April 30, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 17

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, I would like to welcome today a new

Page, Cameron McKay, who is a university student here in St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate a couple in my district

on their wedding anniversary, Aubrey and Verna Pilgrim of Griquet who were

married fifty-eight years ago yesterday, on April 29, 1943. They had fifteen

children, thirteen of which are living today. They have twenty-six grandchildren

and thirteen great-grandchildren.

Auby, as he is known, is seventy-seven years old and Vera is seventy-six. I

would like to ask all members to join their children, grandchildren,

great-grandchildren and myself in sending our sincerest congratulations and best

wishes for the future.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I would like today to congratulate the

finalists and winners of the Writers' Alliance of Newfoundland and Labrador

Provincial Book Award for 2001.

Six works were nominated in the non-fiction category; Nanatsuak: Stories

of the Big Land by Cyril Goodyear; Old Newfoundland: A History to

1843 by Patrick O'Flaherty; Remembering the Years Of My Life

by Paulus Maggo; Adapting to a Changing Situation by John Lou Ennis; A

Personal Calligraphy by Mary Pratt; Crossroads Country by

Malcolm Macleod.

In the poetry category, the nominees were: Long Girl Leaning Into the Wind

by Janet Fraser; Thirty-for-sixty by Al Pittman; and The Birth and

Burial Grounds by Boyd Chubbs.

The winners in the non-fiction category were Mary Pratt and Patrick O'Flaherty,

and in the poetry category Al Pittman. They were awarded a cash prize in each

category and stickers for their book covers by the Lieutenant-Governor Maxwell

House on April 24.

I would like to congratulate the winners and those nominated on their

accomplishments, and I would like to commend the Writers' Alliance of

Newfoundland and Labrador for their activities to promote excellence in the

literature of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Saturday, April 28, I attended the largest, ever held, day of mourning

ceremonies in Labrador West. The church service and wreath laying ceremony was

held at the Steel Workers Building in Labrador City where there was a plaque

laid with the names of workers who were killed or died of industrial disease at

the Iron Ore Company of Canada mining operation.

Mr. Speaker, April 28 is a very important day to working people. It is a date

each year where we renew our commitment to constantly keep pressing for improved

health and safety regulations, safer workplaces and continuing education in the

workplace.

Since I became a member of the steel workers union in 1972, in my local union

alone, there have been eight members, friends and co-workers, who have lost

their lives to industrial accidents. Three of which occurred in a nine-day

period, and at least two others who have passed away from industrial disease. In

our Province last year there were twenty-eight workplace fatalities and

seventeen workers died from industrial disease.

Mr. Speaker, our Province has probably some of the best health and safety

regulations in this country which was adopted mainly through the efforts of

workers in Labrador West and Baie Verte. However, we must continue to make

improvements and we must continue to improve workplace conditions. We must make

safety education a regular part of all workplaces in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, this is what April 28 is all about to workers. It is a duty to

remember all workers who were killed, injured or disabled by industrial disease

and a resolve to make our workplaces as safe as possible for the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give my hon. colleagues an

update following my appearance before the House of Commons Standing Committee on

Finance last week in Ottawa.

Along with my colleagues from Atlantic Canada, I was pleased to have had the

opportunity to explain to the committee, Newfoundland and Labrador's concerns

regarding Bill C-18. As my hon. colleagues may know, Bill C-18 is intended to

amend the equalization program to lift the existing ceiling for one year,

1999-2000. In the Province's view, the amendment does not go far enough.

I explained to the committee that for the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador there are two overriding issues with respect to an equalization

ceiling: First, whether a ceiling provision should exist at all; and, second, if

a ceiling is imposed, ensuring that it is fair and reasonable.

On the first issue, I informed the committee that the Province is

fundamentally opposed to the existence of a ceiling provision and believes it

should be struck from the program. This is our longstanding view and is

consistent with the views of other equalization recipient provinces.

What the ceiling does, in effect, is to first look at the normal level of

equalization entitlements, which by federal definition is a fair average of the

revenue generating potential of provinces and in keeping with the Constitutional

commitment. It then second guesses this entitlement to ascertain, by some

arbitrary measure, whether this level is too much for the federal government to

pay. The ceiling, if it reduces equalization entitlements, results in recipient

provinces, like ours, being underfunded and puts us in a position of not being

able to maintain reasonably comparable services at reasonably comparable levels

of taxation. The ceiling should not be a mechanism used by the federal

government to constrain and suppress normal program growth.

On the second issue, I argued that, if the federal government is intent

on having a ceiling, despite our protestations and advice, that the ceiling must

allow for fair and reasonable growth within the program. Atlantic Ministers and

Premiers were united in their view that Bill C-18 must be amended to allow the

equalization program to grow, at least at the rate of the national GDP.

Mr. Speaker, my appearance before the committee was a good opportunity to

express the views of Newfoundland and Labrador on the importance of the issue of

equalization and the program itself, as well as the impact a ceiling will have

on this Province. We will continue to press the federal government to strengthen

the equalization program to better benefit the provinces who need it most, like

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Basically, the cap on equalization was put in, I believe, back in 1982. We

did not get consent of any provinces to put a cap on equalization, and we do not

need the consent of any province to lift the cap on equalization. It took a

federal election last fall to lift it for one year for the first time. We got

$38 million as a result. Had it not been there, we would have possibly gotten in

excess of $700 million. The purpose of equalization is constitutionally

guaranteed, as the minister made reference here, "... to maintain

reasonably comparable services at reasonably comparable levels of

taxation." What the cap on equalization has done is allowed the gap between

haves and have-nots to get greater. It was capped at roughly $10 billion at the

time, which means the pot is not changing but the disparities are getting

greater based on the haves and the have-nots. We are seeing an erosion of real

dollars being put in to close the gap as part of federalism. Federalism has

failed us on equalization. It has failed us miserably.

The same basic government, what they have done is taken - in one particular

year alone we went from a high under Canada Health and Social Transfer - and we

do not need consent of provinces to change this - a difference of $155 million

in one year. From the peak back in the early 1990s up to - later in 1996 when

they changed this.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, just to finish, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: We are seeing $155 million on this loan. We do not need -

as the federal Minister Paul Martin indicates - consent of provinces. We do not

need any consent to fix this problem here with a cap on equalization. I raised

it here in the House before Easter again. We should do something about this.

With a federal Liberal government in Ottawa - we are the only provincial Liberal

government in this country. If we cannot persuade our counterparts to change

something that they unilaterally changed and made different now. They have to

come back. They are hoping for B.C. By the time that happens, we might see a

reverse here. Who knows, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear! hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The questions of equalization are of fundamental constitutional importance to

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The two fundamental issues are the

ceiling and the claw back. We are being affected by the ceiling on the one hand,

as previous members have stated, and we are also being killed by the claw back

which is fundamentally destroying opportunities for development and progress in

this Province.

Mr. Speaker, last fall, the former, former Premier of this Province, Brian

Tobin, went to Ottawa on a promise to fix the equalization formula. Now is the

time for Mr. Tobin to show his ability to do that in Ottawa, and it is time for

this government to insist that he do that for the benefit of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear! hear!

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

My questions are for the Minister of Mines and Energy. Recently, the public

review process for the White Rose development was announced, but what was very

peculiar in the terms of reference for that public review was a limitation

clause that excluded fiscal and royalty regimes from being included. Now, the

question is this: How is it that you can have a public review on such a

significant development in an emerging industry, yet at the same time limiting

the scope of it, limiting the scope in terms - not allowed to discuss the impact

of fiscal royalty regimes? How can that review have any meaning in judging the

socio-economic impact on the people of the Province, and benefits in terms of a

benefits package? Minister, why was that review so limited? Why did you agree to

a public review with such a limitation clause contained in it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear! hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the hon. member, the support is very good and much appreciated.

With respect to the review process on the development application, it is in

place as a result of the responsibility that C-NOPB has to ensure that type of

review takes place. The issues of royalties and the issues of taxation do not

fall under the purview of the C-NOPB in any way, shape or form. The issue of

royalties and the issue of taxation with respect to what we get or do not get

from any of these projects is determined by this government, or the government

of the day, through the process of legislation in this House. Clearly we would

not want to see, because it is not appropriate, it is not the place to have it

vented or aired, issues of royalty and taxation through the development

application process. These are matters that are decided upon by the government,

through bringing into this House legislation and regulations that give rise to

whatever it is we get or do not get through way of royalty and taxation regimes.

Mr. Speaker, what is happening with respect to the direction of C-NOPB and

their overview of the application review process is entirely consistent with

their obligations, with their responsibilities, and what we do with respect to

determining royalties and taxation is certainly the government's

responsibility to deal with.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I recognize the hon. member, I just want to say to all hon. members

that questions and answers ought to be directed through the Chair and not

directly to members of the House. Questions ought to be directed to the Speaker,

to government, and, as well, answers should be that way.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister has laid, essentially, at the C-

NOPB's doorstep, that this is their decision. That is not true. The fact of

the matter is that you have an ability, or an obligation, under the Atlantic

Accord, to provide a full public review process. The question is: Why haven't

you done that? Why is it that the public cannot have access, or cannot be

provided access, to discuss in a very public way, through a comprehensive public

review outlined in the Atlantic Accord, the opportunity to discuss any and all

aspects of this development and any other potential development when we deal

with the emerging oil and gas industry?

Minister, won't you commit today to remove that impediment in the terms of

reference, to remove that limitation on the public review process, and allow any

and all interested parties, including ourselves in this Legislature, or any

member of the public, to participate fully, and to have the latitude to

participate fully, in this very important public exercise.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member either misses the point, or he knows the difference.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: I choose to believe that he knows the difference, because

the issues of taxation and the issues of royalties - whether it is with respect

to offshore resources, mining activities in the Province, or anything of that

nature - are decisions that are taken by government after a very, very public

exercise. The public exercise that I refer to is ultimately what happens on the

floor of this House. There can be no more public forum than on the floor of this

House.

Now, issues with respect to taxation are not singular to the project that is

under consideration, known as the White Rose project, the Husky project. The

fact of the matter is that we had a royalty regime that was negotiated for

Hibernia, and it was specific to that project. We have a royalty regime for the

Terra Nova project that is specific to that project. Beyond that, we have in

place a generic royalty regime to which the hon. members have all the access of

information that they want, either through the floor of the House, through the

Minister of Finance, or through my own officials or myself in my department.

Simply put, it is not appropriate to have for discussion, through the

development application process, the issue of royalties and taxation. These are

separate issues dealt with in a separate manner directly by government, through

the Legislature of this Province.

MR. E. BYRNE: You are absolutely wrong.

MR. TULK: He is not wrong.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes he is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

The only thing that is singular that can be pointed out - and his answers

raise more questions today - is your intent to limit the scope of a public

review and your intent to not allow an accountable, transparent process to take

place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister this: Is he

aware, that under the powers of the board, the public review as outlined in law

and in the legislation in the Atlantic Accord says this, that the government

will permit a comprehensive review of all aspects of the development, including

those within the authority of the Parliament of Canada and the authority of the

Legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador? The question still remains, that you

have provided that answer: You will not allow a review to go ahead - you have

had to sign off on it - that will allow for the socio-economic impact of this

development to be debated thoroughly in the public.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. - order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Why not, Minister?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the application

review process is going forward entirely consistent with the mandate of C-NOPB

and in the context of the obligations of both the federal and the provincial

governments on this issue.

The proponents who will be appearing before the review process are free to

bring forward and comment upon any issue they want, whether or not, I suppose,

it is in the context of what is laid out as issues to be -

MR. E. BYRNE: The commissioner can only be guided by what -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: I am answering the question, Mr. Speaker. I am not talking

about what the commissioner will hear or do. I am saying that the proponents can

talk about almost anything when they appear before him. Whether or not the

commissioner can take it into consideration is certainly in the context of the

issues that he is prescribed to deal with. Simply put, Mr. Speaker, taxation and

royalty issues are issues that we deal with as government. They need not and

they are not a part of the development process review, and we believe that the

way that the development process review is proceeding is entirely consistent

with the way it should proceed under the various acts and within the context -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: - of the various levels of responsibility that people such

as the C-NOPB, ourselves, and the federal government, have.

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

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

Wouldn't the minister agree that this review process, in terms of the

limitation clause that is in it, is a completely different direction than the

review process that took place for Hibernia and for Terra Nova? Wouldn't you

agree that the limitation clause in that confines the commissioner so much that

the commissioner cannot comment freely upon, or go outside the scope and

latitude. The issue still remains: Why is it that you signed off on that

limitation and agreed with it? Why is it that the public are not allowed to have

their commentary in the public review process on this very important industry

debated publicly, and then giving the commissioner the latitude to report back

to you directly, Minister? Why have you stopped that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Simply put, the issue of royalties and taxation have already been dealt with,

with respect to this project, by the government on previous occasions as a

result of the various royalty regimes and taxation schedules that we have in

place. The interveners, if they want to comment on issues that are outside the

scope of a commissioner, for the commissioner's consideration, can certainly

make the commentary, but I have to say to the hon. member that he knows that

issues of taxation and royalties are not appropriately placed for discussion in

the public review, and in that context the review -

MR. E. BYRNE: You made a conscious decision (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the hon. member, the issues of taxation and

royalties have been dealt with. Now if the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, wants to

raise issues about taxation and royalties, he can raise these issues in this

House any day and he can raise them every day. I haven't heard much commentary

from the hon. member about the very, very good royalty regime we have in place,

considered to be in the top one-third of the world's royalty regimes in terms

of its acceptableness in the industry and what is appropriate for the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Simply put, we have dealt with taxation, we have dealt with

royalties, and now we are dealing with the other issues that have to be examined

under the review process.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: What is appropriate for the Province is exactly what is at

issue here, I say to the minister, that the public be afforded the opportunity.

The Atlantic Accord clearly spells it out, Minister, and it says that you can

provide a review even with those (inaudible) the jurisdiction of the Parliament

of the country or the House of Assembly for this Province. The issue is: Why

haven't you done it?

The supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is this: This review is critical,

not just for the sake of the White Rose development but for the future of a

natural gas industry. Now, are you concerned that the limitations that you

provided on fiscal royalty regimes - the limitations that you can only discuss

the well, one well, and not associated wells - prohibits in any way, shape or

form from interveners providing information and, two, and most importantly,

providing the commissioner the latitude to comment on the overall development

not only of oil but of a potential gas industry?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Are you concerned that this process circumvents that in any

way, shape or form?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The application process that is ongoing at the moment with respect to the

White Rose project deals with the development of the oil field on South Avalon,

in that area. It does not involve consideration of issues with respect to North

Avalon, where I believe most of the gas is contained. The reason for it is that

we are talking about the development of an oil field. When we did the Hibernia

and the Terra Nova project, we dealt with the development of oil fields that are

separate and complete.

Now, if the hon. member wants to talk about natural gas, that is a completely

different discussion in this context: that we are in the process, as a

government, in developing for consideration by government at the officials

level, a natural gas strategy, or an approach that we should be taking with the

industry in consideration of the development of a natural gas industry in the

Province.

Mr. Speaker, the consideration of issues under the development plan that is

in the hands of the commissioner deals with the development, or the proposed

development, the concept, the method, the length of the field, and all of these

issues around 230 million barrels of oil in the South Avalon/White Rose oil

field. It does not extend to include issues of natural gas which, of course, in

time, will have to be considered not only in the area of how it is going to get

developed, in concert between all of the partners out there, or individually by

any partner -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: - or whether or not we have the appropriate regime in place

for natural gas royalties; a separate issue.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am astounded by what the minister has just

said, to suggest that the development of oil is a separate issue than the

development of gas. Is he aware, as Mines and Energy Minister, of the term

high-grading of the resource; that if you do not develop the oil in the proper

way, or in an improper way, you will not get the gas out of the reserves? How

can you say, on the one hand, that this is only talking about the development of

oil, and gas is a separate issue? They are directly linked. Their development is

directly linked. Their benefits to the people of the Province are directly

linked.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to get to his supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Why don't you understand that, Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I understand the difference between oil and

gas. I understand the difference between hot air and cold air. I understand, and

I believe very clearly, that the hon. member knows the difference in the issues.

What he is propositioning is the fact that we should now, under the development

application in place and in process for the White Rose oil field, the smallest

of the three oil fields that has been either considered or put into development

so far, that we should somehow bring into that significant issues, which I agree

with him are important to the future of the Province, there is no question about

that, but for purposes of this application the commissioner, C-NOPB, and all of

us, have to take into consideration what the issue is under consideration, and

it is the development of an oil field with about 230 million barrels of oil,

South Avalon, known as the White Rose project.

I am sure that in time there will be other applications that will have to be

examined with respect to the development of natural gas, and there will be

considerations that we will have to take, as a Province, as a government, with

respect to how we want to see that proceed, and with respect to what the royalty

and taxation regime should be in that context, for that particular type of

development.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: If that is the approach that the government are going to

take, I am fearful of what this government is going to do within the next

eighteen months. You cannot talk about the development of one small oil reserve

in one area without talking about the development of all others, because if you

don't you will never have an industry, Minister!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: You will never have an industry for the next twenty-five

years!

The question is this: Why is it that you continue to stand on your feet

tonight, today, and propose that the public review going on is somewhat in

keeping with the spirit of the Atlantic Accord when it is not? When will you

stand up and say: Let's talk about all aspects of the development of this

resource and the oil and gas industry in general so that the people of the

Province, at the end of the day, will win? That is what you should do, Minister.

Why won't you do it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has probably gotten

more to the point of what he really wants to talk about, and that is a fuller

discussion, a fuller debate, a fuller consideration -

MR. E. BYRNE: You don't. (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No, I never said that. You asked the question and I will

give you the answer.

I am saying that, in the context of wanting to have a public debate that

involves the whole issue of oil and gas in a bigger picture and in a different

context, I don't disagree that probably that debate should take place. In

fact, the debate is taking place publicly at different levels, but with respect

to the development application for White Rose, with respect to this development,

this application is dealing with a project that a proponent is putting forward,

it is dealing with the development of oil in a particular reserve, and in that

context it is not the place for the fuller, bigger debate as to what we should

be doing with respect to oil and gas generally into the future, as a Province.

It is a different issue altogether.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

Minister, we are all painfully aware of what is happening at the Marystown

Shipyard and the uncertainty of Friede Goldman to continue its operation there

and provide much needed employment. I ask the minister what options his

government is presently considering, and do include recovering the assets of

that particular facility?

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentlemen that I made a

comment last week on public television in the Province that we are always being

accused of taking something from the PCs Blue Book. In this case, I say to the

hon. gentlemen, he is far behind in his efforts to take something from the Red

Book.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we were all last week meeting with the unions, talking to

lawyers, discussing options to make sure that the assets of the shipyard stay in

Marystown. I can say to him that under legal advice that we have at this point,

under

Chapter 11, Bankruptcy Act in the US, the assets in Marystown are in no

danger.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, I would like to ask you again, what efforts

your government is considering and what efforts they are putting forward to make

sure that those assets, at that particular facility, remains in Marystown and

remains the property of the taxpayers of this Province?

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Let me just say to the hon. gentlemen that we are pursuing all

options that we know are available and that at the present time - unlike the

hon. gentlemen and unlike his leader last week who was up saying that we should

all open the Legislature to discuss FPI, I am not about to make premature

statements on them that might put any of those options in any way, shape or form

in any danger or raise any expectations that should not be there until I have

clear cut - I hope the hon. gentlemen is listening to me rather than his leader;

you will learn more.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I know boy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: I am not about to make any premature statements in any way,

shape or form that might indeed endanger anything in Marystown. I say to him

that at the present time, under

Chapter 11, Bankruptcy proceeding in the US,

which gives, I understand, Friede Goldman 120 days - 114 right now - to put

forward a plan for how they intend to proceed as a company in that period of

time. The Marystown assets are in no eminent danger; and that we should all be

thankful for.

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

South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, would you not agree that if a simple clause had been added to this

contract between your government and Friede Goldman, we would not be in the

situation we are in today? Minister, the question that needs to be asked is

this: Have Friede Goldman lived up to the contract it signed with your

government and if not, why don't you just cancel the contract?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Development.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Opposition is exhibiting its 20/20

hindsight, its vision, that it usually exercises. The truth of the matter is

that the assets at Marystown are safe. I want him to hear this very clearly:

That we will leave, as a government, no stone unturned to make sure that those

assets stay in Marystown.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. The minister

will know that the Fishery Products International Act gives substantial powers

to the FPI Board of Directors in relation to possible attempts by shareholders

acting in concert to acquire more than a 15 per cent of the companies shares, or

to vote in concert. Does the Province have a process in place to review the

procedure the board is following in carrying out its responsibilities?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the member opposite said, there is a piece in the legislation right now

which says that an individual or a company can only hold 15 per cent of the

shares in FPI. On the weekend - I do not know if the hon. member is aware - the

current Board of Directors of FPI met, along with three of the dissident slate

or members of the slate; Mr. Risley, Mr. Rowe and a representative of the

Icelandic Seafoods. They came to an agreement that three of those groups will

not be voting tomorrow. If the current Board of Directors of FPI get 51 per cent

of the remaining shares voting their way tomorrow then it will be up to the

current board of FPI to determine whether the three, that I just mentioned, were

acting in concert or not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

& White Bay North.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am aware of what happened over the weekend, I inform the minister, but that

was not my question. My question was: What is the government prepared to do

about what happened over the weekend? So I will ask it again, and I will

rephrase it a little. Are you concerned that the agreement that was reached

between the current board and the proponents of the dissident slate could be an

abdication of the boards responsibilities under the act? Does the minister agree

that if the shareholders elect an alternate slate of directors tomorrow that

this will fully satisfy the trustee responsibilities that the FPI board has to

the Province under the act?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not exactly sure what the member is suggesting, but under the current

legislation that was drafted and put through the House by the member opposite

right here, it is up to the current Board of Directors of FPI to determine

whether or not the dissident slate are acting in concert. It is already in the

legislation that the current board determines whether or not there is someone

acting in concert.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods. As the

minister is certainly aware, Abitibi Consolidated has threatened to close its

number seven machine in Grand Falls, thereby putting out of work, directly and

indirectly, in excess of 200 people if the union does not go along with its

demands to strip the contract. Last week the Premier said that he was going to

check and see if there were any written undertakings whereby Abitibi

Consolidated promised to continue to run the two machines in exchange for

concessions on fibre resources and the building of a Star Lake hydro

development. Can the minister tell the House whether or not these deals were

contingent upon the mill continuing its two machine operations? If they were

not, why wasn't the government able to extract those kinds of agreements?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the situation in Grand Falls

and ACI, the dispute between ACI and the unions in that area, that is what it

is, a labour dispute. That is how it started. Now the company is threatening to

shut down number seven altogether. The member is quite right.

To tie it in with Star Lake, or anything else at this point, there has been

nothing like that which has come to our attention. However, I want to make it

quite clear to everybody in the House, to everybody in the Province, and to ACI,

that when it comes down to protecting the jobs in Grand Falls or anywhere else

in the Province that ACI is involved in, we will definitely look at anything -

power purchase agreements, timber sales agreements, timber licenses agreements -

that is tied in with ACI and their involvement, anywhere in this Province. We

will be looking at that before there is anything done in Grand Falls with regard

to job losses.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is the minister then saying that Abitibi Consolidated Incorporated will not

be allowed to shut down the Grand Falls mill as long as they have, in their

timber concessions, sufficient resources to run that operation.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, the question in Grand Falls with regard to

number seven machine has nothing to do with resources with regard to fibre,

absolutely nothing. It has to do with the machine itself. Number seven is an old

machine. It happened to come at a time when they were going to talk to the union

anyway, about the possibility of, not the possibility, the reality, of the loss

of eighty-eight jobs over a period of three or four years. At the same time the

machine broke down - it is rather coincidental, really - they were going to talk

to the union about the loss of those jobs, and some of them by attrition over

three or four years. They could not come to an agreement on that.

Now ACI is using that as a lever to say that we are not going to repair

number seven unless you come to an agreement with regard to that. What they are

trying to do is bring the man-hours of cost in line with their other mills

around the country. This is what they are really trying to do. Now they are

using the repair of number seven as a lever, whether the union will agree with

their position or not. That is where it stands today. It is not the fibre, it

has nothing to do with resources, nothing to do with fibre supply whatsoever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South. Time for one quick question.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Minister, last October the Province signed a six-year municipal

levels of government invest a total of $154 million into municipal

infrastructure, about $25 million a year. The municipalities' share of the

annual cost is about $8.5 million. Can you tell the House today, how many

municipalities have submitted requests under the program and how many of them

have been approved?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: I can say to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, that we have had

more than 1,100 requests for more than $546 million, of which we have this year

a budget of about $50 million.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Before we continue with our routine proceedings, the Chair just wants to

again bring to members' attention, that during Question Period questions,

particularly questions, ought to be directed to the Chair and not to individual

members, and ought to be in the third person, not in the first person. I ask

members, when phrasing their questions and constructing their questions, to keep

that in mind.

Notices of Motion

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

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

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act, Bill 13.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave

to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Chiropractors Act, The

Dietitians Act, The Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994 And The Social Workers

Association Act, Bill 11.

I also give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Medical Act And The Medical Care Insurance Act,

1999, Bill 12.

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on tomorrow I will ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act, Bill 15.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 3, Mr. Speaker. I ask leave for first reading on Bill 7,

An Act Respecting Municipal Elections.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to

introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting Municipal Elections," carried.

(Bill 7)

On motion, Bill 7 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 4, Mr. Speaker. I move first reading of Bill 8,

An Act

To Amend The Schools Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is putting a question to the House. I ask hon. members to pay

attention.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Education to introduce a bill, "An Act

To Amend The Schools Act, 1997," carried. (Bill 8)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Honourable members ought to know that, when a question is being put to the

House, there ought to be some order here in this House and that members ought

not to interrupt the Chair when he is putting a motion to the House.

On motion, Bill 8 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. LUSH: Order 3, Mr. Speaker, Concurrence Motion, Resource Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 3, Resource Committee, Concurrence Motion.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East & Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Island.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are days when I am not quite sure where I am from myself, as I listen

to my colleagues from the other side trying to put forward their fractured

platform for the next election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, the Resource Estimates Committee, which I had the

privilege of chairing, of which the Member for St. John's East had the

privilege of co-chairing - well, not really, vice-chair with me - we had the

opportunity to review and discuss a number of departments, including Fisheries

and Aquaculture; Forest Resources and Agrifoods; Industry, Trade and Rural

Development; Mines and Energy; Tourism, Culture and Recreation; and the new

Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

During our deliberations, I must say that all members who participated in the

Estimates Committees had an opportunity to discuss, probe, seek answers,

selectively discuss various aspects of the budgets of each department. I must

say that all of us can say that the meetings went exceptionally well, to the

point that I do not believe we were required to use the entire amount of time

allocated, which says in itself that good questions were asked and satisfactory

answers were given. In some cases where departments were not in a position to

answer the questions in detail, the responses were given at a later date.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most interesting aspects, I think, of our committee

meetings was the fact that we had a chance to review in great detail a new

department, that department being Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs. It was an

opportunity for us to look at how government was now viewing all aspects of

Labrador, that indeed this new department would channel virtually the activities

of every government department with its dealings in Labrador.

Any government department now, whether it is Municipal and Provincial

Affairs; whether it is Education; Finance; Mines and Energy, will now see its

energies channeled cohesively or through the new department.

One of the aspects, of course, of the new department, is establishing itself.

It will have a firm, strong base in Labrador, and at the same time will have

strong representation and activities within the confines of this building here

in St. John's.

The new Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, a bringing

together of two departments and an opportunity for us to move further into a

one-stop shop, an area where all aspects of economic development, whether it is

in the urban areas of our Province or indeed in rural Newfoundland, where I

think all of us would collectively agree, rural Newfoundland is struggling.

Rural Newfoundland has not had an opportunity to recover from the closing of the

cod fishery in 1992. It has not had an opportunity to carve a niche that will

allow it to continue to grow and be strong and, I think, if not grow, to remain

strong; and this new department will bring together all aspects of government

with the intent of being able to, in specific, deal with rural Newfoundland and

its needs.

The Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture was an opportunity for all

members to participate and to look at the new life that is slowly coming back

into the fishery. Albeit, it is a new fishery. It is not the fishery that

traditionally we would expect in Newfoundland, or the traditional fishery that

kept so many of the small communities in Newfoundland alive, but it is a new

fishery.

MR. FITZGERALD: What would you know about the fishery (inaudible)?

MR. WALSH: I would suggest that my knowledge of the fishery is probably

equally as strong as the hon. Member for Bonavista South. At least, I am still

speaking on fisheries matters.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: What a blow! (Inaudible).

MR. WALSH: I cannot say too much about the hon. colleague. He gives me

too many suggestions in other areas.

It was an opportunity for us also to look at the new aspects that are taking

place in the aquaculture industry, and the new directions that industry is

taking in this Province, and the new directions that the Province would like to

see us develop.

Mines and Energy, as well, was a department that we had an opportunity to

review the Estimates of, and also to get an overview of what the department is

doing currently, and some new and innovative concepts that have come forward

such as the development of wind energy. We have had an opportunity to look at

yet ways of capitalizing on developing other energies in this Province.

With respect to Tourism, Culture and Recreation, an opportunity again to look

at the exciting plans that are in place for this year when we will be

celebrating the year of Marconi.

Mr. Speaker, in Forest Resources and Agrifoods, and indeed in all of the

departments we have had an opportunity to deal with, I believe again, as I said

in my

preamble, that it was an opportunity for all of us to look at the new

departments being created, to get an opportunity to review existing departments

but also to look into where the departments will go and what the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador can expect from those governments in the months to

come.

Mr. Speaker, thank you.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to stand for a few minutes today and just make a few comments

with respect to the committee of which I had an opportunity to participate

during the Estimates hearings over the past several weeks. As the Member for

Conception Bay East & Bell Island just indicated, during those Resource

Committee Estimates hearings we had discussions with respect to six departments:

Fisheries and Aquaculture; Forest Resources and Agrifoods; Mines and Energy;

Tourism, Culture and Recreation; Industry, Trade and Rural Development; and

Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that when we look at the resource

sector, and when we look at the total budgetary allocation, we see that on the

resource sector the Estimates for the years 2001-2002, has been allotted for

$183,500,000, which represents approximately 4.6 per cent of the overall

provincial budget.

There is an actual breakdown. We see, of the six departments which were

indicated, the department with the single highest allocation is the newly

comprised Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, showing an

estimate value of some $60 million; followed by Forest Resources and Agrifoods;

then followed by the Department of Mines and Energy; Tourism, Culture and

Recreation; then Fisheries and Aquaculture; and then the Department of the

Environment. The new Department of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs was not in

the original list, and because of that, it is not included in the total

allocation as found in the Estimates book under the resource sector.

The department that I would like to give some specifics to is the Department

of Mines and Energy. There are a number of areas that I think all members

present should be aware of in terms of trying to give a breakdown of the actual

components within that department, which is of most significance to the people

of this Province. Obviously, the area that began discussion during this session

of the Legislature was the area of Voisey's Bay when, of course, it was

certainly suggested by the Premier, with some contradiction by other members of

his Cabinet, that the government had initiated talks with Inco on the direction

and future negotiations with Inco on the proposed development of Voisey's Bay.

But what was interesting, as we will recall, is the fact that there perhaps was

a new direction, and the fact that what was being proposed and negotiated was,

in fact, completely separate and apart from what was being envisaged by the

previous administration, the previous Premier, and that lead to some divergence

of opinion in terms of questions being asked of the minister during the

Estimates hearings as to exactly what the position of this government was, what

the position of this leader is, vis--vis, ongoing negotiations with Inco on

the proposed development of Voisey's Bay.

Other areas of particular interest with respect to the Department of Mines

and Energy were the Churchill Falls recall; discussion on the transmission line;

hydro job cuts. We will all recall, Mr. Speaker, that it was only a number of

weeks ago that the union voiced its objection to proposed hydro cuts in rural

Newfoundland leading to redundancy and to the fact that a number of individuals,

with significant years of experience with Newfoundland Hydro, were losing their

particular positions. Of course, the other area within the Department of Mines

and Energy, the White Rose project, and that particular discussion - as

introduced today during Question Period by the Leader of the Opposition - is of

utmost importance, I would suggest, in terms of the future resource development

in this Province as it relates to the offshore oil industry and the emerging

natural gas industry.

With respect to a particular area of debate that has taken up most time in

this Legislature, and still falls within the ambit of the Department of Mines

and Energy, would be the debate surrounding Bill 4, which is with respect to

fuel price regulation. As we are all aware, that particular bill has already

passed second reading. It was anticipated that it would go to committee stage

today. However, as we have just recently found out, that is not the case, which

is why we are now discussing the Estimate Committees and the concurrence debates

with respect to the resource sector within the estimates area. However, the

whole concept of fuel price regulation does come within the ambit of the

Department of Mines and Energy and is worthy of a few comments, I would suggest.

There has been considerable and significant opposition to what is being

proposed under Bill 4. There has been significant commentary by people in this

Province who are saying that fuel price regulation is not necessarily what the

people of this Province need. That is perhaps evidenced, I would say to the

member opposite, by the fact that the Minister of Mines and Energy - on the very

day when this bill was being introduced in the Legislature the Minister of Mines

and Energy stood in this House and said quite clearly, without any question,

that obviously this piece of legislation could give no guarantees that it would

reduce the price of gasoline at the pumps for the consumers of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. No guarantees. That is how this particular piece of

legislation was introduced in this Legislature. The minister said clearly that

no guarantees could be given to the consumers of this Province that the price of

a litre of gasoline at the pumps would in fact be cheaper. So that obviously

begs the question, and I am sure the citizens of this Province have to be asking

themselves: What is the purpose of the act? What is the purpose of

an act to

allow the regulation of gasoline and home heating fuel? Which will be the issue

of some debate in the future. What is the purpose of such regulations and such a

regulatory regime when in fact the people of this Province cannot be given any

guarantees that the price of a litre of gasoline at the pump is any cheaper?

That very comment, I would suggest, by the Minister of Mines and Energy has led

to a reaction and a response by the public in this Province to question quite

seriously what the real benefit of regulation is. Mr. Speaker, just last week

the price of a litre of gasoline in the City of St. John's rose to 88.9 cents

a litre. For a total increase of some eight cents since, I believe, around April

9 or April 10.

It is interesting to note that in the Province of Prince Edward Island, a

province which perhaps is being used as a model in terms of the regulatory

regime and the legislation that is being purposed by the people of this

Province, being modeled and based upon what in fact the people of the Province

of Prince Edward Island are subjected to. It is interesting to note that in the

last two years, from approximately January 1999 to January or February of the

year 2001, the X tax price of a litre of gasoline in the Province of Prince

Edward Island is in fact greater than the X tax price of a litre of gasoline in

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador for that same period of time. Here we

are, Mr. Speaker, using and modeling our legislation upon legislation in the

Province of Prince Edward Island. The only other Canadian jurisdiction, I might

add, that has a regulatory regime in place. We are basing and modeling our

legislation on similar legislation in the Province of Prince Edward Island, and

that sole jurisdiction. Its experience, in fact, has a litre of gasoline X tax -

outside the tax factor - under the regulatory regime, a litre of gasoline in

fact has risen higher than a litre of gasoline in this Province for the same

period of time. Again, the question has to be asked, Mr. Speaker, what is the

purpose? What is the intent? Perhaps the more intimate question is: What are the

real benefits to the people of this Province of a regulatory regime when in fact

the only other example that we have in our Canadian federation shows that when

we take away the tax implications the regulatory regime has done nothing to help

the people of the Province of Prince Edward Island? So again, the question has

to be asked, I say to the minister, the question has to be asked to members

opposite: What is this regulatory regime all about?

There was some discussion during the Estimates debates on that very issue and

we will be, in the next several days I understand, at committee. We will be

debating, at committee stage, on a clause-by-clause basis, the real benefits. We

will posing these questions to the minister seeking, hopefully, some explanation

and clarification with respect to what this is really all about.

Mr. Speaker, I suggested in my earlier comments that really what, in fact,

has led to such cost being placed upon the people of this Province as a result

of taxation, which accounts for close to 50 per cent of the price of a litre of

gas in this Province when we factor in provincial taxes, provincial road taxes,

federal excise taxes and, of course, the HST component, which means every time

the price of a litre of gasoline increases at the pump the government of this

Province stands to gain, in fact, a greater amount because it is a compounded

tax. The HST component is compounded. The higher the pump price, obviously the

greater return and the greater amount is derived by government as a result of

the HST composition.

We have always maintained that if the interest of consumers was truly what

was behind the spirit and the thrust of this proposed legislation, if this

government were truly interested in the interests, well-being and the welfare of

the people of the Province, what it would do is seriously consider a reduction

of a very unfair taxation regime which is applied against the people of this

Province and I would state - not only suggest but state, Mr. Speaker - the

highest taxes in this country. We pay the highest gasoline taxes in this

country, higher than any other provincial jurisdiction. If government were

seriously genuine and real in its wish to help the consumers of this Province,

it is from that point of view, I would suggest, where some alleviation of this

burden could be considered, but no, government has refused to do that.

Government has failed to give the consumers of this Province a break. What it is

doing instead, it has devised an artificial, proposed, regulatory regime - which

the minister himself has already acknowledged when this bill was being

introduced - a regime that need not, necessarily, really help consumers. In

fact, no guarantee could be given that the people of this Province will pay

lower prices for gasoline at the pumps. Again, during the clause-by-clause

debate in this Legislature, we look forward to posing questions to the minister

so that he can respond to these various issues as found in the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the resource sector provided an opportunity for a variety of

critics and the members of the resource sector to pose questions to the various

ministers, and it is my understanding that some of my colleagues will stand in

their various critic areas and make a few comments during these concurrence

debates. I will now allow my colleague, the Member for Lewisporte, to rise and

make a few points with respect to concurrence debates in the resource sector.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation.

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

(Inaudible) make some comments about the Resource Estimates and also to

highlight some initiatives that are being undertaken in Tourism, Culture and

Recreation, in our department, and also to look at the progress that we have

made.

We made a tremendous amount of progress when it comes to the promotion and

development of the tourism industry in the Province. We have seen a number of

new initiatives in the last four or five years. In particular, we have seen

major progress in, as a matter of fact, a number of regions of the Province

where there was great history in that we had not developed. We have seen major

developments occur since 1997 and with these developments, major infrastructures

created. For example, at Bonavista through the successful Cabot year. Along with

- when you look at the Viking celebrations - what occurred on the Northern

Peninsula. Millions of dollars was put forward by both the federal and

provincial governments to highlight our history on the Coast of Labrador, and

the Viking year in the last year. The whole Northern Peninsula has benefitted,

for example, from this investment and it also, again, allows us to add to the

number of very positive images that we can put forward to attract people to our

Province. So, when we look at the overall marketing strategy for the Province,

we not only put forward the great scenery that we have - the greatest scenery on

the planet, as far as we are concerned, the scenery of Gros Morne Park, the

scenery of the ecological reserves that we have in the Province, which we are

working on now to finalize - when you look at the scenery, along with the

culture and the history, it is a great combination. As we go forward with a

further aggressive campaign in the next months, and plan for the next three to

four years, again we will see more progress made on a number of fronts.

Mr. Speaker, I was down in Placentia yesterday, meeting with the historical

society in Placentia. Minister McLean came with me. We went down and met with

the mayor down there, plus the society, and they are very much promoting the

history of Placentia and the whole region. We will be working with them this

coming year to look at the French history of the Province, and also putting

resources in to help develop the archaeology of Placentia. As far as we are

concerned, we want the Placentia history to be put forward in a very serious way

because it is important for our future, it is important for our economy, and it

is important for our culture. So, we will be working with the historical

society. I want to congratulate them on a great conference they had the weekend.

They had about seventy or eighty people in the Placentia area, and they did a

great job. We again look forward to working with them, as we have with the

number of regional organizations in Bonavista and on the Northern Peninsula, and

we look forward to seeing further developments being created.

We also want to make a comment towards the new flight

schedule that Canada

3000 has just announced. Canada 3000 is now going to be putting on direct jet

service out of Western Newfoundland to Toronto, to a major market that we

advertise in. Also, Air Canada have also announced that they are going to be

putting direct service on. I also believe there is direct jet service from

Gander being planned to the central Canadian market, and that is very positive.

I know that the former Minister of Tourism, the hon. Member for Gander, had

worked on this issue over the past number of years. Having an airport town, we

know how important it is for the access.

These are good news stories in the sense of giving us the access that we need

to some major markets that we want to bring people to, or bring people from.

These are positive developments that we see, and we are working in partnership

with Canada 3000 and Air Canada to get more flights to our market here, and also

to look at a strategy for further attraction.

When you look at the major developments that have occurred recently in the

Port aux Basques region in the southwest corner, the Gateway project is recently

getting under way to enhance the gateway of our Province - one of the two

gateways in the Port aux Basques region. A number of initiatives in the last two

or three years have been created down there: further enhancements with the

lighthouses in Rose Blanche, a railway station there is very impressive, along

with a number of other amenities that are now being built as you come through

that corridor. We also have seen major investments in the highways in that area

that are starting to really pay off and are giving a very good image of our

Province when you come forward, so that has been very positive. We see those

investments paying off. The Southwest Coast Development Association have done

some tremendous work there, and so have the Codroy Valley Development

Association in that area. We are seeing some major benefits as the major

Gateway, people traveling through, making sure they are being offered the

opportunity.

I want to comment further, too, on the film industry getting a lot of

attention. We are getting some major films in the Province, looking at our

place. That is becoming a job generator and creator. We will have more to say

about that in the next couple of weeks, but it is very positive in giving us

some good opportunities in the marketplace to move forward. It looks very

positive for the future. I want to give credit to the Newfoundland and Labrador

Film Development Corporation, the chair of the board, the board, and the staff

there for doing a great job. Last week, the film corporation, along with Random

Passage , the film itself, and its directors, were in Ireland and launched Random

Passage to the Irish market. It was shown in Ireland and was very

successful. There are more of those initiatives underway. We look forward to

having our piece of that market in the film corporation, and our department and

our government are going to work aggressively to see that occur.

I want to also just take the time to highlight the fact that in our

recreation facilities, as part of recreation development in our Province, we

have some major investments that have taken place in the last three or four

years when it comes to the recreation side.

When you look at the hosting of the Canada Winter Games in Corner Brook,

Stephenville and Deer Lake, and the whole West Coast region, there were

multi-million dollar infrastructures built and the region and the Province

hosted - Canada hosted - the country did extremely well. I believe that has

allowed us and gave us further confidence to host other major attractions.

In the next couple of weeks we are going to see the official opening of a

civic center here in St. John's -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: - to which our provincial government has contributed a

very large amount of funds because we felt it was a good investment for the city

in particular and for the Province in particular; because many people in our

Province look at our city as our capital city and they see the benefits that it

brings in attracting people to the place.

We are very proud of the contribution that our government has been able to

make there to the civic center, and we look forward to the official opening and

being a partner in the future to attract conventions, national and

international. We are working in partnership with the Avalon Convention &

Tourists Bureau. They are doing a very good job of marketing in the St. John's

and Avalon area, and they deserve a lot of credit for the good work they have

done. We will be working with them.

When you look at the new civic center in Gander, which the Member for Gander

worked her heart out to help make happen - the minister - that new civic center

has been the host of a number of excellent competitions. It is a major piece of

sports infrastructure in that region. It has done very well, and it is going to

do well for the people there. They are now able to market themselves with the

hotel space they have as a further center for conventions and so on, and with

the access that the airlines are going to give now more directly to the Ontario

market, that is going to help also in attracting those types of initiatives.

In Stephenville, we have a new $5 million or $6 million center there, a brand

new center in the last couple of years, and again they are marketing their place

in the same way.

These are very positive initiatives we have seen occur in the recreation

side. We have also seen some outstanding accomplishments by some of our athletes

in the last little while that really shows that if we invest in recreation

facilities, and we invest in supporting our young people in sports and

development, the results can be very positive. We look forward to working with

all of these sports organizations in the Province, to go forward with a plan to

make sure that our athletes are supported.

We also want to highlight the fact that the Canada Summer Games are going to

occur this summer, in August, in London, Ontario. In these games, we expect our

athletes to do very well and to represent ourselves as ambassadors for our

Province, and again another great opportunity for us to compete against the rest

of the country. We look forward to seeing that occur.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of very positive new initiatives coming up. Two

issues that I want to flag when it comes to tourism is the access question

through Marine Atlantic, the recent indication that the labour dispute there is

going to a mediator. We want to be assured by Marine Atlantic, and we are

seeking those assurances, and also the federal government, that there will be no

disruption, and we do not expect one. We are continuing to market as we normally

do, but that issue we want to deal with the federal government on. This year we

want to get it dealt with for the long term; and I intend, and our department

and our government intend, to work on that issue.

The other issue that we want to flag with Marine Atlantic, which we will be

talking to them about, is the fast ferry. The fast ferry experiment last year,

we thought, worked very well, and our Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation has already made representations. We have made the same, and we

are making more. We are going to get into a discussion about further access and

how we can have the right configurations and how we can have the shorter and

quicker access that we need to make it easy for people to get here. We are

working on both those issues to further improve what we have developed, which is

a world-class tourism product in this Province.

One of the other things I want to highlight: just recently I met the chair of

the Taxi Host Association. That is a group of taxi operators who have gotten

together with the Department of Tourism and the Avalon Convention & Tourists

Bureau in the region and put training programs off to help our taxi operators in

the Province to have a certain code of conduct and so on. They have done a

tremendous job, Mr. Speaker. I want to highlight that this Taxi Host program was

their initiative, the initiative of the Taxi Association, which has done a very

good job, because they meet a lot of our people in the Province as they come to

airports and other locations. They have done a great job.

It is just as an example, Mr. Speaker, of the really positive initiatives,

the training of our people that we are doing in human resource development when

it comes to being ambassadors, and understanding that when people come to our

place, our good culture, our great culture and our great scenery that we have,

it also needs to have the appropriate professionalism. We have that in spades. I

just want to compliment the Taxi Host operators, the Taxi Host group that have

put forward the program. It is a very positive program, one of a number of new

initiatives that is again giving us a high quality, high class, tourism product

that we can brag about and be bold about.

We are looking at the development of two national parks in Labrador, coming

up, major initiatives that the Minister for Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs is

working on, along with the members in the region, where we will see further

development.

I could go on, Mr. Speaker, but just to say this: there is a whole range of

very positive initiatives under way, that we look forward to assuring and to

attracting people to our place in a very positive way. I want to congratulate

the tourism operators and Hospitality Newfoundland, the Executive Director of

Hospitality Newfoundland. They have done a great job. The president and the

executive have done a good job, working in partnership, together, to promote our

place. We look forward to a number of initiatives that we will be working on in

the next period of time to see more people come to our place in the future.

I look forward to the positive discussions from the other side.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to rise and speak again today on concurrence. I have a few

words to say about our resource sectors. It is an area that I think can make

this Province prosper and make this Province be more sustainable than we have

been in the past. With the type of resources that we have here in this Province,

there is no reason why there cannot be a lot more jobs created in rural

Newfoundland with respect to developing our resources and getting the maximum

benefits from our resources.

Over the years we have seen too many times where companies come in and take

our resources, as some people might say, rape our resources, but we saw it a lot

in the past. I do not think we can afford to see this type of action by big

companies and industries in our Province, to rape our resources again, take our

resources, and not give us the maximum benefits and jobs from those resources.

I can see, particularly in Central Newfoundland, when it comes to our

resources in the mining sector, when you look at communities such as Buchans,

probably Little Bay, Pilley's Island and places like that, where, over the

years, the mining companies came into these areas, took the resources and

shipped them in bulk to other places without secondary processing, without any

commitment to long-term benefits to the communities and to the Province. I think

that type of thing, in this day and age, is going to have to stop. We have to

develop these resources, particularly in the mining sector, and develop them to

any type of processing that we can do to enhance our labor force, to increase

our labor force and sustain our communities in rural Newfoundland, because that

is very important for communities that do not have more than one type of

resource. When you are depending on one type of resource, then it is more

important to get the most benefit out of that resource. When we do that, it

makes it easier to keep our young people here in this Province, to let our older

generation live in their communities and have a meaningful way of life in their

communities. Not only with the mining and the energy sector, Mr. Speaker, it is

important that we develop all types of our resources.

With the tourism resource, and the culture and recreation that we have in

this Province, it can be enhanced to a point were some communities that do not

have any other type of resource can avail of developing an industry based around

tourism, culture and recreation. Mr. Speaker, when we look at this type of

resource, the Province is a beautiful place to offer tourists, and the pristine

beauty of this Province is second to none. We must develop that resource in this

Province, particularly when it comes to dealing with our parks. You drive around

this Province today and you see a lot of parks closed up, a lot of parks that

were privatized. These people who owned these parks cannot afford to keep them

running because we are not developing the tourism sector as well as we should,

and there is not enough revenue being generated throughout this -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HUNTER: What do you want?

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we do develop our tourism and we do

develop our recreation so that we can encourage competition from all across this

country to come here to Newfoundland and Labrador. By coming here, they bring a

lot of money with them and a lot of dollars are left here in the Province. A lot

of jobs are created because of competition, whether it be in any type of winter

or summer sports. We must be very conscious of our industries in this Province,

particularly in rural Newfoundland. We must develop every type and aspect of

business to its maximum potential, utilizing our resources to the maximum with

the greatest benefit. We can see all too often when the big companies come in

here and take these resources and not deliver on their end of the bargain, when

they commit to maximizing the jobs and profits and leaving money in our rural

communities here in this Province. We must be very conscious of not letting this

happen over and over and over.

We do control the lease agreements, we do control the resources, and we do

have a say on who leases what, and what commitments they have to make in those

leases. Then we must make sure, when resources are leased to companies, that

they hold up to their part of the agreement. If not, then that is the tool that

we can use, or the government can use, to force companies in keeping their

commitments and making sure that the amount of money that we expect from our

resources is forced on these big industries; that we force them to live up to

their commitments, and if they do not then we could use the hammer, as our

federal member, Mr. Baker, said this morning with respect to the Abitibi

situation. The government can hold the solution to the problem by being the

hammer that could drive a solution to this problem that we have in there.

That is one particular area where we see a long-term commitment was made back

ninety-five years ago, almost 100 years ago, when this country, this Province,

gave leases - water leases, water rights, timber leases, land leases - all types

of different commitments that the government made to the company in the

beginning. Now, at this particular time when this company is making maximum

profits and very high profits, the company wants to downsize and be more

profitable in their eyes; but in the people's eyes they see that this company

is very profitable. To threaten to close down a number seven paper machine does

not seem very responsible to me, when the commitment was made to use our

resources and to maximize the benefits to the people of this country.

Mr. Speaker, if necessary, this government is going to have to step in and

show the industry that they are in control, governments are in control, with

developing and implementing policies and laws with respect to leasing out our

natural resources, our precious resources, so that we can maximize the jobs and

keep the jobs there until it is a fit time for people to retire in their

communities, so they can have a good, meaningful way of life in their

communities.

I think the government is going to have to step in, in this situation. There

are a lot of questions in people's minds in our Province, particularly in

Central Newfoundland, of who is being truthful in the situation out there. It is

government's responsibility to step in there, find out what the facts are, and

find out the real reason. We understand that, according to the Minister of

Forest Resources and Agrifoods today, the wood supply is not the key issue of

this dispute.

Mr. Speaker, with all the indications that I have, through documentation that

I have received over the last couple of weeks, we do have a very serious

situation when it comes to fibre resources for the Province's paper mills.

This Province really cannot sustain three paper mills the way it is now, with

the timber resource being utilized the way it is. We realize that when the

Labrador linerboard mill came on stream, it was there to use the resource out of

Labrador. In order to do that, we must have a settlement of agreements with the

Aboriginal people in Labrador so we can give the people of Labrador an

opportunity to use their resources, to make a living in that part of the

Province, to sustain their communities in Labrador. We could take the resource

from the forests down there and use it in the way it was intended when we first

had the paper mill in Stephenville. That mill is there for one reason and one

reason only. When it was put there, it was put there to use the resources of

Labrador. Even at the time, Premier Smallwood admitted that there is not room in

this Province for three paper mills with the resource on the Island. His idea

was to use the resource in Labrador. Now, it has gone too far. We are in a state

now where we are strapped for fibre resources. Now, the government has to step

in and make sure that a fair deal, a fair agreement, has been made for the

people of Labrador so they can get jobs in their resources, particularly in the

forestry resources in Labrador, and not only the forest resources in Labrador

but all the resources. The minerals down there, too, have to be utilized to

their maximum potential. The maximum amount of jobs have to be delivered to the

people of Labrador with the maximum amount of benefits to each community and

each person who needs a job, who needs to make a living dealing with our

resources.

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we utilize our fishery resources too.

In rural Newfoundland, in my district particularly, we have a really big

resource pertaining to the mussel farming industry in my part of the district.

My district delivers approximately 70 per cent of the produced mussels in the

Province. We need to do something to ensure that we would enhance that type of

industry wherever the resource is, and to go into secondary processing in that

part of the Province. I understand there is a processing plant in my neighboring

district there, but it is closed down now. We must assure the people that they

have that close proximity of secondary processing to that resource; because,

where it is such a big part of that resource in the Province, we need to do

other processing right in the area adjacent to where the product is being

developed and grown.

We see a lot of our resources that we take for granted, particularly when it

comes to our water resource. People do not realize the importance of this

precious resource that we have, not only for developing in the way of water

consumption by human beings or animals but the potential that water resources

have to develop hydro power. If we sign long-term agreements and not acceptable

agreements that affect hydro power in this Province for many, many years, then

we are going to be in a similar situation that we have today when it comes to

other long-term agreements, particularly in Labrador with the Upper Churchill.

Mr. Speaker, I am referring now to a project that could be developed in

Central Newfoundland with the water resources pertaining to the Exploits River

and the Red Indian Lake area. That water resource is developed by the company.

It was developed by the company in the beginning to provide power to our paper

mills, and we must ensure that the maximum benefits and profits of that resource

are there for the people of the Province and there for the reason it was

intended to be there; that is, to sustain the paper-making ability of a paper

company which we have in Grand Falls-Windsor today that produces some of the

best newsprint in the world. It is third out of the company's group of

twenty-five mills, the third highest profitable business in their group.

In order to do that, they have to be competitive, I know, but we still must

use that water resource to make sure that the maximum benefits to the people of

Central Newfoundland are there with respect to making paper, not with one paper

machine but with two paper machines. Number seven and number three must continue

making paper long into the future, and a commitment must be made by the company

to ensure that everything possible is done to keep number seven machine working

so that we can save 250 jobs directly in the Central Newfoundland area. Not only

that, but the long-term effect on the closing of number seven would be

disastrous to adjoining communities, neighbouring communities, particularly to

one community called Botwood. In Botwood, it would be disastrous to the working

community down there if number seven closes. The company already said that there

would be no more paper shipped at the port of Botwood if they close number

seven.

With that concern alone, Mr. Speaker, it gives me reason to believe that the

government should jump in now to look at this situation, even in the Premier's

own District of Botwood and Exploits.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HUNTER: Could I have leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I should give them all a pen and see if they can mark an X.

Mr. Speaker, that was long enough. I could not stand it anymore. I had to

stand up. The Member for Windsor-Springdale motivated me.

We have to talk about Newfoundland and Labrador in the future, and we are

talking about resource policy and the resources that Newfoundland and Labrador

has. What we should do is, we should draw a description in our minds of

Newfoundland and Labrador and look at the vast geography of lands that we live

in, and the population of 560,000 or 570,000 people.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is 539,000 now, isn't it?

MR. EFFORD: Five hundred and thirty-nine; well, whatever the population.

We will not argue over numbers, but let's talk about the population. Look at

the land mass. Look at the pristine environment that we have. Look at the

tourism opportunities.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Tories?

MR. EFFORD: The tourism. Look at the mineral wealth. Look at the wealth

of our oil. Look at the ocean, the value of the resource in our ocean. Look at

the water.

One of the things I want to talk about is the price of fuel. I get a kick out

of people talking about the price of gas: eighty-five one day, eighty-eight

another day, and that is the continuous topic no matter where you go. I never

hear anybody talk about the price of a vehicle that they paid $10,000 for just a

decade ago. Today, that same vehicle is $40,000. That does not matter. The price

of fuel is gone up to 80 cents a litre and now it is controlling the topic of

conversation.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is the price of water.

MR. EFFORD: I was getting to that, the price of water. A litre of water

is $1.42 and a litre of gas is 88 cents, and a litre of gas is too expensive to

buy. It is phenomenal, the thinking that we have here in this Province. The one

thing that we have here in this Province are resources. There is absolutely no

reason why we should have the mentality that we are an have-not Province. One of

the worst contributors to us having a have-not Province is the mentality and the

attitude that we display in our every day talking, and in particular to our

young people. Is there any wonder why young people get educated and leave this

Province when the topic of conversation is negative, negative, negative on a

continuous basis? Tell me one thing in this Province that we talk positive about

around the kitchen tables, around the restaurant tables, or anywhere where we

have a conversation?

Look at the ocean - and this is one of the resources that I am most familiar

with. We had the largest stock of codfish unequaled to anywhere in the world.

What did we do with it? We destroyed it. Those of us who participated in the

fishery contributed to it. Those of us who sat idly by and allowed it to happen

contributed equally as much as those people who participated in the destruction.

We all have to take responsibility for it. There is no reason why we should have

to have communities today going off to Ottawa - the mayor of Ramea, the mayor of

Gaultois -looking for a quota to keep their community alive. I ask the question:

Looking for a quota of what? Of crab? That we are going to go on the same track

with crab as we did with cod? That every community in Newfoundland and Labrador

is going to have a crab plant, and every community or every region in

Newfoundland and Labrador is going to have a quota? Well that is what we did

with the codfish. That is the reason why Marystown, Catalina, Gaultois, and

Ramea are pretty well ghost towns today, because of what we did with the cod. We

allowed foreign ships, factory freezer trawlers and those large nets out there

that could haul up a ship load in one haul, pick out the small fish and throw

them overboard, and grind it up in grinders aboard the boat. There is no reason

why any people should be unemployed in Newfoundland and Labrador today if we

managed our resources right.

Look at water. We are arguing over bulk water. Nobody is saying what we

should be doing with our water. No businessman is investing into it. In New

Brunswick today we have ten bottling plants. What do we have in Newfoundland and

Labrador? With all of the water we have here, with all of the pristine

environment, with all of the cleanliness and the purest water in the world, what

do we have? One or two small bottling plants that is selling in Newfoundland and

Labrador alone. There is absolutely no reason why we should not have a dozen or

fifteen bottling plants here. There is no place that you can travel in the world

- no place in this world can you travel that they do not use bottled water.

There is not a city, not a country, not a place in the world where people live,

that they do not buy bottled water.

We talk about the price of gasoline at 85 cents or 88 cents a litre. We talk

about the price of water at $1.40 or $1.50 a litre. What is the cost of

producing a litre of water compared to a litre of gasoline? We cannot see the

forest for the trees. The policy that we brought in on fisheries: No fish to go

out of this Province to be further processed somewhere else, but if fresh fish

came out of the ocean and went directly to the consumer, you should do it. You

would be crazy not to do it. It is no different on any other product. If it is

to be processed somewhere else outside of the Province: no. It is to be

processed, bottled, canned or whatever here in this Province, but if it is to go

directly to the consumer then it is a different thing altogether. By not doing

it you are losing out. You have to have an open mind going into business. You

cannot be restrictive on businesses. You don't tie the people hands so that

they cannot manufacture or cannot produce.

Government's responsibility is set in policy. Government's responsibility

is maximizing the resources for the people of the Province and getting the

revenues on it. You talk about taking the taxes off gasoline. Well, yes, take

the taxes off gasoline, close two or three hospitals, stop plowing roads, stop

paving roads -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Where are you going to get the money if you do not charge

taxes? Where are you going to get the taxes out of 540,000 or 550,000 people if

you do not have it on products? So it is absolute nonsense. You cannot have it

both ways. You either want the services or you do not want them; and if you want

them you have to pay for them. If there is a magic tree or a magic wand out

there - that somebody is not going to collect taxes and wave a magic wand or has

a pot at the end of the rainbow and is going to get these dollars to provide all

the services that people are demanding, then tell us how to do it. I have not

seen any magical wands yet. I have been in business for seventeen years and I

have been in politics for sixteen, that is thirty-three years. Everything I had

to get I had to work for. Every dollar I made I had to provide services to my

family or things that I wanted to do. It did not come from any magic wand.

Government is no different. Government is like a business.

MR. J. BYRNE: Go out to Port de Grave (inaudible) an election and say

that.

MR. EFFORD: I have said it all the time. That is the reason I have been

elected five times. I tell the truth!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: I do not hide behind a cloud! When we built the harbour in

Port de Grave at $6.5 million, I told them that came from taxpayers dollars.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: When we paved every road out there, that came from taxpayers

dollars. I never hid it yet. And everything is paved out there, by the way.

Every road.

AN HON. MEMBER: Every road?

MR. EFFORD: We are resurfacing some of them now.

You cannot have it both ways. You tell the people and the people will believe

you. But if you go on with this nonsense: we are going to take away the taxes of

gasoline, we are going to open more schools, we are going to build more roads

and we are going to open more hospitals. What utter nonsense! You cannot fool

the people anymore. If you do not tell the people the truth they will just laugh

at you and talk behind closed doors.

Mr. Speaker, if we utilize the resources that we have here in this Province

there is no reason why we cannot employ and provide the needs of the people in

this Province. We have more resources per capita, and I say this very seriously,

here in this Province than any other part of this country. Seriously! More

resources per capita than other part of this country. What we have to do is ask

the question: Why are we in the position we are in? There is the question. There

is the question that we have to find an answer for. The policy is derive the

maximum benefits out of the Province. Stay away from this political nonsense -

as my poor old dad used to say: blindfold the devil in the dark. As I was

saying, going on with these misleading statements and telling the people: Now,

we will drop the taxes on gasoline; you vote for us. That is nonsense! You

cannot do it. There is no government, regardless of your political stripe, who

can drop taxes and at the same time provide services.

Go over to the Health Sciences Hospital, any day in the week, and look at the

lineup of people going in there; look at the need for new equipment; look at the

need for more nurses; look at the need for more doctors; look at the need for

more special care. Where is it going to come from? There is only one way:

somebody has to pay to pay the bill. There is no reason in this world why we

cannot be able to provide the services of the people utilizing the resources

that we have here in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, when the Member for Windsor-Springdale got up and talked about

resources, I know what he intended to say. I know what his intention was but he

just could not get it out the right way. The one thing that I would suggest in

your policy platform that you put forth in the future: don't tell the people

of the Province that you are going to take away taxes and you can provide the

services. When you do up your Blue Book be honest with the people of the

Province and tell the people the truth. Yes, you have to pay taxes. Yes, you

will provide services, and you cannot have it both ways.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER (Ms. Hodder): The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I want to say a few words on this topic here today, but the first one I want

to address is the former Minister of Fisheries and the comments that he just

made. Now I know we cannot use the word hypocritical in this House, so I won't;

but I am telling you one thing, what he is saying now we heard it all before:

Where are we going to get the money? Now just listen to some of the comments

that he made. You answer me, Madam Speaker, what is being said here today and

what way the spin is being put on it. He was saying that the people in the

Province, in my mind, are not paying enough for gas; not paying enough for it if

you compare it to what people are paying for water.

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

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

Grave.

MR. EFFORD: I would not use the word hypocritical, Madam Speaker, but I

will give the member leave to use it on himself if he wishes to do that.

Seriously, I never, ever, said we should be charging more money for gasoline

or more taxes. What I said is we cannot afford to decrease the taxes if we are

going to build roads and provide health services, education, and the needs of

the people. So, if you cannot understand what I am saying sit down and be quiet!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Continue.

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

What he said over there is contradicting himself again. He stood up and made

the comparison between what is being paid for gas in this Province and what we

are paying for water in this Province and other provinces. He said we are paying

more for water, therefore we are not paying enough for gas. That is what he just

said, I say to you, Madam Speaker.

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

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

Grave.

MR. EFFORD: I was comparing the value of water compared to the value of

gasoline; $1.42 for litre of water and eighty-eight cents for a litre of

gasoline. Can't you get that through your mind?

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

It is obvious today to see why that man is not sitting in that chair right

there. Why he is not Premier of this Province.

Now, Madam Speaker, lets get on with it. He also said that he has worked for

everything that he has ever earned. If you want to extrapolate that out: Are you

insinuating that the people in this Province do not work for what they have, I

say to former Minister of Fisheries?

Here is the point that I want to make and what I am getting to. I heard it

before so often from him, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Municipal

Affairs, all of them on that side of the House, talking about our policies. He

says here today: We cannot cut the taxes on gas. Where are you going to get the

money? Where are we going to get the money? You are going to have to close

hospital beds, going to have to close down schools. He did not say in the last

election, when we had our policy manual out there and we talked about cutting

the payroll tax: It can't be done! Going to close schools; going to close

hospital beds. What did they do? Within six months they had the payroll tax cut

on their very first budget.

Then we had in our policy manual that we would cut income tax by five points.

We made this statement. It cannot be done! Ridiculed and laughed at. The whole

gamut from that side of the House. What did they do when they got in the next

time around, in the next budget? They cut the income tax.

MR. SULLIVAN: Jack, they took our manual and put a red cover on it.

MR. J. BYRNE: Exactly. What they could have done is take this policy

manual and put a red cover on it, as the Opposition House Leader said. To make

it worse, the face that this administration has -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Just listen to this now. The face that this administration

has - the Premier of the Province stood up in this House of Assembly and said to

our leader: What we are going to do is have all your policies used up by the

next election and you will not have any left. Now, that is what he said. That is

what they are running on. That is the gas in their tanks. That is the kind of

stuff that they are getting on with. The former Minister of Fisheries has the

gall to say: Where is the money coming from, and he is talking about resources?

I will talk about resources. I will tell you about resources, Madam Speaker.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) places like the Murray Premises.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, I do not want to get on that. I have a list.

Here we are. Where are we going to get the money from? I will tell you where

we are going to get the money from. Just think about this now - and they have

the gall, the former minister -

MR. E. BYRNE: If they had to operate the same way that Stockwell Day has,

and what they have cost the province, every Cabinet minister over there would be

a pauper right now. They would all have second and third mortgages on their

house.

MR. J. BYRNE: Alright.

Let me tell you this: you talk about money and the wastage of money, and

where are we going to get the money? I am up to over $100 million wasted by that

group.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, I am so glad you brought it up. Where is the Steel

Report? What about the Steel Report, I say to the former Minister of Fisheries?

If you want to talk about Sprung, talk to a member on that side of the House. If

I were you, I would talk to a member on that side of the House. If you want to

talk about Sprung, I will get on to that. I do not mind talking about it. I was

not here. There were 300 jobs created for two years on account of $20 million.

It was something where the magnitude may have been in question, but it was a

noble effort.

When we talk about the Liberal government, let's talk about the cottage

hospitals. Let's talk about Trans City and $5 million and not one job created

- not a job - in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is 25 per cent

of Sprung right there. We have Atlantic Leasing Limited, another $4 million.

Legal fees is another one. The Cabot 500 Corporation, another $600,000. Andy

Wells, another $600,000.

Let's see what else we have on the go: other legal matters, Tors Cove

Excavation, $1 million and not a job created. (Inaudible), another legal matter,

let me see.

MR. E. BYRNE: Jack, (inaudible) those pieces of junk they just bought.

MR. J. BYRNE: Don't get me going on that, for the love of God.

Here we have a tender - no tender - we did not have a tender. How much?

One-and-a-half million dollars on equipment that was purchased, and no tender.

The City of St. John's would not even buy it. It was five years old, all kinds

of repairs done on it.

MR. E. BYRNE: The officials did not even contact the city to find out

what kind of shape it was in.

MR. J. BYRNE: There it is. Your officials did not even contact the city

to see what shape it was in and what condition it was in, and all these other

things. The former Minister of Fisheries gets up and says: Where are we getting

the money?

Let's see what else is on the go with this Administration. Let's talk

about the Ahelaide , let's talk about the ship down on the docks for two

years, $700,000, another $2 million or $3 million spent on it. We do not know

how much more is going to be spent on it to bring it up to Canadian standards -

not a job created.

Let's talk about the Apollo . Every time I drive down the waterfront

and look at that, I cannot believe my eyes. I almost get sick to my stomach.

MR. SHELLEY: A Liberal billboard

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, a Liberal billboard is right. That is not finished

with either, yet, I would say.

We have a ferry down there that is chock full of asbestos, and we were told,

in this House of Assembly, that there was no asbestos in it. They have the gall

to get up and say: Where are we getting the money? Criticizing us and our

policies here, after adopting 50 per cent or 60 per cent of what we are putting

forward. They are void of ideas over there - not a click, not a clue, do they

have on that side of the House. No wonder, when the Premier gets up, or the

Minister of Finance gets up, or anyone gets up to answer a question, we do not

hear this [heavy tapping on table]. We hear this [light tapping on the table].

That is what we hear. There is no support for the ministers over there. They

have the gall to get on their feet and criticize us on this side of the House.

Well, the time is coming. The time is soon coming, I hope -

AN HON. MEMBER: The tide has gone out.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is right.

MR. LUSH: Hope is the operative word.

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Government House Leader, he knows what is on

the go.

Now, let me see here. We have this Administration now, talking about

flip-flops, talking about money, the Premier comes in within a few days or weeks

and talks about Voisey's Bay - an issue.

I ask the former Minister of Fisheries this. We talk about our resources. We

had the Prime Minister of this country make a statement last week that there is

deal close on Churchill Falls, and the Premier of this Province, the Minister of

Mines and Energy -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) Lower Churchill negotiations.

MR. J. BYRNE: We will get into that in a minute now. Well, $10 million -

plus, the big show with Mr. Bouchard, with Mr. Tobin in Labrador. A million

bucks on a news conference, no jobs created, another million. Ten million on the

negotiations for Churchill Falls, no jobs.

MR. E. BYRNE: For who?

MR. J. BYRNE: For who is the question, for who?

MR. E. BYRNE: For whose benefit?

MR. J. BYRNE: For whose benefit, is right. It was all for the benefit of

one Mr. Tobin, the Premier, the former Premier of the Province at the time. We

have this going on here in this Province, and this guy over there has the gall

to say and the face to say that they even question our policies. It is utterly

ridiculous. I mean, it is unreal.

Now, as I said, the Prime Minister made a statement last week that the

Premier of this Province knew nothing about, the Minister of Mines and Energy

knew nothing about, and we are talking about a major resource, I say to the

former Minister of Fisheries, the Member for Port de Grave. There was a deal at

hand. It was very close. Now, who is running the show for this Province? I want

to know, who is running the show? Is it the Premier of the Province and his

ministers, or is it the man who left here and went to Ottawa? Is that the man?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: If we were, we would not be in the mess we are in, I say to

the member. Not likely.

Now, another issue. We talk about our resources. We talk about the major

plan, the master plan a few years ago of this Administration, the Liberal

Administration, to privatize the parks in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. Another brainwave, Madam Speaker. What happened? Half the parks did

not open up, some of the best parks in the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I did not try to sell igloos to Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, that is for sure, I say to the former minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: I did not try to seel igloos down in the States.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Don't I? Oh, that is what I do.

The parks privatization was the shambles. You know it, and most members on

that side of the House know it but they will not admit it. There were parks

privatized and were not opened up. There was one up in River of Ponds up in the

Northern Peninsula, one of the best parks in the Province, privatized,

dismantled, not even opened up. Shameful. The Minister of Tourism at the time

was the member for that area and he let the park be dismantled. The question

then, you have to go back to say: Let's make some connections. Who got the

park? He got two, this individual. Were there any connections to any Liberals?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I suppose there were not. I can name names and tell you

exactly where they were, and the park closed down. Another brainwave.

Talk about resources and rural Newfoundland. The Member for Conception Bay

East & Bell Island got up. Get this now. The Member for Conception Bay East

& Bell Island got up and said rural Newfoundland is struggling. Now, rural

Newfoundland is struggling. The first thing came to my mind, why? Well, let's

look at some of the major initiatives of this Administration. The park

proposition was one. The other brainwave was last summer. What do we hear?

Relocation. Job relocation out of St. John's to all over the Province, to

rural Newfoundland.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) $35 million (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: How much?

MR. E. BYRNE: Thirty-five million dollars.

MR. J. BYRNE: Upwards now of $35 million, and this started out, Madam

Speaker -

MR. E. BYRNE: Two Sprungs in one location, that was ill-conceived and

badly timed.

MR. J. BYRNE: Seven million. That was what the cost was, they told us,

the government. Now it is $35 million. I am hearing words like $10 million to

$14 million for renovations to a certain building, to relocate some people out

of St. John's. Not one job created, and they were going to be relocated to

rural Newfoundland.

Now, let's look at rural Newfoundland: Gander, Grand Falls, Stephenville,

Marystown, all rural Newfoundland. None out to, say, Baie Verte, or none to -

AN HON. MEMBER: St. Anthony.

MR. J. BYRNE: - St. Anthony, places like that, real rural Newfoundland.

All they were doing was centralizing, Madam Speaker, centralizing the services

and trying to sell that to the people of the Province as a major initiative.

Done on the back of a napkin, as far as I am concerned, somewhere.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: On a golf course, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Say that again?

MR. LUSH: Gander is a metropolis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, there you go. I do not know if the Government House

Leader is trying to be sarcastic or facetious or whatever, but he is saying that

Gander is a metropolis.

I know one thing: if the initiative was to put jobs in rural Newfoundland, it

is certainly not happening. Look, Madam Speaker, at the expertise that has been

lost. Look at the ads in the weekend paper, in The Telegram , and look at

all the jobs being advertised. People are not moving. Now, what is happening to

rural Newfoundland? Where is the big -

MR. E. BYRNE: How many more nurses and doctors could be put in rural

Newfoundland for $35 million?

MR. J. BYRNE: That is a good point. The Leader of the Opposition asks:

How many more nurses, how many more doctors, how many more roads could be done,

how many more teachers could be in the school system, how many more schools

could be built for $35 million? Now, we are up to something like $135 million,

and the former Minister of Fisheries has the gall to talk about Sprung; $20

million, 300 jobs, two years. They are talking about $135 million, not a new job

in the Province, and they have the audacity to make that comparison. They should

be ashamed of themselves. They should resign en masse. As a matter of fact,

after hearing this today, I hope the Premier sits back and reads this and

realizes the shambles and the mess they have made of this Province and calls an

election. That is what they should do, and let the people decide on their

record. Shame!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: So don't get up, I say to the former Minister of

Fisheries, and preach to this side of the House about where we are getting the

money. Now, that is $135 million right there and that is not even having to look

hard.

Now, let me start talking about the Auditor General's report. Forget that,

and let's start talking about the court cases and the people who have sued

this Administration for wrongful dismissal. Fourteen or twenty, I think, settled

out of court two or three weeks ago. There are some of the figures; fourteen or

fifteen or something like that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nineteen.

MR. J. BYRNE: Nineteen - okay, maybe it was - who settled out of court.

Now, how much, Madam Speaker, was that, that we don't know anything about yet?

MR. E. BYRNE: We didn't hear a Ministerial Statement on that today.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, we didn't hear a Ministerial Statement on that.

Madam Speaker, what about - could I get some water?

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: You are drying up.

MR. J. BYRNE: It will take a while yet, I say to the Vice-Chair of the

PAC, it will be a long while before I dry up, I can guarantee you that. I have

been on this side speaking for four hours.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: You haven't got an idea. If you haven't got a

drink, you haven't got an idea.

MR. J. BYRNE: Do you want to hear a few ideas? I think I just put a few

ideas in your head.

I don't know if I should make the prediction, but I would think after

hearing what I say today - and he is a new member, he is newly elected, and he

was elected because the Member for Port de Grave helped him out. I asked the

Member for Port de Grave today how his back was. Can I say what the response

was? Do you mind if I say what the response was? I asked you today how your back

was and you gave me a response. Can I say it?

MR. EFFORD: I told you it was still bleeding.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, there you go. He said it was still bleeding. One of

the people who caused that bleeding is the Member for Trinity North.

MR. SHELLEY: The man who put him there.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Port de Grave put him there. I was out

campaigning in that election and I know what that fellow was up to, the Member

for Port de Grave. You didn't get elected. You were a factor, I say to the

member, a very small factor. There is the main factor over there, the Member for

Port de Grave. He got you elected.

MR. SULLIVAN: You made some promises out there, didn't you, John?

MR. J. BYRNE: He did, and he wants some ideas.

What I was going to say is that basically when all this sinks in to the new

member, the relatively speaking new member - around this time last year, was it,

around April last year? - when it all sinks in and he understands, he will

decide that he picked the wrong party and he is going to come looking to this

side, before the next election. I would predict that.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't want him, do you?

MR. J. BYRNE: I never said if we would take him or not. All I said is he

was going to come looking. That is what I said.

Anyway, let's talk about our natural resources. I can go back. I will go

back to the old fishing admirals on the barrels, sending out salt cod. That is

how far back we can go, talking about what was given away and sent out of

Newfoundland and Labrador. They make the decisions here, controlled from on

high, over in England, wherever. That wasn't bad enough, then around the turn

of the century we got the railway, and what did we give away? We gave acres and

acres and acres, millions of acres of land, for the railway. Then we got the

iron ore going, and what did we do then? Iron ore shipped out of the Province in

bulk, in Labrador and on Bell Island. Then we got Churchill Falls and we had the

fishery. We can go on for hours and hours on each one of these.

The fishery: what happened when we joined Confederation? The fishery was

controlled by Ottawa. Again, abused and given away.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Atlantic Accord.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Atlantic Accord! If you have been listening to this

side of the House you should be enforcing the Atlantic Accord. That is what you

should be at, not trying to turn a blind eye to it and letting them do what they

want. That is what this Administration is doing.

The forestry, Churchill Falls - let's talk about our resources. Now we have

a chance, and I kind of - I don't want to have to do this, because it gives me

cold shivers, to kind of agree with the former Minister of Fisheries. We have

our water now here in the Province which is going to be a major commodity,

worldwide, in the very near future. The demand is going to be unreal, and that

side of the House: give it away, give it away in bulk. Let's get a cent for a

ton or something of water; a cent, and bring it back and we will pay $1.50 for a

little glass of water.

We have Voisey's Bay. We have White Rose. We had the member, the Leader of

the Opposition, bring up a question today about White Rose to the Minister of

Mines and Energy. From what I heard here today it is hard to believe that the

minister is on top of anything with respect -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mines and Energy. I am agreeing with the Member for St.

John's South. The problem is trying to get you guys to understand it and to

comprehend it. He was the man who started this three or four years ago and made

an issue of it. Again, par for the course, Madam Speaker, ridiculed, laughed at,

and now everything comes home to roost, doesn't it? Right again. This side of

the House right again, I say to them.

MADAM SPEAKER: May I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MADAM. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: No leave. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am sure that they learned something here today if they paid attention.

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

Transportation.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It is indeed a pleasure to get up today and speak in this debate, because I

heard a lot of nonsense being talked about this afternoon from that side of the

House.

It was interesting. I was out in my district the other night, and as I was

driving back on the Trans-Canada Highway I was tuned into the Open Line program.

Just before I got to Roaches Line, the hon. Member for St. John's East came on

and talked about the problem with the price of the gasoline and the price of oil

in Newfoundland and Labrador, the tax on gasoline, the road tax, the HST on the

tax and the road tax. He said: we should cut it, cut it out, get rid of it. Get

rid of that tax because it is a -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not what he said.

MR. BARRETT: Oh yes, he said it. Yes, he did. He said, we should cut the

tax, cut the road tax, get rid of it, get rid of that road tax. I was driving

over the Trans-Canada and I said: Very good, we maintain 9,000 kilometers of

road in Newfoundland and Labrador. I said: I can't waste the opportunity, I

have to call in and ask them which 9,000 kilometers, when they form the

government, they are not going to plow.

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

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

Francis.

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

I would just like to make this statement: that the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation should understand the difference between get rid of

something and to reduce. There is a major, major difference.

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. BARRETT: The hon. Member for St. John's East said we should get rid

of the tax, the road tax on gasoline. I called in and wanted to know if that is

the policy of the PC Party, because I assume when we hear members calling into

the Open Line programs and they are talking about various policies, we assume

that they are representing the PC Party, they are representing the leader of the

PC Party and they are representing the Party