small Hydro developments which will occur

on the Island portion of the Province which are less than fifty megawatts of

power. The Churchill Falls, the lower development of Churchill at Gull Island

and Muskrat, represent 3,100 megawatts of power. I can assure you, there will be

no trouble attracting investment from around the world to develop these

particular sites.

So, I do not know what the hon. member is saying. If he is

worried about investment, I tell him to relax, there is no problem with

investment. The problem is getting the fundamentals right on the Lower Churchill

deal, so that it benefits this Province well into the future.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: I really do.

The hon. member - I noticed his seat is moved. He is firing

verbal bullets across the House. `Hitman Jack' - if he were not so (inaudible)

challenged, I would call him Wolfman Jack.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Mines and Energy is one question behind, that

is the question before last, the Premier was two behind.

One final question, Mr. Speaker: Can the Premier reveal to us

the long-term energy plan that this government has for the Province, when the

previous administration, the previous minister and Premier indicated that we do

not need to have a plan because it locks us in? Can I ask him if they changed on

that and what is your long-term energy plan for the development of this Province

and can you table it in the House?

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

MR. FUREY: With respect to electricity, Mr. Speaker, the

policy is contained in the Electrical Power Control Act. That Act sits on the

table, it lays out the parameters of the future. Hydro, which is a Crown

corporation, sets the forecast for the demands that are required well into the

future. With respect to other energy sources, we have our gas offshore, which -

MR. SULLIVAN: Tore up Hydro's plan.

MR. FUREY: We did not tear up Hydro's plan. Hydro sets

out a plan which delivers forecasts of what the energy requirements will be. If

there is an anomaly that happens within that five-year context -and there has

been, that is called Voisey's Bay - that obviously changes the forecast, and it

increased it in this case to the tune of 200 megawatts. You talked about energy

development.

We also have a plan, with respect to the Lower Churchill. We

think that it is very important in a deregulated electricity environment to find

an interconnect for the Island, because people have to understand that in the

North American context, electricity rates are going down, and that is because

the market place is opening up under the new FERC 888 regulation. We need that

interconnect for the Island because we have 150 megawatts of hydro power that is

safe, that can be developed in the next ten years.

So, I think, if we want to focus on something in terms of an

energy plan, we need to find a way to connect and tap into that great resource

called Muskrat Falls and bring it to the Province, so that we can have surplus

energy to induce business to come here well into the future.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are directed to the Premier.

Why does the Premier continue to allow his minister

responsible for public tendering, to do business through his department using

public monies, with companies that involve either the minister or the minister's

family? Why is the Premier, pawning off on the Commissioner, his own

responsibility as First Minister, to eliminate either the fact or the appearance

of a conflict of interest, in ministers who are spending the money of the people

of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has just

made a statement that makes no specific allegation. He is a lawyer, so he is

very careful not to make a specific allegation because he knows -

The people of the Province ought to be aware of what is

happening. This is a very careful way to slander somebody without making any

specific allegations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: He is a lawyer.

PREMIER TOBIN: He is a lawyer, and he is practising the

craft very carefully.

The fact of the matter is, and the member opposite knows

this, that the minister to whom he has just referred is in full compliance - and

you know this to be the case - full compliance with the code today, has gone

beyond the code as is required today. You know further that the minister

involved plays no role, no direct role, in the awarding of these contracts. It

is done according to the Public Tender Act and he has no role in this

whatsoever.

The companies in question have been around for twenty-five

years. Now, is the member saying that there has been a specific wrongdoing or

benefit which is accrued to the minister or to these companies as a result of an

action he has taken? I will give him a commitment. If he can cite me any

evidence of that, I will have the minister's resignation in thirty seconds. But

I say this: If he is serious about this allegation, make it; we will investigate

it. If the minister has done anything wrong, the minister will be asked for his

resignation. If the minister has not done anything wrong, put your seat on the

line and you resign.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East, a supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the Premier, in recent days

has stated publicly that he believes the minister is not in conflict because the

company's affairs have been placed in a blind trust. I ask the Premier: How

blind can a blind trust be, Mr. Speaker, when your family member is managing it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am going to call this

gentleman's integrity on the floor of the House right now, the man who is making

these statements. It is very easy to make allegations, to smear reputations. Now

we have to find out if the gentleman opposite has courage, character and

integrity.

You make a specific allegation, and if there is any evidence

of wrongdoing whatsoever, I will secure the minister's resignation immediately.

Make the allegation, but if the allegation does not stand up, I ask you, Sir, to

have the courage of your convictions and put your job on the line, or apologize.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East, a supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, in this context the word

`integrity' is a difficult concept, but I must respond by saying to the Premier,

I now call into question your integrity, Mr. Premier, and I will say why.

The question that I just asked - the very question that I

just asked - comes from the Commons Debates, April 30, 1986, when in the House

of Commons the man who is now sitting in the Premier's chair of this Province

asked, as the federal member for the District of Humber - Port-au-Port - St.

Barbe, `Mr. Speaker, how blind can a blind trust be when your spouse is managing

it?'

I now say to the hon. member: Why the double standard? Why is

what was acceptable some eleven years ago not acceptable today? Why it is that

what is sauce for the goose is no longer sauce for the gander?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am going to repeat what I

have said.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: No, no, I am asking all the members -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: I am asking all of the members to look

across the floor at the hon. Lloyd Matthews, who has served in this place

honourably since 1989. Colleagues, look at your fellow colleague. Will one of

you stand and make a charge against this minister? Will one of you stand and

impugn his integrity? Will one of you stand and say he is a criminal or a crook?

Will one of you stand and say he has benefited himself illegally?

If one of you has the courage, stand and make the allegation.

If it is proven, this minister will resign immediately. If it is not proven, put

your job on the line or take back these scandalous accusations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East, a supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: The Throne Speech, 1989, at the time of

the former leadership of Mr. Wells: The government must not and will not do

business with a minister or any member of a minister's immediate family, or any

company or firm in which a minister or any member of a minister's immediate

family has any financial interest whatsoever. There must be no room for

suggestion of improper dealing, real or perceived - I stress, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - real or perceived -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask

him to get to his question.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - by any minister of the Crown. I ask

the hon. the Premier to respond.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would respond by saying

that the member opposite knows he is making a false charge. He hasn't the

courage of his convictions. He hasn't the courage to go outside the door of this

House after Question Period and make a specific allegation because he knows he

would find himself in a court of law and that he would be subject to a civil

suit.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: I cannot make it clearer. If the member

can provide any evidence of any wrongdoing, this minister will resign. But if

this member has a shred of backbone, which I doubt he has, one iota of backbone,

he would stand and make a specific allegation and put his job on the line. Let

him do his job. I am fully prepared to do mine.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the minister responsible for rural

renewal in the Province, and also he is the minister heading up the committee

that is going around this Province to revitalize rural Newfoundland. I think

that is the logo of the minister now as he heads it up.

As I looked at an itinerary just a little while ago of this

committee that is travelling the Province to revitalize rural Newfoundland, I

happened to look at the tour that happened on the West Coast, when some thirteen

meetings were held on the West Coast of hundreds of communities for this

revitalization committee. Out of the thirteen meetings, eight were held in

Corner Brook. This is now, remember, the revitalization of rural Newfoundland -

eight in Corner Brook out of the thirteen that were on the West Coast of this

Province, one on the civic centre.

I ask the minister: When is he planning on taking this

committee, as he mentioned on a committee on the fisheries just a few minutes

ago, when is he going to take this committee to the real heart of the problem in

this Province, which is rural Newfoundland, so that it can hear first-hand what

plans this Province has to revitalize rural Newfoundland?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, as usual the hon. gentleman does

part of his homework but does not do all of his homework. I would remind him

that there are twenty regional economic development boards in this Province. The

particular itinerary that he talked about, the specific point of that trip was

to meet with a regional economic development board around the Corner Brook

region, which includes Corner Brook, Deer Lake, and so on.

I would remind him that we visited the Strait of Bell Isle,

we have been up in Roddickton, we have been up in St. Anthony, we have been

across the Straits to Labrador, and I must say, we have had a pretty reception

everywhere we have gone. We have been in Central Newfoundland. I think last week

we were in the district of the member from Bay d'Espoir. We have got excellent

reports out of those places.

We are taking back the points that people are making to us,

and we intend within the next little while to put together all of those

suggestions, and indeed present them to this House. The hon. gentleman will then

know that we have done - as a matter of fact, I have to say to the hon.

gentleman that it was only last - when was it we were down to Springdale? Only

last week that we were down in the hon. member's area and received a zonal

report down there, a strategic economic plan, from that group. Mr. Speaker, we

intend to fully put all those things into place.

The Corner Brook thing - I think we looked at a few things

while we were out there as well. We did more - we went beyond the call of duty.

I have to say to the hon. gentleman that the reports we are getting back from

those visits are very favourable.

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

Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the minister, if I

am doing half of my homework, that is 50 per cent more than the minister is

doing when it comes to rural Newfoundland. Because I can tell the minister now

that yes, the great meetings, the big list of meetings that we have here, from

Corner Brook, one on the civic centre, when are you going to go out - I will ask

the question again - into rural Newfoundland?

I ask the Premier: Are you satisfied today that this minister

and Rural Renewal, there for two years, which has followed through since an

Economic Recovery Commission of the previous Administration? If the minister is

here standing in this House today and believing inside this Chamber that it is

all fine and it is all excellent work being done in rural Newfoundland, and

there are all kinds of great things happening -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

his question.

MR. SHELLEY: - he had better think again. I ask the

minister again on this revitalization of rural Newfoundland, the great Cabinet

Committee he has going around: When are you going to go out into the bowels of

the problem? When is this minister going to talk to people in rural Newfoundland

who have the real problems of staying in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Development and

Rural Renewal.

MR. TULK: I do not know where the hon. gentleman is

coming from. The truth of the matter is that this committee already, within

what, three months? has covered half the Province and got back half the

strategic economic plans in this Province.

Now, I have to say to the hon. gentleman that we did not pass

out any fish processing licences like the hon. gentleman's crew opposite used to

do. I also have to say to him that we have not received any recommendations on

the way to revitalize rural Newfoundland is to construct Sprung Greenhouses; we

do not have any of that. We have some very sensible projects - coach him

`Harvey', he needs it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Well, I have to say to the hon. gentleman that

we have some very worthwhile projects and I will tell you what: I will provide

the hon. gentleman with a list of projects that we have approved even, to this

point, and he will see how active this committee has been.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman should look closely at what

we are doing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

MR. TULK: I know, like his leader, he would hate for us

to be successful; he would hate for us to do anything good for the people of

Newfoundland.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: He wants us to play Grinch; Christmas is coming

again and they want us to play Grinch, but it is not going to happen, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Petitions

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition from residents of

Bonavista South, residents of Bellevue, Terra Nova, Trinity North, and it has to

do with the removing of bridges and culverts on the Bonavista railway bed, once

again. I thought I had all those petitions presented but, Mr. Speaker, yesterday

I found another lot of them here in my desk. I will not read the prayer of the

petition because it is obvious what the spirit of it is and it is obvious what

the intent is of the hundreds and hundreds of people who have come forward to

sign this petition.

What they are asking for, I will repeat once again, Mr.

Speaker, is to allow those bridges and those culverts to continue to exist on

the Bonavista railway bed. They are asking once again for government to look at

the cost of removing those bridges and to take that cost and put it forward for

repairs rather than for removal. A lot of the people out in this particular area

use the railroad bed for recreational purposes. A lot of them use it, Mr.

Speaker, to extract firewood and a lot of them use it for commercial purposes.

We have sawmills located along the railroad bed and they use that particular

roadway or thoroughfare to bring their logs or their sawed lumber back to the

main road.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the very few areas of the

Province which ATV owners can access. They are not allowed to use their ATVs,

ski-doos or quads on the road. They are not allowed to use them on wetlands.

People complain when they use them to cross private property. So here is a

natural trail, if you would, that has been existing there for years and all it

needs is a small amount of money in order to upkeep the bridges that already

exist. Those people are not asking for those bridges to be constructed in a way

to accommodate tractor-trailers or trains or in some cases not even vehicular

traffic. In some cases, Mr. Speaker, they only want them constructed to a level

to maintain ski-doos and ATVs. I do not think they are asking for too much. The

people themselves have been responsible by saying: We do not mind entering into

a partnership with government. We do not mind entering into a partnership

whereby we will supply free labour if we have to, if government will supply

material.

The minister has been down there and I know he has personally

driven over the old railway bed all the way from Clarenville or Shoal Harbour to

Bonavista. He has seen first-hand the number of bridges that need - or that he

was talking about removing. He has seen first-hand the condition of those

bridges. I think he is now looking at what the cost would be to remove so that

they can have some figure to bring forward to the stakeholders and to see what

kind of money can be put in place in order to maintain those structures.

Mr. Speaker, people should never forget that the people, who

use those ATVs in the form of recreation or in the form of doing work for

themselves or commercial work, also pay taxes. They generate money. They

generate revenue for the government. They generate revenue, Mr. Speaker, by the

very purchase of those machines. They generate revenue by buying gasoline, by

maintaining and repairing the ATVs and the ski-doos to which I am referring.

So, Mr. Speaker, I call on the minister and I call on the

government to take those petitions into consideration, take the people's wishes

into consideration and when they make a decision on what to do with those

particular bridges on the Bonavista branch that they will consider the wishes of

the people and hopefully look at replacing and repairing the bridges rather than

removing them.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Opposition House Leader.

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

I just want to rise for a minute or so to support the

petition put forward by my colleague, the Member for Bonavista South and draw

attention to the fact that this petition has now been before the House on many

occasions. It begs the question as to how many times the member will bring

forward this particular petition from the residents of his district and in the

general area of Bonavista Bay and ask the government and the appropriate

minister when will the government start to listen to the people who have signed

this petition? Because it is a very reasonable request they have. They simply

want to preserve the bridge in there because it is an integral part of their

road and their recreational network.

So I say to the government members on the other side, when we

bring forward petitions and we keep bringing the same petition forward, we do it

for a reason. It is because the people who sign these petitions believe very

strongly in the position that is being put forward, and they are awaiting

responses from the appropriate ministers. What we have seen here is that we have

had the petition put forward in the spring session, now the petitions are coming

forward in the Fall session. This is six months later, and we wish we had not

had reason to bring the petition forward. We would have hoped that the

government, by this time, would have seen reason to respond to the people's very

reasonable request.

Therefore, I say to my hon. colleague, the Member for

Bonavista South, keep representing the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Keep

representing the grass-roots people, the people who want their voices heard, and

we call upon the government to start listening to the ordinary people, the

people who want a little bit of help to make their lives as comfortable and as

pleasant as possible.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would like, if I could - and I

could do those individually or I could do them en masse, but I would like to do

them en masse - to move first reading on Motions 4 through 20.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, but we will take them in the order in

which they are listed here.

MR. TULK: I would ask to speak to them one at a time,

(inaudible), if we could, or I could ask them one at a time. Which is -

MR. SPEAKER: Well, it is up to the House.

MR. TULK: I am asking leave to -

MR. SPEAKER: It is up to the House if you want to take

them all at once or -

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I guess what I am asking is,

rather than my standing up and calling the Orders, that the Speaker would read

the bills one after the other from 4 through 20.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, we do not have any objection

to doing them en masse if that is your wish and for your convenience; however,

we would wish that these bills be distributed as they are called today. I think

that is the whole purpose of doing it now, and we concur.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps we could do the introductions

individually and then take first readings collectively.

Motion, the hon. the Premier to introduce a bill, "An Act To

Amend The Intergovernmental Affairs Act", carried. (Bill No. 40)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce the

following bills, carried:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Family Law Act". (Bill No. 32)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code". (Bill No.

21)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and

Lands to introduce the following bills, carried:

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Transfer Of The Personal

Trusteeship And Agency Business Of Montreal Trust Company Of Canada And Montreal

Trust Company To The Bank Of Nova Scotia Trust Company". (Bill No. 24)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Mechanics' Lien Act". (Bill No.

37)

A bill "An Act To Enable Information To Be Filed

Electronically By Business," carried. (Bill No. 38)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to

introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Professional Fish Harvesters

Act," carried. (Bill No. 31)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation to introduce a bill entitled, "

An Act To Amend The Provincial Parks

Act," carried. (Bill No. 35)

Motion, that the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce

the following bills, carried:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act." (Bill No. 6)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act." (Bill No. 36)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions

Act." (Bill No. 39)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act,

1991 And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991." (Bill No. 34)

A bill, "An Act To Establish The Labrador Transportation

Initiative Fund." (Bill No. 30)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act." (Bill

No. 29)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act."

(Bill No. 27)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act,

1991." (Bill No. 26)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act." (Bill No.

On motion, Bill Nos. 40; 32; 21; 24; 37; 38; 31; 35; 6; 36;

39; 34; 30; 29; 27; 26 and 4 read a first time, ordered read a second time on

tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 2.

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I have received a message from

His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: All rise.

To the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board:

I, the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland,

transmit Estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for

the year ending March 31, 1997. By the way of Supplementary Supply and in

accordance with the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these

Estimates to the House of Assembly.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

Sgd.: ______________________________

A. Maxwell House, Lieutenant-Governor.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the message, together with the amount contained

in Bill No. 28, be referred to Committee of Supply. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House

resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain

resolutions for the granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty, and that I

do now leave the Chair.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of

the Whole House on Supply. Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Mr. M. Penney): Order, please!

Motion number two.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board to move

that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to

consider Certain Resolutions for the Granting of Supplementary Supply to Her

Majesty. (Bill No. 28)

If the Chair could establish, before we begin debate, whether

there is in fact an understanding of the time of debate by both sides of the

Legislature. Traditionally the Standing Orders will allow thirty minutes, but it

has been the practice of the House in the last few years that we accept a

shorter period of time for debate. Has there been an understanding?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, to be quite frank with you, we

are quite easy on this matter. If the Opposition wishes to speak thirty minutes,

it can, if it wishes to follow up, we have always done ten and ten back and

forth, that is fine. As long as the debate is what it should be and if the

debate is far-reaching and the debate is to the point. We want Opposition to

have all the time they need to do what needs to be done.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

We concur with the ten-minute rotation

schedule we have

always followed, and we welcome the opportunity to be far-reaching and have a

thorough discussion. We just want the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board to

justify why he would need $75 million. We are going to welcome that opportunity.

CHAIR: It is the understanding of the Chair, then, that

hon. members have agreed to a system of ten minutes each and that if any hon.

member requires more than the ten minutes allocated, leave will be requested and

will be granted. Is that understood?

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To speak briefly to the bill, on the back of the bill, the

reverse, is a breakdown of the $75,700,000. I will just briefly speak to each

category.

The $10 million in the Consolidated Fund Services were monies

used for the voluntary departure program that government initiated last spring

to ease downsizings in the public service.

Finance received $12 million, and that is in a fund to do two

things: One is to assist privatization and divestiture activities as they occur.

Two recent examples would be the Marystown Shipyard; the other would be

Newfoundland Farm Products. There may be others of that sort, and that fund is

there for that purpose.

The second is a capital grant to the Newfoundland Municipal

Financing Corporation. That has two objectives: One is to help with an

increasing debt load. The second is to allow the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs to work with municipalities whose debts are very substantial,

as well as those who wish to pre-pay some existing indebtedness and would incur

substantial penalty.

The amount of $10 million to the Enterprise Development Fund

is to assist with strategic enterprise development opportunities such as call

centres, which require some level of government assistance.

The $32.8 million in Education is for the following

sub-categories: $16 million, members will recall, was budgeted last fiscal year

in order to pay the payday that had been moved forward into the current fiscal

year. Since that was an accounting change, we believe that as we had surplus

funds last year to pay that, the payday should be moved back into that last

fiscal year.

Nine million dollars was allotted to pay school board debt

and operating lines of credit. That wiped out the debt and put the school boards

back in a position where they were able to go forward without any operating

liabilities.

Two million five hundred thousand dollars, members will

recall, was allotted to schools to purchase computers and we had encouraged

school boards to find matching funds.

Five million three hundred thousand dollars was given to

Memorial University to pay government's obligation of matching funds raised by

the University under its opportunity fund.

That total of $16 million, $9 million, $2.5 million and $5.3

million is $32.8 million.

In the Department of Health, we budgeted $3.5 million in a

Special Warrant at the time. One million dollars of that was to pay the rural

physicians' bonuses which had been contracted some several years previously and

which came due on or about April 1. The second was to provide $2.5 million to

the Health Care Corporations of the Province to purchase needed equipment. We

also encouraged them at that time to see if they could raise matching funds from

their charitable groups that raise funds in our various communities and health

care areas.

Municipal and Provincial Affairs, we allotted $4 million to

provide transitional assistance to the cities of St. John's and Corner Brook in

respect of fire protection services. The government had indicated in its budget

that it was eliminating the grant it had for many years given to both

municipalities in lieu of taxes being paid by the Provincial Government for the

protection of the buildings that exist in a more substantial way in these two

cities.

Finally, $3.4 million was given to NLHC to offset a budgetary

shortfall for the last fiscal year.

The amounts which I have delineated indicate that these are

amounts not for the current fiscal year, but for last fiscal year. The Special

Warrants were tabled in the House some time ago and, of course, the

Supplementary Supply Bill is necessary in order to clean up the method of

financing and in compliance with the Financial Administration Act.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

That is a lot of money the Minister of Finance is looking

for, $75.7 million, a good chunk of change, I might add. So, I assume basically

and if I remember correctly, that the responsibilities under the municipal fire

operations one, is that, in future now St. John's and Corner Brook will pick up

full responsibility for covering our government buildings. That is a one time

thing and right now the next step you will have is to get out and collect some

taxes off government to help look after buildings or whatever in the future. I

guess that is the avenue that is open now. There is no more obligation as a

result of this to fund Corner Brook and St. John's.

I do not think, Minister, there was any money given to other

municipalities for any government buildings. They were the only ones receiving

it, I think, and you discontinued that. Would I be correct in stating that?

MR. DICKS: Yes, that is right.

MR. SULLIVAN: And now there are none. They are all alike

now - they are all out in the one category.

Under the $3,400, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

Corporation; Housing operation assistance. In other words, they were over budget

in the grant for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and this was the amount for

them to balance the books on their expenditures in addition to what was

allocated in our budget, basically. The $3,400, Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing Corporation, they had a budgetary shortfall.

Was their any specific item or extraordinary thing that

precipitated this $3.4 million? Was there any particular extraordinary item or

any particular purpose of expenditure by the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

Corporation that required this $3.4 million, that was not anticipated by budget

time?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Yes, my recollection - and I stand to be

corrected by the minister who unfortunately is not here - is that in their

budget, NLHC had budgeted to the best of a certain number of buildings, market

value buildings were reforming the mandate of the Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing to focus more on social housing. As you know, during the process of

selling commercial properties they have at Churchill Square and elsewhere,

particularly in St. John's, my recollection is that that money was budgeted to

them because they had budgeted for the sale of Elizabeth Towers, I believe, and

others. So that was a shortfall, not on operations but on being unable to divest

of major market properties that they have, commercial properties for the most

part. So that is my recollection of why that money was given to them in last

year's budget.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So basically we are saying their budget anticipated those

sales in the last fiscal year and it did not materialize until this fiscal year

or whatever. So that amount was made - in other words, the revenues from the

sale of the buildings, rather than reflect back, were going to reflect into the

revenues of Labrador Housing to offset their expenditures and when it did not

materialize in that year there had to be an allocation and a special warrant to

deal with that amount to balance their budget that was allocated to them.

MR. DICKS: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: That would be correct.

Order in Council 97-161, that is $12 million of which was to

Industrial Assistance Grants and Subsidies and Financial Assistance to Crown

Corporations, Grants and Subsidies. One was $3 million - and Industrial

Assistance Grants and Subsidies, $3 million. Did I hear the minister correctly

when he indicated that the financial assistance to a Crown corporation,

Newfoundland Farm Products, was included in that, or was that in a different

one? Could the minister provide a breakdown of the $3 million for Industrial

Assistance Grants and Subsidies of what specific requirement arose that

precipitate this expenditure here in those two areas? That is the one with $12

million there.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Of the $12 million, $9 million was given to NMFC. That

immediately paid down the book debt of NMFC by the $9 million. The Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs is determining how, if at all, it will be

allocated to various municipalities in the Province. As you know, the government

has made substantial changes to the operating credits in the municipalities.

Some are having more difficulty than others. The other thing the minister is

doing is permitting certain municipalities to pay out some longer term loans

they had because interest rates right now are much lower. The unfortunate thing

with that is NMFC borrowed substantial amounts on national bond markets so they

are locked into long-term obligations. The question is then a penalty. For

example, we might have to levy a penalty of 15 per cent to 20 per cent on NMFC.

We put this $9 million to give the minister some flexibility

to deal with probably in excess of 100 municipalities in this Province that need

some level of assistance. Not all will receive it but he has some latitude there

to help municipalities restructure their debt burdens and most of that, as you

know, is through NMFC. So it is $9 million there. That money is paid down. That

money is gone. How the accounts of the various municipalities are adjusted is

something that we have left virtually, entirely in the hands of the minister.

The second part, the $3 million, is a fund to facilitate

divesture. As of this point in time, I do not believe much, if any, of it has

been spent. It is there to assist with some divesture activities. I illustrated

that the types of things it would be used for would be Marystown Shipyard,

Newfoundland Farm Products but some of that debt may be assumed by the Province

rather than being paid out of this fund because the amounts, as you know, are

far beyond that. The Marystown Shipyard, I think, has a debt right now of

something in the vicinity of $70 million, for example, but the notion is that if

we are able to divest of various enterprises that government has been carrying

on, we would need some monies available to shift those to the private sector.

That is the reason those funds were provided, but as to this point in time, we

have not budgeted anything specific, for example, to deal with NLHC. I suspect

that most of that debt will probably be just absorbed by the Province or put on

the books of the Province.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is my understanding that when a municipality wants to

refinance its debt and there is a certain penalty imposed, that the municipality

absorbs that penalty, and if they go to a bank to refinance that, of course,

that is built into their loan. If they want to refinance $1 million worth of

debt and there is a penalty -depending on how long - the year and the duration

of that particular bond - the penalties would vary, of course, and would be

substantially less during the latter end of that. My understanding is that they

are responsible for that, that they will have to refinance this with the bank.

Would this be cases where the municipality - where you

figured that they are in a difficult position, over their heads basically, and

they should only refinance, absolve them of a penalty and only refinance a

certain amount and help cushion to get them basically over the hump, that they

are not refinancing beyond their means. Would that be the purpose? Because I am

of the understanding that in normal circumstances you would pay that penalty and

either take out a bank loan or refinance it to that effect.

If the minister could clarify that particular one there, I

would certainly appreciate it.

CHAIR (Mr. D. Oldford): The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: In an ideal world it should operate as the

member suggests, that we would indicate to them what the loss to the NMFC is by

way of having to receive now funds that it cannot reinvest. For example, NMFC

may have a debt obligation of $50 million to repay over the next ten years at 12

per cent. A municipality may be able to go out and find that is at 5 per cent or

6 per cent. We may be only able to reinvest it at, say, 7 per cent. There is a

loss of 5 per cent per year.

The penalty should really be comprised of that 5 per cent per

year because our ability to reinvest that long term, the opportunities are not

as great now. In fact, the opportunities do not exist to obtain interest

payments of the same level that we had before; however, as you know, there are

two factors in it. Most municipalities do not pay the full amount of the NMFC

indebtedness. There is a cap. The minister is here; I believe it may be 30 per

cent of your budget that you actually pay towards your debt. Many municipalities

in this Province are beyond that, so NMFC has in some cases to absorb that. In

addition to that, the minister has that money to give him some flexibility to

deal with municipalities as to how to allocate it, because the municipalities

have debt obligations back to the Province.

It is a fairly amorphous thing. The money is gone; the debt

is paid down. How and to what extent it is allocated among the various

municipalities is something for the minister to work with individual

municipalities in order to encourage them to become more fiscally responsible

and put them on a somewhat sounder footing.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am assuming this is over and above, beyond basically,

monies now that might be allocated within the department to help communities

that are in over their heads with debt retirement.

MR. DICKS: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: With the MOG cutbacks, I guess, over the

next three years of twenty, twenty and twenty, it certainly frees up dollars to

allocate the debt requirement assistance. That is a different aspect. This is in

normal, ongoing communities that want to refinance. Would that be separate?

MR. DICKS: Both.

MR. SULLIVAN: it is really wrapped in one. It is just a

continuation with different dollars available under the program?

MR. DICKS: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Under Ex-Gratia and Other Payments -

Non-Statutory, Employee Benefits, that is, I guess, under, as the minister

already said, the Voluntary Departure Program. There was $10 million earmarked

there under that program.

How many people would be involved with that? What would be

the number of people who availed of that, with the expenditure of $10 million,

in the last fiscal year? How many jumped at the opportunity? I know we had a

voluntary - I forget the specific name at the moment.

MR. DICKS: Departure.

MR. SULLIVAN: A Voluntary Departure Program, I think it

was called. And there was another program, basically, I think, that has been

extended for anybody who wishes to go out and take a retirement option,

basically, under certain penalties, depending on age, I guess, under 55. How

many might have availed of that in the last fiscal year that would have

necessitated - this is in addition to the head. I am not looking at right now,

immediately, what it was last year already, but how many additionally availed of

it over what was budgeted and anticipated there? How many people for that $10

million?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Approximately 220 people took advantage of it. The $10

million roughly covered the cost of those people. It ended up being pretty well

exactly where we forecast. We anticipated between 200 people and 250 people

would take advantage of it, somewhere in the vicinity. I think 223 people or 229

people actually took advantage of it. They had to do it before the end of March

It was difficult to budget an exact amount because depending

on the person's length of service and the time to the thirty-five year mark, and

their salary grid, you could not tell beforehand how many, or exactly the amount

you would need. My recollection is that virtually all of the $10 million, if not

something more, was exhausted by the voluntary departure program. So it pretty

well was all taken up with that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, I found a line item. There was initially $20.9 million

budgeted, and showing in the revised amount, 1996-1997, was $27.4 million. I

guess the total amount extra required over and above what was originally in this

category altogether was this extra $10 million. That has been fully utilized. Is

there any of it - I guess, nothing of any significance.

MR. DICKS: Not a substantial amount.

MR. SULLIVAN: There is a sufficient amount at least to

carry it over. Okay.

Ten million dollars to the Enterprise Loan Fund, loans,

advances, and investments, the Department of Development and Rural Renewal. I

was listening to the minister earlier. I did not catch which one that Farm

Products was under. Would this be...?

MR. DICKS: No, the other one, the $3 million?

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

MR. DICKS: Maybe I could clarify the (inaudible) for the

hon. member.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. If we just look at - maybe while I am

on this one, I would just ask the minister, and then I will just sit down, the

$10 million - the one I am dealing with now is the Enterprise Loan Fund, loans,

advances, and investments. That extra $10 million, what might that have been

directed to?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board.

MR. DICKS: If I could differentiate between the two. In

the $12 million there was $3 million to assist with divestiture. Those are

enterprises that government owns, or activities that government now carries on.

For example, if a municipality were interested in taking over some

provincially-operated facility, we might from that fund give them a certain

grant over a number of years to subsidize their future costs of looking after

the facility. That would come out of the $3 million. The way to think of that is

that is to help us shift things that we may now do to the private sector, or to

another level of government, mostly municipal, I would expect.

The $10 million that was allotted to ENL, essentially, or the

Enterprise Development Fund, is money that is intended to entice and enlarge

businesses in the Province. The best example for that would be a call centre. In

order to get them to come here, you have to give them so much per job; you have

to give them certain tax concessions and so on. The money that would be paid to

assist businesses which come here and need to be enticed here would come from

this $10 million fund. That is not divesting of government activities; it is to

provide some seed money to help new sections of the economy grow.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know, with call centres that would not have been in

1996-1997, that specific example, but you are using it as an example.

MR. DICKS: No. The money was set aside for that purpose.

MR. SULLIVAN: Could you give any specific ones where it

might have been allocated then? For example, you do not have any areas where

expenditures - we do not have any figures where that $10 million might have

gone. The minister does not have any figures on where we spent it

MR. DICKS: No.

MR. SULLIVAN: - and we have a Warrant for it. There

should be some area earmarked. We do not toss out $10 million without knowing

where it is going.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board.

MR. DICKS: No, Mr. Chairman, we do not toss the money

out. What we do is we allocate it and we leave it to Enterprise Newfoundland and

Labrador. As the hon. member is aware, each year it was getting in the vicinity

of $15 million. When we would give it that money we would not know where it

would be spent. We would leave it to their judgement as to which of any

enterprises to fund.

We cut that back by some $5 million, but then what we decided

to do last year - or we cut it back to $5 million for regular ongoing

activities. What we did want to do was to establish a special fund of money that

would be devoted to fairly high-level initiatives to entice more substantial

businesses to come into the Province, or to enable our own pre-existing

businesses, those that now operate in the Province, to expand.

The only one that I know of offhand that might currently have

access to the fund are some of the call centres that we are looking at

organizing in the Province. That is not to say that it could not be used for

other purposes, but that would be done at a fairly high level. So it is not to

fund the ordinary day-to-day commercial lending activities, essentially, of the

ENL fund, it is to be a special amount set aside for more substantial ventures

which require more substantial contribution by the Province.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

That is an addition of $10 million to that head. Does the

minister know offhand - I do not have it right in front of me - what the initial

amount was, under that head?

MR. DICKS: The initial amount for -

MR. SULLIVAN: Under that head. This is an addition of $10

million to that head. What was the total amount in this category?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: The total amount in this category was $5

million. You may recall that the lending fund of ENL was in the vicinity of $15

million. It varied I think, between $14 million and $17 million. Their ordinary

lending fund was cut back to $5 million last year because of some things on the

horizon, particularly at the call centre, and there was another one pending

which decided to go to Halifax instead. We knew we would need a substantial

amount of money to provide for the sort of enticements that would enable us to

have them come here to locate. The $10 million was set aside with that in mind

and also to provide a specific fund that you could access for high level

subsidies for large employers who would establish in the Province.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: I would like to have the minister provide

to me a breakdown of the total amount expended under that area. I am sure if the

minister could provide - certainly, I do not expect it right now - a table, or

provide to me what specific ventures these were directed towards.

MR. DICKS: If I may, Mr. Chairman: One of my colleagues

is better informed in this area than I am because it is in her responsibility,

and she will certainly be prepared to provide a little better information at

this time. I will be back (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will save the rest for you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MS FOOTE: On the money for the call centres, we have

dispersed about $2 million of that. The idea was to have a fund there that would

enable us to attract businesses that would otherwise not come to the Province;

you recognize that we are in competition with other provinces in trying to

attract businesses of this calibre. So that is what would have come out of that

$10 million to date.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So the allocation, basically, was a warrant in the 1996-1997

Budget. In other words, you have carried forward, on the books, $8 million that

you have at your disposal, which has officially gone into last year's statement.

That is out of last year's budget, basically, to work with.

MS FOOTE: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, so that is all that has been spent.

Initially, I think there was- what? - $5 million under that head? I think that

is what the Minister of Finance indicated.

MS FOOTE: Yes, that is right.

MR. SULLIVAN: Towards what might that have gone?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MS FOOTE: Traditionally, there would have been anywhere

from $12 to $15 million for the Department of Development and Rural Renewal to

be expended through what was Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, and that was

cut back to about $5 million in the last Budget. Those are funds that are used

from time to time to assist companies that want to expand their operations. When

I say assist companies, it would be on a loan basis; so the money would be a

type of revolving fund. It was not a grant, but it was the type of money that

people could apply for if they wanted to expand their operations or new

businesses that wanted to be set up and wanted to apply for funding.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So that would be in line with any ENL funding, basically? It

would be under the basic rates that were set down for that purpose?

MS FOOTE: The same thing, yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Finance is not here. This

one is under the health area, and I am sure the Minister of Health might be able

to enlighten us on this one.

I was just going through, I say to the Minister of Health,

the warrants for expenditures within the Department of Health that the minister

tabled in Bill No. 28.

The $1 million for physicians' services: That basically, as

the minister indicated, was to pay the bonuses that were due, that were

announced. I guess that came due over the past two years. As the minister, I am

sure, is fully aware, even before her coming into the portfolio there were three

categories, of course, at $5,000, $7,500 and $10,000, depending on what

geographical area of the Province in which you are practising. So this was to

pay up, I guess, when the physicians had stayed two years in those areas.

I am just wondering: Was this the total amount or was there

already an allocation expended there? Furthermore, I think important: Does this

year's budget have an amount that is anticipating the bonuses that would be paid

up for this current year; rather then have to come back on special warrants?

Because when physicians are out there practising, I am sure there is a budget

allowance made to do an estimate of what the pay out might be at the end of the

year; not to wait and hope to have a few surplus dollars or a few dollars to

direct into that or dip into a contingency fund to do so.

Would the minister be able to answer simply - I will say it

again: Was this the total amount paid out in bonuses or did this only represent

a portion of it and has there been an allowance made in this year's budget to

project what it might be rather then have to come back under a special warrant?

CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Health.

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

The question about the allocation in the budget: What was

previously allocated last year was in the budget, but as my colleague would

know, this year we already identified another amount to the tune of $2.6 to $2.7

million for rural physician bonuses, which was taken out of the contingency fund

which will be added in as a baseline item for next year.

In terms of what was allocated: The budget allocation made

for this year's budget was made on the premise of what we were already

allocating. Since that allocation, we have made an announcement as an outcome of

the rural health forum that we will be putting in $2.6 or $2.7 million for rural

physician bonuses and $2.6 or $2.7 million for emergency room physicians to a

total of $5.3 million. So, there will be an additional $2.6 million allocated as

a baseline budget for those new bonuses that were put in place.

CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The estimates do not really show, do not do a breakdown; they

just show grants and subsidies in general and fees paid out to salaried

physicians. Sometimes it is kind of difficult to know exactly what the breakdown

is, but there will be a line, I gather you are saying, in the future; that

rather then just lump the total salaries in - that is 3.3.02 in the Estimates

there, referenced here in the warrant - there will be a separate item to show

that, to break that down, what is paid out in bonuses next year, rather then

have it lumped in with the total salaries. Would I be correct in saying that?

CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Health.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, Mr. Chairman, that is not what I

said. What I said was there would be an addition to the base budget, based on

the fact that we added an extra $2.6 million to the budget this year; and that

would be reflected. Because as you know, we had a set budget and we have since

added close to $30 million to our base budget for health, with the $20 million

stabilization; and you add in the rural physician bonuses, you add in the

emergency room physicians and other items. So, that will be reflected in the

budget next year. When you consider that we allocate money to each of our boards

and they allocate based on the number of physicians, they would make those

allocations based on the budget they submit to us and we would allocate a

certain amount of money based on what we see as the regional needs for

physician. That again would have to be broken down into salary, fee for service

and other contractual arrangements.

CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I guess I would be safe in saying, then, that it would still

stay as it is, just be built into the same line item on the budget. This year, I

think the minister mentioned, we would dip into the contingency reserve fund for

a certain amount. I guess, if there is not a sufficient amount within the funds

by year end, we will have to see another warrant, probably by next March, if we

get in the position. I guess, at this point in time, we know how many physicians

are there and we know how long they are there, we can pretty well air mark

exactly what is going to be needed this year; because anyone new coming into the

system is not going to be qualifying for bonus anyway. So, it is really being

allocated now out of a contingency reserve fund, what is needed for this fiscal

year right now.

CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Health.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you.

The comment I will make is that, in terms of a special

warrant, this particular amount of money was taken out of the contingency fund,

but if you factor in for next year, the change in the ceiling of the CHST rising

from $11.1 billion to $12.5 billion, that will provide part of the allocation

needed for the changes that have been made. In terms of knowing exactly the

number of physicians, I think you need to keep a couple of things in mind. I do

not know the exact date of starting of each of the physicians, and when they

will actually click in for an additional bonus, because some of them now will

have additional bonuses added on because of the different geographical areas, as

I have already outlined. They are increased from what they previously were. In

addition to that, some of the physicians may qualify and the boards themselves

may actually come up with some other arrangements. So, that will depend on the

budget they put forward to us for physician services, keeping in mind we are

about to enter into negotiations with physicians.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would just like to state one point: That actually the floor

hasn't been raised from $11.1 billion to $12.5 billion. It was already $12.5

billion. It just isn't going to be lowered any farther. We still do not have any

more dollars in the pot under CHST than we had last year. The intent over the

next three years, I believe, is to reduce it to around $11 billion. We have only

frozen it at last year's levels, so there are no new windfalls of money coming

into this Province under CHST.

In fact, there are no new dollars going into the whole

federal pot for CHST, according to the statement that was made in the last

election campaign, and since. I haven't heard anything to say it is going to

increase.

I would just ask the minister: The $2.5 million there for

furnishings and equipment, I know that was given to different health care

corporations around the Province. Does the minister have a breakdown of the

extra requirements that were needed? Basically, could it be, for instance, the

Burin Peninsula; the Peninsula's Health Care Corporation, I should say, or extra

monies to fix hundreds of pieces of equipment that weren't working, or any

capital purchases for much needed equipment? Does she have a breakdown to show

us what these extra financial requirements were?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Chair.

I will provide a breakdown. I don't have the breakdown for

the actual allocation of each of the amounts of capital, but that is certainly

available, and I can certainly table it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate that, Minister. I will be looking forward to get

a copy.

There is one other special warrant. I think it is for the

arrest of the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, this one, $32.8 million.

Maybe it should be, I should say. Maybe it should be a warrant for the arrest of

the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, to look for $32.8 million, all in

one fell swoop.

We can see he has provided, under teaching services, and he

did mention that, that we had so much money last year, we had such a fantastic

year, they decided to pay, out of last year, that extra pay day of $16 million

on teachers' services. Thank God we did that, because we have seen enough

cutbacks and lay offs of teachers in this Province now, that we can get another

$16 million, whether you pay it in advance. It is great to be able to do it.

Under buildings and equipping schools, debt expenses, to

remove operating liability, I think the minister said - the Minister of Finance

and Treasury Board is not here on this one. The Minister of Education is up

doing yeoman service on behalf of this Province, I understand. What I will do

with this one, in case any of the other ministers don't have a response, I will

probably ask the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board when he returns, leave

this one for then.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, I'm interested in hearing the

response. Since I got a response to the rest of them, it would be a pity not to

MR. TULK: Well, why don't you just ask the question?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is what I will do. If not, I will

ask him again tomorrow. This won't be dealt with today. I'm sure members are

ready to jump up and down with a lot of questions and concerns.

Building and equipping schools, the breakdown of the $9

million that was spent there: I think it was spent in liabilities, I believe,

that boards had when they took over. That was part of the money that was used,

the $25 million, was it, they used to pay off school board debt?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, that was (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, but it is part of it, probably; I'm

not sure. That is what I'm asking. So this was a capital expenditure. I'm sure

the school board debt, partially, was a capital and an operating cost, some of

that debt that was run up. It says: grants and subsidies. This one I think the

minister indicated in his notes - he said, it is to purchase computers and so

on. We can't certainly -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I'm satisfied with that one, $2.5

million. That is to purchase computers for schools in the Province. That is an

investment in our future. We will get a return on that, I'm sure, down the road.

We are all very eager to see money invested in education, because any investment

gets dividends. If we don't invest in our youth we aren't going to get a

dividend.

Memorial University of Newfoundland, various buildings,

grants and subsidies, $5.3 million. Oh yes, the minister mentioned, too, that

that was the Opportunities fund where we are matching dollar for dollar, $5.3

million. So I am sure the government has in their back pockets somewhere that

extra $20 million. They are supposed to raise what, $50 million?

MR. TULK: I tell you, if John can find us (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Listen here, just to get the Minister of

Finance to reach back, I am sure John will try extra hard. He found it for

Hibernia. He found it for that - if anybody should be up on the platform

yesterday when that first oil was pumped ashore it should have been John Crosbie

because without John Crosbie it would not be pumped ashore, I would say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: He had faith -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: I remember when you fellows were opposed

to it.

MR. SULLIVAN: He not only had faith in this project -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) needed John Crosbie

(inaudible) Marshall.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh you had John Crosbie, and you needed

him, I tell you. When they were talking about scuttling Hibernia, when they

talked about it as a make-work project, how it could not recover its costs, and

now there are people in the Liberal Government in Ottawa talking about: why sell

our share? Why sell it? Now we are going to get a return on it. The money, the

foresight, that insight, that intuitiveness that John Crosbie had envisioned for

this Province, I can tell you, and Jean Chrtien thought it was a make-work

project. He did not want to hear tell of it.

MR. J. BYRNE: What did the Premier say about it?

MR. H. HODDER: And Clyde Wells said, equal to two fish

plants.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Premier! It is only two fish plants. He

forgot to tell us whether they were two closed ones or two that were opened.

That is the only difference he did not tell us.

MR. TULK: I heard John is (inaudible) anyway so don't go

worrying about it.

MR. SULLIVAN: John, don't worry about it. Don't worry

about it. I never worry about things like that. I am a realist. Yes, grin away.

You are half afraid. If I were you over there I would be pretty worried about

who you have sitting in your leader's chair. I am telling you, as fast as he got

you up there he is going to get you down a lot faster, I can tell you. You had

better cut him lose pretty soon and send him on his merry way up to Ottawa or

you are going to have major problems, I can tell you, on that side of the House.

Beaton Tulk would lead this side to victory the next time, if you keep that

Premier over there - the hon. Government House Leader, Beaton Tulk.

CHAIR: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, listen, I have to correct that. The

Government House Leader - no, there is not a prayer, not a ghost of a chance for

the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: You got carried away, `Loyola'.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh yes, we all do that at times but being

able to get back to the business at hand is what distinguishes ordinary people

from extraordinary people, I say to him.

Now I would like to know what buildings and what equipment

was used in their debt expenses? Which debts did they write off? Give us a list.

MR. TULK: Which one?

MR. SULLIVAN: The $9 million, the breakdown.

MR. TULK: Oh that $9 million under the school board?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: When are they going to come up with a few

dollars to get a school down in Pouch Cove? They are busing people -

MR. J. BYRNE: I will get on to that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, the $2.5 million is for computers,

don't worry about that one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, just a breakdown, that is all.

Yes, a school down in Pouch Cove, busing people by there into

St. John's. To have a school in the area would regionalize the school there and

keep people down in their own area - a shorter distance to school and kids not

having to spend as long on buses. That would immensely help the area there. We

hope the construction board has the foresight and the wisdom to be able to make

a proper decision there. That is what we need to be doing. We need to be making

long-range plans. It is a growing area of the Province, increased in population.

We have to look at building for the future, not building for the present or

building for the past. That is one of the pitfalls this government falls into

too often. They make plans for the present and by the time they get around to

it, the present is so far into the past, we are wasting dollars. So it is

important that this government get their act together instead of looking - the

minister, the audacity to go out $75.7 million in Special Warrants, probably

unprecedented, I would imagine.

MR. TULK: No, I was there when Brian Peckford got $138

million one year.

MR. SULLIVAN: Brian Tobin?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, well, I was not here then.

AN HON. MEMBER: We would not condone that stuff.

MR. SULLIVAN: We would not do that, no way. These people

on this side of the House would never go along with anything like that. We are

responsible -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: How old are you?

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't profess to be that old. Anybody who

has been here since 1984, I would say, should start thinking about retiring and

getting out of here. That is what I would say, anybody around since then.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. I thought, in Question Period today,

he might be getting ready to retire.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to tell the hon.

gentleman that the thought does cross my mind occasionally but I have seen a lot

of leaders on both sides of the House go and come, and I think I am going to see

another Leader of the Opposition gone before I leave.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I say to the minister, I do not want my mark in the House of

Assembly to be longevity. I do not want it to be longevity. I never said I am

going to be around here longer than anyone else, and I do not intend to. I do

not want to be as round - around - as long as - I didn't say `as round', did I?

I do not want to around as long as the Government House Leader, I can tell you

that. He has been around too long.

AN HON. MEMBER: You will turn grey by then.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I will be turned grey by the time I am

around as long as the Government House Leader.

I am sure my colleagues are very eager to discuss - I could

go on and on for days dealing with the fiscal mismanagement of this Province,

the dilemmas we are facing in education and health care and social programs in

the Province, the lack of a vision on resource development, and numerous other

areas, but I do not want to hog the time. All of my colleagues here, I want them

to get up now and tell the Government House Leader and the members exactly what

this government is doing, and the pitfalls they are carrying us into here in

this Province.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will sit down for a few minutes.

It was only supposed to be ten minutes. I apologize for taking forty minutes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, I will be back.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet yesterday afternoon. This is a

financial bill, Bill 28, and there are some large amounts of money that the

government wishes to spend and has spent, actually, I suppose - they want

approval for it now - but this is a financial bill so I think the latitude is

quite wide with respect to what you can or cannot speak on.

Yesterday afternoon I was on my feet here, after listening to

the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation introduce a bill, Bill 10, on

the ecological and wilderness areas. After almost six months that the House has

been closed, this government came back with no legislation prepared for the

first day of the opening of the House of Assembly, and the minister was on her

feet for fifty minutes, from 4:07, I believe, until 4:57 yesterday afternoon,

talking about a bill on the ecological reserves within the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and the potential for ecological reserves and

wilderness areas.

I thought, at the time, that was quite pathetic, to think

that a minister would stand on her feet for fifty minutes introducing a bill of

that nature - although it may be important in the overall scheme of things; but

to be introducing a bill of that nature after the House of Assembly being closed

for five-and-a-half months, I thought, gave us some indication of the priorities

of this Administration.

We have now in this Province, of course, many, many issues

that are - how will I put it to you? - much more important, I suppose, than the

bill that was introduced by the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation

yesterday afternoon. But she did say when she was on her feet, that she had all

of the facts on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, she did not have the facts with respect to

Lakeside Homes in Gander when they decided to close down the kitchen out there

and pretty well starve the seniors of this Province, the people who put this

Province where it is today, who came up through the hard times, the 1930s and

the 1940s when times were pretty hard in Newfoundland and Labrador. Then we

entered Confederation in 1949 and we saw Newfoundland develop somewhat.

Only, though, just the same, we never did meet near the

potential that Newfoundland and Labrador could have met in the 1950s, 1960s, and

1970s, because of the nature, I suppose, of the politicians at that time. We had

some good politicians, we had some bad politicians, and we saw some endeavours

undertaken within this Province with respect to Churchill Falls. All our natural

resources given away and what have you over the years, and Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians did not benefit from it.

What do we see now? We saw Lakeside Homes, the seniors in

Gander, being pretty well - I will not say starved to death, but when I saw some

of the food on television that was being poured out of big plastic garbage

containers, poured in like you would feed the swill to the pigs, that was a bit

much. I felt for the people out there. Thank God, we had the Member for

Conception Bay South who led the charge on that. Finally, we saw the Minister of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation, after a number of calls, by the way, by the

Member for Conception Bay South, asking where was the Minister of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation on this, where was the Member for Gander?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the minister of (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I will get into that now in due course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: So what? Never called the minister? Which

minister am I talking about? She was hiding away. Did you read the

article in

the paper today or yesterday from Russell Wangersky talking about the ministers

hiding away? That is what we are up against, Mr. Chairman. That is what the

public in this Province are up against.

Anyway, we saw the minister come forward and finally speak up

when she was going to try to do something. Eventually we did, mainly through the

effort -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Health is over there now

asking what this has to do with this bill. The minister knows, or should know by

now, that when we are up speaking on a finance bill there is wide latitude. Of

course, this is certainly pertaining to the expenditures of money, because we

are looking at for $75 million here now ... The Premier - I cannot get going

like the Premier. I cannot put on a performance like that, like the Premier, and

then sit down and smile. I can't do that. He gets going. I will tell you what

the Premier does. He will get up and he will start off nice and meek and mild,

and he will start talking about: Well now, Mr. Chairman, we can -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I tell you, just take it easy now, and I

will give you a good performance. Maybe. I will never be able to match the

Premier, won't be able to match the Premier on this, I can guarantee you that.

He will start out quite meek and mild, and then he will go

and then he will start talking, with one hand raised, then he will speak like

this, and then he will raise his voice a little bit. Then he will go on, raising

the two hands; then he will start yelling and bawling and screeching and doing

the whole kit-and-caboodle. That is what he will do. Then he will sit down and

smile, and put on the big performance for the media up in the galleries. He will

put on a big performance, trying to indicate to the people of the Province that

he is quite serious about what he is talking about. But he sits down and smiles,

Mr. Chairman.

Anyway, with respect to the situation in Lakeside Homes,

again, finally the people out there will get their kitchens. I do believe now

that the government is considering putting kitchens back in all the homes across

the Province, and rightly so. They should not have lost them in the first place.

With respect to this bill, I am going to speak to what is

going on in this Province today. We have a show on CBC all this week - I have

actually missed one or two - talking about out-migration in this Province. We

see an out-migration in this Province such as was never seen before. I think

during the time of the potato famine in Ireland we saw thousands of people

coming to this country, to the new country.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that when the Byrnes came over?

MR. J. BYRNE: That is when the Byrnes came over, yes. We

came over and settled in Upper Island Cove. That is where my family comes from,

Ireland. Anyway, thousands of people settled in this country,. Now we see it

happening again today in this Province. We see a few members on that side of the

House making notes now on some of the things I am saying, so hopefully they will

get up and speak to them.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I spoke on this very issue

about four years ago. I went on the show, the free political broadcast time on

one of the stations - I should not get into that I suppose, which station, but

anyway - and I spoke about what was going to happen in this Province. And I

remember the former Premier saying that what I was bringing forward at the time

was not accurate and would not happen, Mr. Chairman. Today we see a massive

out-migration in this Province never before matched and it is very serious.

MR. WISEMAN: Do you know what the out-migration in Quebec

was at the same time period?

MR. J. BYRNE: Are you living in Quebec or Newfoundland?

Who are you elected to represent, the people in Quebec or the people in

Newfoundland and Labrador? I think you are elected to represent the people in

Topsail, are you not? Do you represent Topsail?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I do not care. That is not my concern, my

concern is to represent the people in my district first and the people in

Newfoundland and Labrador overall. That is my concern, and when the people on

that side of the House -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: - sit back and realize what is happening in

this Province today, they may start doing something about it.

The member here for Baie Verte, spoke today and asked

questions of the minister responsible for rural development in Newfoundland and

Labrador and it appears to me that this minister took over from the previous

minister, who was a new minister, it was a new department and we did not expect

a lot to happen overnight. It has been some year-and-a-half gone since then, and

the present minister has no idea of what is going on in rural Newfoundland

today. They are doing nothing to stop the out-migration, there is nothing being

done, not from what I can see. We see U-Haul vehicles every day going across

this Island, lining up to get on the ferry in Port aux Basques, families going

away. I believe the member for Baie Verte told me there were twenty-seven

families moved away in one community - twenty-seven families moved away.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, yes, we hope. The member for Bellevue

said they are all going to Bellevue to work and I wish you were correct in that

statement, but the facts show that the people are leaving the Province. And

there are some out there working, gladly, but the problem is, there are not

enough people working in this Province today, there are not nearly enough

working. They are leaving in droves; they are taking their families with them

and actually, a lot of people when they left before, there was always hope that

they would return, but now the families are leaving with tears in their eyes.

Leaving their mothers and their fathers and taking their grandchildren and going

off to B.C., Alberta, and wherever, because there are no programs in place to

keep those people here.

Now, this is not a minor problem. I can understand that there

would be problems with the government to try to stimulate the economy to keep

those people here, but this Administration was first elected or the Liberals

were first elected in 1989. Now, it is only a couple of months and we are into

1998, ten years almost, and there has been nothing done and all that we have

seen is go, go, bye, bye, wave, wave, wave, wave.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many left in 1988?

MR. J. BYRNE: How many left in 1988? Not as many as left

in 1996, I can guarantee you that, nothing near it, but we saw in the last

election the Premier making statements that we are going to have a better

tomorrow and people had hopes built like you wouldn't believe and now their

hopes are dashed and they are leaving here in carloads.

MR. SHELLEY: Twenty-five thousand since 1991.

MR. J. BYRNE: Twenty-five thousand people left, that is

the difference, 25,000 since 1991.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Eighty-seven hundred.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I do not know, you tell me.

MR. J. BYRNE: See there he goes. He goes back in the past

all the time - How many left in 1987-1988? How many left in 1947? How many left

in 1957? The point is, this Administration is elected to represent the people,

to create jobs, to stimulate the economy, to feed the poor, which they are doing

a poor job of, by the way, and to help everybody in general, and they are not

doing it.

MR. HODDER: It was a previous Liberal Government that had

to pass a law in Newfoundland to try to prevent people from leaving - Sir

Richard Squires.

MR. J. BYRNE: There you go, that is the way to do it.

MR. HARRIS: Sir Richard Squires, in 1923, passed a law

that said, you cannot go to the United States.

MR. J. BYRNE: Now that is the type of solution that you

would pass the law to prevent you from leaving, that this administration may

come up with again.

The Minister of Health, a few minutes ago -

MR. H. HODDER: That was passed in 1923 (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Do you want to get up?

MR. H. HODDER: No, no! You go ahead, you are doing very

well.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Health, a few minutes ago

said: What was the relevance, basically, of what I was speaking about? Now

health care in this Province has been deteriorating for the past nine years.

Over the past nine years health care in this Province has deteriorated, and I

have personal experience because I have been in the Health Sciences Centre on a

number of occasions over the past eight years. I could see the difference, Mr.

Chairman, and it is because the funding is not there.

Even in the general cleanliness of the different

organizations that I walk through - I visit people in the different hospitals,

Mr. Chairman. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, my mother-in-law is in hospital

now and has been in there for the past three months, at the Health Sciences

Centre.

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible) 6,000 people in this Province.

MR. J. BYRNE: The legal beagle from Topsail says in

1985-1986 -

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes. Now the legal beagle from Topsail is

over there quoting figures.

MR. WISEMAN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman?

MR. J. BYRNE: No point of order, Mr. Chairman. That is

foolishness now he is getting on with.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Topsail, on a point of

order.

MR. WISEMAN: The hon. Member for Cape St. Francis keep

referring to members on this side of the House other than hon. member. Time and

time again, Mr. Chairman, he has been warned about it. He continues to do it.

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, sit down!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the hon.

member apologize?

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is no point of order.

CHAIR: There is no point of order. I have already ruled.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Now I am going to address that point that he brought up. The

hon. Member for Topsail - I will say it once, don't expect to hear it too often.

Six thousand people -

MR. WISEMAN: Six thousand people (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I won't repeat that, I won't repeat it. He

is over there saying, in 1985-1986, 6,000 people left this Province. Now was

that gross or net difference, or do you know the difference? Do you know the

difference? There is a major, major difference.

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: See, he does not know what he is talking

about, as usual; sitting in his seat, barking like a little beagle, not knowing

what he is talking about, like the dog and the rabbit, like the dog going

through the woods after the rabbit, does not have a clue what he is talking

about; nothing. Sure, I can hold up a piece of paper too. What does that mean?

Nothing!

Now, the out-migration in this Province: I was on health care

and he went back to the out-migration. As usual, Mr. Chairman, I am on health

care issue here now and he is on out-migration, something that I had dealt with.

He is in the past as usual, and does not know what he is talking about.

Now health care in this Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: Living in a fog.

MR. WISEMAN: You don't like the truth.

MR. J. BYRNE: Did you hear that? Where are you from?

Where are you from? Where is he from? Are you from Topsail? Well, I will tell

you what you should do, Mr. Member. I should suggest what you can do. I think

that you should move back to Topsail because I can guarantee you, by you sitting

in this House, you are depriving Topsail of the village clown; so you should

move back there right away.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I will get on an issue that is very dear