March 20, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 3

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before I call routine proceedings, the Chair would like to take this

opportunity to introduce the second Page who has joined us for the spring

sitting, Tracey O'Reilly. Tracy is a graduate student in political science at

Memorial University.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise today on a point of privilege and I do so reluctantly. I refer Your

Honour to

section 97 of Beauchesne which states the following:

"97. The Speaker has stated: "While it is correct to say that the

government is not required by our rules to answer written or oral questions, it

would be bold to suggest that no circumstances could ever exist for a prima

facie question of privilege to be made where there was a deliberate attempt

to deny answers to an Hon. Member, if it could be shown that such action

amounted to improper interference with the Hon. Member's parliamentary

work." That is contained in Debates, December 16, 1980, page 5797.

On two occasions on the last sitting day of the House, the Premier provided

information to me, as Leader of the Opposition, and in my capacity as Leader of

the Official Opposition, and to all Members of the House that I contend to Your

Honour constituted deliberate attempts to deny answers to me and that have

interfered improperly with my parliamentary work, not only as a member but as

Leader of the Opposition.

With respect to the equalization clawbacks the Province suffers, the Premier

gave the following information in his Ministerial Statement: "The Prime

Minister and I discussed a number of other important matters, including the

divestiture of Ports and Harbours from federal to provincial jurisdiction; the

equalization program; "clawbacks" on resource revenues; and the

disposition of the federal government's 8.5 per cent share of the Canadian

Hibernia Holding Corporation. We have agreed to work toward a realignment that

would be advantageous for both our governments."

Mr. Speaker, journalists have reported that the Premier - when interviewed

outside the House of Assembly Thursday - said the Prime Minister had agreed to

change the equalization formula. He is quoted as saying: "The prime

minister is clearly committed to the notion that... provinces like Newfoundland

and Labrador could keep more of their source revenues." Further, he said,

which is in direct contradiction of what was said in this House: "My

understanding and my impression from my meeting with the prime minister is that

he is of the view that that's the right thing to do... as soon as they can do

it, and there's no reason to wait." But a spokesman for the Prime

Minister's office told the journalists on Friday there were no commitments

made in that meeting. Clearly then, Mr. Speaker, the information the Premier

provided to the House, that he and the Prime Minister had agreed to work toward

a realignment, information he repeated and expanded on outside the House, was

not correct.

Since the Premier was one of the participants in a meeting, and therefore

must have known, I repeat, must have know the difference, it is reasonable for

any hon. member to conclude that the Premier provided incorrect information

deliberately. The incorrect information interfered with my ability to do my

parliamentary work as Leader of the Opposition, as a member, by asking oral

questions on the basis of incorrect information.

The second issue, or instance, which also occurred Thursday, regards the

issue of whether the government's position on Voisey's Bay has changed from

that of the former Premier and of the Administration that he led. When I asked

the Premier if his position has changed he responded as follows: "I

appreciate the opportunity to give an answer in the Legislature because I have

answered that question probably 10,000 times elsewhere in Newfoundland and

Labrador. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition has chosen not to listen to the

answer. I believe the people of the Province have listened to the answer. The

short answer is this, because I will try to give short answers: There is no

change in the position from the mandate sought in 1999 to today. None."

Mr. Speaker, as I spelled out in the Legislature Thursday, the mandate

Premier Tobin received in 1999 was based on a commitment he repeated on numerous

times - which we will investigate again later today - that all of the

nickel/ore, 100 per cent of that ore at Voisey's Bay, would be processed in

this Province.

Premier Tobin made the following statement to a KIXX-Country radio reporter

during the 1999 election campaign in Gander. This comment was broadcast on the

news provincially. Premier Tobin said: "It is our policy to have all of the

ore processed in the province. But beyond that, we're not even prepared to

discuss any alternatives or any options with Inco or with anybody else til

first of all Inco formally moves away from the position that they took earlier

on this year - last year, in fact - when they said that their position was for a

project that would see a mine and mine-mill in Labrador and the ore shipped

entirely out of the Province."

That is the basis for the Tobin government's mandate, and the Liberal Party's

mandate in 1999, and it is from this position that Premier Grimes said on

Thursday he has not strayed; but that was not the correct answer. The Premier

knew it was not a correct answer, yet he chose to deliberately give it to me and

all members of this House during Question Period.

Interviewed outside the scrum area, outside this Legislature, here is what he

said, in complete contradiction to what was said in this House during Question

Period: "We believe full processing - the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador expect that the equivalent of the total volume that comes out of the

mine in Labrador will be changed into nickel in this Province. And whether or

not the business that they're in suggests that every single rock that comes

out of Labrador goes into the processing plant in Newfoundland and Labrador,

that's a different issue. They might actually be bringing some of the ore that's

mined in Sudbury to Newfoundland. And we'll have an equivalent in terms of

tonnage, volume. That's the whole notion we're talking about with full

processing. And over the life of the project, we expect to be able to accomplish

that."

I draw the exact same conclusion that the reporters on The Morning Show and

other media drew, that this is a wholesale change in the position from that on

which the Liberal Party and former Premier Tobin won its mandate. This Premier's

position has changed, he knows it, yet he chose to tell the House something

different. His decision to deliberately provide incorrect information has once

again interfered, in my view, with my duties as Leader of the Opposition, as a

member and all members of this House, by preventing me from asking questions

based upon absolute and truthful information.

I put to Your Honour that we have seen recently, even as of today, a Speaker's

ruling in Ottawa where the federal Minister of Justice took the opportunity to

inform the media on an issue dealing with legislation and changes in government

position before she took the time to inform the House, and she was brought and

questioned today by the Speaker of the House of Commons. Therefore, I put to

Your Honour, that I have established a case of breach of privilege as defined in

section 97 of Beauchesne . I move a motion, if Your Honour so concurs,

that this House direct the Premier in future to provide information in this

House that is correct, and refrain from deliberating providing information to

members that he knows to be incorrect.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I fear to speculate as to what would happen if

such points, or if such activities in the House of Assembly were ever declared

to be a point of privilege.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader is speaking to the point of privilege,

as I understand it.

MR. LUSH: That is permitted, isn't it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh yes, absolutely.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, if we allowed such actions to be

a point of privilege I fear to say or speculate what would happen to the House

of Assembly. It would become an absolute circus.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: The Leader of the Opposition mentions that the hon. the Premier

misled the House. If that were correct, that does not make a point of privilege.

It does not make a point of order. If it could be proven that the hon. the

Premier deliberately misled the House, it might be a point of order but

certainly not a point of privilege. That is as far as it would go. I would

suggest what we have here is simply a difference of opinion. That is the very

worst that we have, a difference of opinion.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that the Leader of the Opposition and all

members on the side opposite are afraid that the hon. Premier is going to come

through with a deal for Voisey's Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: That is what they are afraid of, Mr. Speaker, and they are

putting every obstacle in the way. They are doing everything they can to prevent

that.

I suggest that there is absolutely no point of privilege, and ask the members

to let the House carry on with its activity and let the Premier develop a plan

for Voisey's Bay that is going to be acceptable by all of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will hear the hon. member and then the Chair will take the point of

privilege that was raised under advisement.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, of course, will wait with interest your ruling on the point of privilege

that has been raised by the Leader of the Opposition. What he has done is

suggest that the Premier has told one story outside the House and another story

in, and I think that can be supported by the facts.

What he has done, at the very least, is shown contempt for the members of

this House who are elected by the people of this Province to serve in this

House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: If the Premier has something to say with respect to

government policy or government programs, it is this House of Assembly that

deserves to hear that and answer truthfully, honestly and fully, questions from

members on this side of the House, and not wait to go outside for the members of

the press.

This is a government that is showing contempt for the members of this House,

for the House of Assembly. Your ruling on the issue of privilege will determine

whether or not the Premier's actions show contempt for the members of this

House, and show contempt for the electorate who have put us here to hold this

government to account, not the press who have their jobs to do. We have our jobs

to do, and we have to be able to do them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Statements by Members

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to pay tribute to a young twelve-year-old Catalina girl who has

been recently selected as the Janeway Hospital's Miracle Children's Network

Champion: Kayla Prince. Kayla is a Grade 7 student at Catalina Elementary and,

as a result of a medical problem known as capillary haemangioma, has been

hospitalized at the Janeway Hospital twenty-one times in the last twelve years

of her life. Her first admission to that particular health institution was when

she was five weeks old. She was admitted for one year at that particular time.

I think we can all take a lesson from the book of Kayla Prince, when we look

at her inspiration and her positive approach to life, with this medical problem

that she has. As I said, she has undergone twenty-one surgeries, with more

surgeries in the future.

Ken Corbett, managing director of the Janeway Foundation, says this: Kayla

was selected because of the great physical hardship she has gone through since

birth. She has come through it and is a very happy and pleasant young lady.

The champion is someone who has persevered through hardships -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: - and it is not because of the medical treatments she

received that Kayla was chosen. It is her own perseverance, her good nature, and

her will. I think she was a very popular choice.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to recognize her parents, Howard and Rita

Prince, who have been a tower of support for this young lady as well. Being

recognized as the Janeway champion, this young lady and her family leave on

April 3 and travel to Ottawa to meet with the Governor-General, and spend three

days in Ottawa to meet with ten other champions across this country. Then it is

off to Florida to meet with fifty other champions across the United States,

where she will visit Disneyland and other attractions, and attend a concert

hosted by Marie Osmond.

I wish this young lady well, and I congratulate her for her positive attitude

and her approach to this illness.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Over this past weekend, I had the honor of addressing a special meeting of

the International Grenfell Association in Boston. This association is comprised

of individuals from the United States, Great Britain and Canada, who have worked

in our Province either with the Grenfell regional health services or presently

reside here. This organization brings funding of approximately $1.5 million

annually for various community services in Northern Newfoundland and Labrador.

This is funding that would not be available from other sources, and it has a

major impact on the lives of people who live along the Coast of Labrador and in

Northern Newfoundland.

Most people are aware of the historical significance of the International

Grenfell Association, but many may be surprised to know the level of

contribution which this group makes to health, education, and to community

groups within our Province.

I want to take this opportunity to publicly recognize the work of the

International Grenfell Association in the past, and the important work that they

continue to do in our communities.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to

congratulate one of my young constituents, Brian Francis of Burin, on his being

named as a finalist in the 2000 Sport Newfoundland and Labrador Annual Awards,

as the Junior Male Athlete of the Year.

Mr. Francis' dedication to his sport of soccer makes him an ideal candidate

for this award. He had a stellar season in 2000, after playing with the Canada

Games Team on the Burin Peninsula Championship and the Challenge Cup League.

After his team won the Burin Peninsula Championship, Brian was named MVP and was

also an All-Star in the Challenge Cup League.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Francis' dedication to his sport and his achievement

should be recognized. He is currently attending St. Francis Xavier University on

a scholarship, where he is a member of the varsity soccer team.

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Francis for his

accomplishments in soccer in the year 2000, and I wish him the very best of luck

in his quest to be named Junior Male Athlete of the Year at the 2000 Sport

Newfoundland and Labrador Annual Awards.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform this hon. House of the

release of the final report on the renewal strategy for Jobs and Growth. I am

providing copies of the final report for all members of the House, and for the

general public. This report reflects the views and perspectives of the many

individuals and organizations that presented briefs and submissions during the

extensive public consultations that were held across the Province.

At this time, if I could, I would like to thank all of my colleagues, the

organizations and people who participated in the process that we undertook.

It also builds on the major themes, key messages and initial priorities for

action that were outlined in the interim report on Jobs and Growth that members

will recall were released last March.

We have been moving on new initiatives in support of the Jobs and Growth

agenda ever since then, but today's final report presents a comprehensive

account of the direction government intends to pursue in advancing the overall

economic and social agenda. It also presents an action-orientated plan to

maintain and build on our economic progress, addressing the issues and

challenges facing our economy as conveyed through the consultations. It

represents yet another important element of government's overall action plan

to strengthen the Province's outline by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, in

his Speech from the Throne last week.

Government will move immediately to implement the priorities for action

outlined in the final report, commencing with specific measures in the upcoming

budget. Government is also committed to an open dialogue with key stakeholders

in the ongoing implementation of the Jobs and Growth strategy to ensure we keep

the agenda fresh and set new priorities as circumstances evolve.

The vision of the people we heard from in the consultations is of a vibrant

and confident Newfoundland and Labrador where a can-do attitude and take-charge

approach to meeting the challenges and opportunities before us will help secure

our future together.

The release and implementation of the final report on Jobs and Growth will

provide a solid framework to keep the economy growing and ensure all our people

share fully in our progress.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government has to stop practicing placebo medicine, I say

to people here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: It was only a few short years ago when another Premier of

that same government sat in that seat and did the same kind of forum. He sent

somebody around the Province to find out what was wrong, to ask people to come

forward and tell their story. The former Premier, leading up to this Premier,

did the same exercise.

Mr. Speaker, I say to you that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are

fed up with telling their story. They are waiting for a little action to happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister, the people in this Province today

would feel a lot more comfortable if you could stand in your place and tell us

how you are going to replace the 20,000 jobs that have been done away with in

the fishing industry. The people in this Province would feel a lot more

comfortable today if you would stand in your place and tell the 40,000 young

Newfoundlanders who have gone across the pond to try and find a job, how they

can return back home.

Mr. Speaker, we saw one feeble attempt made -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - a feeble attempt of transferring 278 jobs from an urban

area to another urban area, and we are supposed to be excited today? Bull!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government has reissued and rehashed its proposals that, for the last

ten years, it has had the opportunity to implement. Here we are now at the top

of the economic cycle, we are heading into an international recession period; it

is as good as it gets on the economic cycle. This government has to start

producing results, not just talk about jobs and growth. It has to start

producing results. We have growth in gross domestic product due to offshore oil

and gas, but we have not seen the jobs. When we can see them, maybe we can then

give some praise to this government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise to ask the Premier a question today. On Thursday, outside this

Legislature, the Premier indicated that the Province, and I quote, that his

belief: We believe full processing - the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

expect that the equivalent of the total volume that comes out of the mine in

Labrador will be changed into nickel in this Province. And whether or not the

business that they're in suggests that every single rock that comes out of

Labrador goes into the processing plant in Newfoundland and Labrador - that's

a different issue.

He suggested in this House on Friday that the government's position has not

changed. It has.

I would like to ask him this question: How does he reconcile his position

that he articulated not in this House but chose to do it outside this House,

with the statement made by the leader of the government at their Liberal Annual

Convention in 1999, in which every member there stood on their feet and

applauded when the then Premier said - and here is what he said: If Inco comes

forward with a plan to take concentrate from Labrador and process it within the

Province, they will have a deal within a week.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: We are not interested in talking about a Voisey's Bay

development unless, as part of that development, there is a plan and a means to

convert concentrate ore into a finished nickel product.

How can you stand in this House, Premier, and say your position has not

changed and the position of your government has not changed, when clearly it

has?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I would invite the Leader of the Opposition to read the exact same

quotes again, because it reflects the government's position today: that if we

cannot have an arrangement whereby Inco agrees to have nickel leave Newfoundland

and Labrador, there will not be a project. Our stance, as the government, has

not changed. The whole fact of the matter is exactly that. We believe that is

what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want. They want a finished nickel

product to leave Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is what we are going to try

to accomplish.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is very important to deal with words,

because this Premier talks about straight answers. Let's see if he will give

us a couple today, then.

Are you saying, Premier, that the former stance of your former Premier is

that no nickel concentrate leave this Province, that all concentrate must be

processed here, so that when the product of nickel leaves the Province it cannot

further be refined? Is that still your position?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me state again, and for further clarity: In the 1999 elections it said

clearly this: The Liberal government, with a new mandate, will maintain a firm

position on behalf of the people of our Province that there will be no mine at

Voisey's Bay unless a smelter and refinery are built in our Province.

That was the mandate in 1999 in the election, and the mandate today is this:

That whatever type of smelter and refinery they want to build, they can talk to

us about that, but the fact that a smelter and refinery of some description will

be built so that we can have a finished product leave the Province is the stance

of this government.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: He neglected to also read from his Red Book, which I have

here - and I will ask him, is this still his position? The question that I ask:

Is this still the position of this government that, "In 1996, Inco commited

to a project that would last at least 20 years - and involve both surface mining

of the ovoid and later underground mining - now they are only committing to

seven years, to surface mining of the ovoid."

This is the quote directly from your Red Book, "Inco proposes to take

the ore in the Voisey's Bay deposit and ship it elsewhere to be processed.

That is not acceptable."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Is that still the position of you and your government?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that he is on a supplementary and he ought not to be

using quotes from various documents and transcripts.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Again, the context piece is useful, I think, for everyone

in Newfoundland and Labrador. In 1996, it was Inco that came to the Province,

bought the rights to a deposit at Voisey's Bay, and laid out a plan for a

smelter and refinery at Argentia, a mine and a mill in Labrador.

By 1998, Mr. Speaker, in advance of the 1999 election, they were saying

publicly that they would build no smelting and refining capacity of any

description whatsoever in Newfoundland and Labrador. They had no intention of

having any finished product of any description made in Newfoundland and

Labrador. They were saying they were only interested in having a mine and a mill

in Labrador, and they would then ship that out to other places for processing.

It was on that basis that we put together the platform in 1999 which said

clearly that a

proposition to take the ore in the Voisey's Bay deposit and ship it

elsewhere to be processed is not acceptable. It was not acceptable then; it is

not acceptable now. The objective of this government ever since 1996, restated

in 1999 and again today, is to have a finished product leave Newfoundland and

Labrador.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, clearly this Premier has trouble being forthright, because in

the House he has talked about an equivalent amount going out.

I ask him, in terms of context, let's put this in context: In November of

1999 in this Legislature, I asked the Premier, the leader of the government, the

Leader of the Liberal Party at the time, a question dealing with this very same

issue, and his response was very clear. He said: Let me tell the Leader of the

Opposition that this government is not interested in a partially-finished

product, that 100 per cent of the ore must be processed here; that an entirely

finished product must leave here, a product that cannot be refined elsewhere.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Is that still the position of you and your government, Mr.

Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is clear that we are having some difficulty; somebody is having some

difficulty understanding something.

Mr. Speaker, the whole notion again of what full processing means in

Newfoundland and Labrador, without an attempt at manipulation by the Opposition,

is quite clear to everybody.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: If, in fact, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Let me say it again, Mr. Speaker. If, in fact, you have

what was described on Thursday past, of the equivalent of all of the deposit in

Labrador processed somewhere in Newfoundland, that is full processing, and

everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador understands that. So, if there is only

one ton of ore that can be made into nickel, and one ton of ore gets made into

nickel in Newfoundland and Labrador, that is full processing.

The other part of full processing is clear, that it is not a

partially-finished product that leaves Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a

finished nickel product, of which there are seven or eight in the industry that

Inco makes and sells into the marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, we are quite willing to enter into a negotiation with Inco to

have full processing -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - meaning that the full amount of what comes out of

Labrador over the life of the project will be processed in Newfoundland and

Labrador, and that it will be made into nickel in Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Two final questions, Mr. Speaker. The first one: I can take

from the Premier's comment that he is willing - is it true that you and your

government are willing to ship out ore from Voisey's Bay in the interim, for a

guarantee that you will get an equivalent amount of some ore from somewhere else

in the globe to come back at some point in the future? Is that the position you

are articulating, Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Let me ask a question again, Mr. Speaker. Maybe it is the

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER GRIMES: Let me ask a question, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Is it, Mr. Speaker, the position of the full Official

Opposition, as was articulated by the critic on a radio show just a day or so

ago, when he was asked that even if there were guarantees and everything was in

place so that if a spoonful left today and was going to come back next week, and

it was guaranteed, would you still have a problem with that? - he was asked.

Would you still have a problem with that?

I ask the Opposition if, in fact, just on a good business case, that you

might in fact have a little bit of something leave for a day because you know

you are getting it back the next day. Would they object to that? Is there

something wrong with that when, in fact, you have the full equivalent of the

value of what's in Labrador being fully processed in Newfoundland?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Is that the problem? That is what we need to know from

the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: I will ask the Premier again - so we can provide him with

the opportunity to demonstrate his new-found philosophy of straight answers,

maybe we will get one. Is it your position that you will allow some of the ore,

for some period of time, to go outside the Province in exchange for some

guarantee, at some point in time, for the equivalent amount of ore to come back?

While you are answering, could you tell me: Is that the position supported by

the entire Liberal caucus?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, might I ask again if it is the position of

all of the Opposition that was asked publicly in Newfoundland and Labrador

yesterday. Let me ask the question as it was put yesterday: Even if the language

is strong, the guarantees are, you know, severe enough or the penalties severe

enough to ensure that the obligation is kept? Is that a problem?

The critic for the Opposition said: We would say, yes, we have a difficulty

with that. Even though there is a guarantee, even though the language is strong,

even though there are severe penalties if the obligation is not kept, the

Opposition - are they saying and will you say, as the Leader of the Opposition,

that if we can accomplish that arrangement you would suggest to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador that it should not be entered into?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I will ask you again, Premier: Is it your position to let

ore leave this Province for some guarantee, at some point in the future, that

some ore from any other part of the globe will be allowed to come back in as

long as it meets a guaranteed weight or tonnage? Is that the position of your

government? Stand up and answer it! Provide some straight answers to the people

of the Province!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will tell you the position of this government, and that is we would gladly

enter into a negotiation which would see the development of a new project at

Voisey's Bay that provides maximum benefit for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians and sees full processing of the deposit at Voisey's Bay made into

a nickel product in Newfoundland and Labrador, for the benefit of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Any time we would do that.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad there are no cameras in the

House right now because people would see the type of straight answers that this

Premier is getting on with.

Words are very important, I say to the Premier. In 1997 the Member for Humber

West, who was Minister of Mines and Energy at the time, along with the Premier -

at that time Brian Tobin - stood in this House and said: Government's own

studies, government's own fiscal and financial analysis demonstrates that this

project, the Voisey's Bay project, is viable economically - from Inco's

point of view - if they process 100 per cent of the ore to a finished nickel

product in this Province. I asked then: Would you provide or table the studies?

The answer was, no. So in view of your new-found philosophy and your new-found

conversion to transparency and openness, let me ask you this question: Would you

be able to release those studies to us, please?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, what we are interested in doing, on behalf

of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, is having the Minister of Mines and

Energy enter into a negotiation with Inco to see if we can find a way - sooner

rather than later - to have that particular property developed for the maximum

benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians so that we can achieve those kinds

of benefits and have a finished nickel product, full processing, in this

Province.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the question again. In 1997 the

then Premier, the then Minister of Mines and Energy - I believe you where in the

Cabinet at the time, weren't you?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, he was.

MR. E. BYRNE: So you were part of the government which said they had

completed the financial analysis that clearly demonstrated to the people of the

Province that the Voisey's Bay nickel deposit was economically feasible, was

economically viable to Inco and its partners over a twenty year period, and

which demonstrated that the blending of ore from ovoid in the eastern deeps was

economically viable.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I ask you again, right now, in view of your words on the

Throne Speech about transparency and openness, I ask you directly: Will you

release that analysis to this Legislature and through this Legislature to the

people of the Province? Yes or No, Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are, hopefully, going to conduct a negotiation with Inco in the not too

distant future to try to develop the Voisey's Bay deposit in the best interest

of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Again, in 1997 - and it's always important to remember the context and the

point in time in which the point was made. In 1997 Inco was suggesting to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador that under no circumstance would they do

anything in Newfoundland and Labrador other than build a mine and a mill in

Labrador. That was their position. Our position was that unless you do

processing there will be no project anyway. Our information was then, and is

now, that there is enough value in the Voisey's Bay deposit to support

processing in Newfoundland and Labrador. We will convince them of that through

negotiations. They know that unless they do processing there will not be a

project. I look forward to a day when we can actually go ahead with that

particular project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Premier, do you think that the people of this Province are so naive and so

stunned to believe that you are talking about the equivalent amount of ore being

shipped out of the Province and they do not see that there is a significant

shift in the policy of this government not to do it? Do you hold the people of

this Province in such contempt that you cannot stand in this Legislature today

and admit forthrightly that this is what is on the table and this is what your

government is pursuing? Why don't you stand up and do it Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

I would never suggest, at any point in time, that the people of Newfoundland

are either naive or stupid, and I certainly do not hold any of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador in contempt. What I would suggest to you, is that

minus - and even with the weak attempts at manipulation by the Opposition,

because they do not want to see this succeed - that everybody in Newfoundland

and Labrador are quite willing to enter into a discussion whereby 100 per cent

of what comes out of Labrador gets changed and processed into nickel in

Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what we are talking about. We are talking

about flexibility on when it happens. We are talking about full processing. I

know that the Opposition sits in dread and fear that we might actually conclude

a successful arrangement and start this project. Stay tuned, we are going to try

our very best to make it happen for maximum benefits for Newfoundland and

Labrador, and full processing in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Premier. The Premier stated on Thursday that

the Prime Minister had committed to changing the clawback provision on the

federal equalization program. Now the Prime Minister's office has indicated

that the Premier was wrong and there was no commitment given in that meeting on

Wednesday. Is it possible to believe that two such opposite things could come

from the same meeting attended by the same two people? I want to ask the

Premier: Will he clarify the statement that he made on Thursday regarding that

meeting?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and glad to do so.

The indication clearly that I gave, which is the exact same indication that I

repeated again today in Newfoundland and Labrador - and will, because it is a

fact - is that the Prime Minister agreed at that particular meeting, that the

notion of trying to find some way to change issues, like the clawback, so that a

Province like Newfoundland and Labrador could keep more of its revenues from its

own sources, was clearly an understanding between the two of us. Now some media

headline suggested that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker, quite clearly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Some headlines had suggested that there was already an

agreement by the Prime Minister, and that he actually had made the change. It is

quite clear, that I believe -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe it is a very positive sign for all of us in Newfoundland and

Labrador that the Prime Minister of the country and the head of the government

is seized of this issue to the point that he understands that finding a way for

Newfoundland and Labrador to keep more of its own source revenues is in the best

interest of Newfoundland and Labrador and the best interest of Canada, and I

look forward to the details of how he is going to accomplish that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I sat back and watched that at 1:00 a.m. on NTV, the whole interview. We have

a tape of that interview, I might add, and it is not what the Premier stated

today.

Premier, why did the Minister of Industry, Brian Tobin, come down and try to

clear things up this weekend, and became the spokesperson for this Province on

the weekend? Now this is a matter of trust, Premier, that people's confidence

in you is shaky. The Prime Minister and the Industry Minister are essentially

saying that you made up a story. What assurances can you give to the people of

this Province that you spoke the truth and the Prime Minister and the Industry

Minister did not tell the truth?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That's the first time I have heard anyone suggest that I did not speak the

truth. There is a difference of opinion as to exactly what was said and what it

meant, but no one has ever suggested, until this very minute, that I may not

have spoken the truth. The fact of the matter is, I did speak the truth and I

will always speak the truth any time there is an interest -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: - any time there is a matter of interest and importance

to Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. I understand fully and completely

that my only role in this is to look out for the best interests of Newfoundland

and Labrador and to represent the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and to

indicate whether or not there is any hope that an issue such as the clawback

could be changed. I reported that it could be changed. I have reported that the

Prime Minister is seized of the issue. I reported that he started work on the

matter already, and I look forward to the results of those discussions.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is not what is on the tape. They asked: Is it long-term? Immediately, as

soon as it can be done basically, and that's what the tape says. That is what

the recorded voice of the Premier of this Province said. Now the Premier said he

is a straight talker, he gives straight answers. Why then are you allowing the

federal Minister of Industry to come down here to this Province and put his

political spin on this issue? Where, Premier, is the straight shooter?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe we should, again, cast our minds back to Thursday when I made a

statement after my visit with the Prime Minister on Wednesday, where the

Opposition's tactic that day was to say: What, you met with the Prime Minister

and you did not get a pile of money? You came home with no money? My answer

clearly was this: Those kinds of initiatives, such as the change of a formula

and the combination of a clawback, I did not expect to have resolved yesterday

but I was very pleased - and is a direct quote of the tape you watched - to see

the Prime Minister fully apprised of the issue, fully engaged in it and very

much committed that he would have it and has had it looked at very closely, and

looks forward to making some progress on it that he can report back to us. That

is exactly what I said. That is exactly the circumstance, and I look forward to

positive results on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Education. At a recent meeting

with the Burin Peninsula School Board the minister made commitments regarding

the all-grade school in Lawn that are significant for schools and communities

all over this Province. I do not question the minister's decisions with

respect to the school at Lawn but I ask her now to confirm that all schools in

the Province, in equivalent circumstances to the Lawn school in size and

distance from another school, qualify for necessarily existent status? Minister,

please.

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of criteria that apply to

schools to determine whether or not they qualify for SNES status.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: I beg your pardon?

MR. SULLIVAN: The ones that are (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we look at each school on an individual basis. Of

course, it has to be at the request of the board whether or not a school is

considered for SNES status.

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again there were some difficulties with the

school board.I understand some members resigned over this issue.

Again, I ask the minister: Will you confirm that your department, then, will

approve construction of a new school in any community, like Lawn, that is

fourteen or more kilometers by road from an existing school that can accommodate

the students? Minister, please?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, clearly there is more going on here than just a

question about whether or not we would approve a school SNES status in any other

community similar to Lawn.

We had a request from the Burin Peninsula School Board to decide whether or

not they should go forward with building a new school in Lawn. I said to the

school board at the time: that is entirely up to you, but you must know that

your board has an SNES status, and if that would continue then, of course, we

would certainly consider, if the funding was available, building a new school.

What we have coming from the Burin Peninsula School Board is a request for

something totally different than just a school. They are looking at a type of

community school complex. It has been made very clear to that board that it has

to be the board's decision - it would not be a decision of the minister - what

they want to go forward with. Then we would have to determine if there is

funding available. That has to be determined at this point as well.

Mr. Speaker, they have also been told that if they want to go forward with

that kind of a complex then the board would have to assume responsibility for

the entire complex but make sure that they receive funding from other partners

involved in order to proceed with it.

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Minister, a school is a school. I can tell you that I have

been on the receiving end of many school communities in this Province whose

schools have been closed down because they have been told, in no uncertain

terms, that it is not an option; that they have to go to the regional facility.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, Minister, will you be able to explain to those

school communities, such as Heart's Content, maybe the North Shore, why they

cannot apply to your department for a school in similar circumstances?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, requests for new bills, requests for renovations,

come from school boards. The department considers those based on the priorities

of the boards concerned. We look at what we have in terms of funding available

to us to determine what can be done.

The board comes forward to request whether or not there is SNES status for a

school. There are a number of criteria involved in that: whether or not the

students can be accommodated at a school close to where the school presently

exists. There are any number of criteria, and the hon. member knows that. He is

trying to get at something different here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS FOOTE: I will tell him again: School boards make the request; and, if

we have the funding available to us, it depends on the priority of the boards

and it depends on how much money the department has available to it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. Now that he has intimated - although he has

not said it directly - that the Province's position on Voisey's Bay

processing has changed, I want to ask him a question about the equalization

clawback.

Former Premier Tobin indicated that the Premier got along with the Prime

Minister like a house on fire. Yet, he had to quickly rush to the rescue of the

Premier. I want to ask him directly a specific question: Is there a commitment

from the Prime Minister to do more than study or review the issue, as the

Premier said on Thursday - to do more than that - or is there only a commitment

to look at it, to study it, as former Premier Tobin has said and is quoted as

saying in the paper today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I expect to hear back from the Prime Minister in short order as a result of

his looking into the whole issue of how he might change the clawback or other

arrangements so that Newfoundland and Labrador can keep more of its own source

revenues for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Given that the Premier has quoted figures of trying to change the clawback

arrangement from 70 per cent down to 60 per cent, or 50/50, will the minister

confirm and perhaps explain why it is that, in fact, the numbers for the

clawback are in excess of 70 per cent; in fact, ranging from 78 per cent on

mining taxes to 110 per cent on HST; in fact, averaging greater than 90 per

cent, as the Voisey's Bay nickel study in 1999 shows? Will the minister

confirm that the numbers are actually higher than the ones that he has been

quoted as referring to in the papers?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: There are, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member would know, in

excess of some thirty different categories with respect to equalization in which

some measure of clawback does apply. The 70/30 number that has been in the

public has basically been the number that is used for the offshore.

The other thing that is of note is that on the way through to Ottawa last

Wednesday, I also had a very good meeting with Premier Hamm from Nova Scotia,

who is touring the country, as members might know, trying to have the clawback

changed from 70/30 to 30/70 when, in fact, both of us would recognize that the

ideal circumstance for a Province like Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova

Scotia, because we can plead a special case, each of us, just related to

offshore developments, would be to have a clawback rate of zero for a period of

time so that we could keep ideally all of own source revenues from certain

developments to kick-start us so that we can use those funds in the best

interest of the people of our Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, there are different initiatives being

undertaken and I do look forward to hearing back from the Prime Minister as to

what is possible to change in the short term for the benefit of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

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

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make another point today regarding

Question Period. I plan on insisting on making these points. I do not stand

during Question Period, to stop the flow. I just want to remind hon. members

again about a very important, fundamental rule about Question Period.

Although many of the traditional rules have been put aside regarding Question

Period, there is one that remains consistent, that remains as modern as today,

and that is, 409.(2), which says, "The question must be brief. A

preamble

need not exceed one carefully drawn sentence." Those rules are made by the

Speakers today. "A long

preamble on a long question takes an unfair share

of time and provokes the same sort of reply." That is the essence of it,

Mr. Speaker, that it provokes the same sort of reply. Lastly, "A

supplementary question should need no

preamble."

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to follow these rules, both in the

question and in the answers.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I concur, to an extent, with the Government

House Leader; but I would also advise all hon. members of 417, which he again

today failed or neglected to point out, which reads, "Answers to questions

should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not

provoke debate."

If the Government House Leader, on the one hand, is going to stand up and

lecture this side of the House on how we should raise questions, or how

questions should be asked, then I also advise the Government House Leader, in

his next caucus meeting, to advise the ministers and the Premier on how they

should answer the questions that this Opposition puts forward to them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the Chair would like to say that I have tried to be a

little bit flexible with both sides in terms of questions and answers, but if

members are insisting that we be very rigid with this, then certainly I can do

that. There is a way to do that and, of course, that is to put a time limit on

questions and answers, and be very strict with that.

The Chair would like to talk with the House Leaders on this matter a little

later on.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to move the following Private Members' Resolution;

WHEREAS the current Administration was elected in 1999 on a commitment that

Voisey's Bay nickel ore would not be shipped from the Province for processing

elsewhere;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

must not sign any agreement involving the shipping of Voisey's Bay nickel ore

from this Province for processing elsewhere unless it first obtains a mandate

for such an arrangement from the people of the Province in a general election.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I shall on tomorrow move that

the following committees be composed of the following members:

The Government Services Committee: Mr. Joyce, the Member for Bay of Islands;

Mr. Osborne, the Member for St. John's South; Mr. Mercer, the Member for

Humber East; Ms Jones, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; Mr. Collins,

the Member for Labrador West; Mr. Sweeney, the Member for Carbonear-Harbour

Grace; and Mr. Young, the Member for St. Barbe.

The Resource Committee: Mr. Walsh, the Member for Conception Bay East &

Bell Island; Mr. Ottenheimer, the Member for St. John's East; Mr. Efford, the

Member for Port de Grave; Mr. E. Byrne, the Member for Kilbride; Ms Jones, the

Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; Mr. Andersen, the Member for Torngat

Mountains; Mr. Taylor, the Member for the Straits & White Bay North.

The Social Services Committee: Mr. Sweeney, the Member for Carbonear-Harbour

Grace; Mr. Fabian Manning, the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's; Mr.

Rideout, the Member for Lewisporte; Mr. Efford, the Member for Port de Grave; Ms

Sheila Osborne, the Member for St. John's West; Mr. Bob Mercer, the Member for

Humber East; and Ms Mary Hodder, the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

Petitions

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to present this petition on behalf of a number of people on the

Northern Peninsula who would like to have access to a Licensed Practical Nurse

course.

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, in legislative

session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and

Labrador:

WHEREAS the College of the North Atlantic was seeking permission to offer the

Licensed Practical Nursing course in September, 2001, at the St. Anthony Campus,

but as of now it will not be offered because a review by the Council of Nursing

from St. John's, under recommendations from the hospital and the John M. Gray

nursing home in St. Anthony says it is not feasible for the course to be offered

at the St. Anthony Campus;

WHEREAS we feel there is a need for LPN training, the St. Anthony Campus has

the ability to offer that training, and many people in the area want to do this

course, forcing people to travel to other areas to take the course is wasting

our own facilities and reinforcing the notion that there is nothing here for us

on the Northern Peninsula;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

to conduct another review of the feasibility of offering the Licensed Practical

Nursing course at the St. Anthony Campus in September of 2001;

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, there are in excess of forty people who would like to take this

course in St. Anthony. Basically what they are saying is that the Council of

Licensed Practical Nurses is recommending that the course not go here because

there is no need for it in the area.

There was a questionnaire sent to Grenfell Regional Health Services, looking

for how many people would be hired in permanent, full-time positions in the next

number of years. Obviously, with a high number of casual temps on staff, there

probably would not be all that many hired in the near future for permanent,

full-time work.

There are a couple of things here. There should not be a requirement for a

job within the area in order to offer a course within an area. If there was, we

would close down three-quarters of the schools in Newfoundland, given the

out-migration that we have.

Secondly, there are three facilities in Newfoundland where it looks like this

course will be offered this year. One is in Burin, another in Grand Falls, and

another in Gander. The question is: Why are we offering the same course in

Gander and Grand Falls - for the first time, to our knowledge, in the history of

those two campuses - when you have the northern part of Newfoundland, the

western part of Newfoundland, the Northern Peninsula, Southern Labrador, I guess

I should say, that will be denied access to this course?

There are people who want to do this course, who I am sure are not just

looking to work in St. Anthony, and would go anywhere in this country to go to

work.. They should be given the opportunity to take this course in close

proximity to their home.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I have a petition here for the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.

I will read the prayer of the petition:

We, the residents of Shea Heights, wish to petition the hon. House of

Assembly to address the need for wheelchair accessible housing units in the Shea

Heights area. We are asking the government to consider the fact that people with

disabilities, and their families, need to be able to utilize the support of

family and friends within the community of Shea Heights. If persons are forced

to live in units outside the community, it compromises the help and support

families so vitally need. We are asking that serious consideration be given to

the construction of wheelchair accessible units in the Shea Heights area so

families with physical disabilities may avail of the essential support networks.

Mr. Speaker, I have presented similar petitions to this in the House on

previous occasions. The community of Shea Heights, while it is a community

within the city boundaries, is very much a close-knit community. You cannot walk

down a street in Shea Heights, I say, and ask if somebody knows somebody in Shea

Heights, without everybody in the area knowing everybody else. That is how close

the community is. It has the same makeup, I would say, as many rural communities

throughout the Province in that it is a very close-knit, very united community.

To ask a family to leave that community because there are no wheelchair

accessible units in the community that they can avail of is simply a shame. To

ask a family to leave that community, to take a housing unit somewhere else in

the city where they cannot avail of the close-knit feeling of the community,

without being able to connect with family members and neighbors that they have

known all their lives, is a shame.

I ask the Minister of Housing to reconsider this petition on behalf of the

people of Shea Heights, and to construct a number of wheelchair accessible/

physical handicap accessible units in the Shea Heights area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, in legislative

session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and

Labrador:

WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's decision to lay off and transfer

Hydro employees in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and its future plans for

layoffs will have a severe social and economic impact on our communities;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

to direct Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to reverse its decision in this

regard;

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to bring attention to, again, this particular

issue of layoffs with regard to Hydro, especially as it affects my District of

Harbour Main-Whitbourne. We find that in this particular district, both the

Hydro office in the Whitbourne area as well as the generating plant in Holyrood,

the cutbacks in these two particular areas, these two particular facilities, is

having an adverse effect on my particular district. The people who have signed

this petition are certainly asking that this be revisited, that it be looked at,

and that the government would take the leading edge in trying to turn around or

reverse this particular decision.

I bring it to the attention of the House that it is not just a matter of the

loss of jobs, but certainly in this particular district, which is a rural

district, a few jobs mean a lot when it comes to the whole economic and social

outlook in this particular district.

I bring this to the attention of the House: I particularly was moved by two

particular workers in my district. One was eligible for retirement, be it a

couple of months, and was bridged and allowed to retire with full benefits

which, for him, was certainly a great situation; but another, who had twenty-odd

years of service with Hydro, was laid off with some sort of a promise, some time

down the road, perhaps, of future considerations. He was eleven months away from

retirement - just eleven months. Now he is given a severance package and just

told, goodbye.

What is at risk here, of course, is that he is certainly at an age where it

is very difficult in my area to get work; but, more importantly, his retirement

benefits are gone after twenty-some odd years of labour with a particular

company.

Again, I stand not only for those gentlemen but for all of the Hydro workers

throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, and on behalf of their families petition

to ask this government to look at it again.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1, the hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

I have received a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

All rise.

The letter is dated March 20, 2001, to the hon. the Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury Board:

I, the Administrator of the Province of Newfoundland, transmit Estimates of

sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year ending March

31, 2002. By way of Interim Supply and in accordance with the provisions of the

Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend the Estimates to the House of Assembly.

Sgd.:

Clyde K. Wells, Administrator

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

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

I move that the message, together with the bill, be referred to a Committee

of Supply.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on

Supply, Mr. Speaker left the chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

"An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying

Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31,

2002 And For Other Purposes Relating to the Public Service." (Bill 2)

CLERK: Resolution: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide

for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public

service for the financial year ending March 31, 2002, the sum of $1,226,446,100.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

The Interim Supply Bill, Bill 2, which has been presented here to the House

today, will make provision for a three-month allocation, as just communicated by

the speaker, for $1.2 billion, and this represents about 30 per cent of next

year's budget.

It is important, obviously, for the continuation of the departments, and the

timeliness of it is particularly important this year because in order to have

our social assistance recipients able to receive their cheques, we have to have

this passed by March 26 so that we are able to get those cheques to Labrador

particularly.

Again, the Interim Supply Bill is a fairly routine procedure that occurs each

year to allow for the continuation of the departments for the first three months

of the year, about 30 per cent of the budget.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

She is in the House only a day or so as minister, and she is the most

expensive Finance Minister in the history of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: She wants $1,226,446,100; about $150 million more than last

year they wanted, three months. At that rate we will spend $5 million this year.

She wants almost $5 million, and that is only for the first three months.

MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Rural Development.

MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. gentleman should note that this request did not come in the name of

the Minister of Finance. It came in the name of the Chief Justice of the

Province, and I suggest to him that he give him his money right away.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If it came in honor of the Chief Justice the last person who should be

standing and defending it is the Minister of Industry, the former Government

House Leader and confidant of the individual who asked for this money. He should

be the last person to be surprised.

MR. FITZGERALD: Where did he sit (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: We know where he sat when - well back, yes he did so. He

did his penance. He served his time in that place called purgatory. He paid his

dues and now he is going to be rewarded. Well deserved, I might add. I am not

disputing it. If anybody goes to the Senate from over there, yes, it should be

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, up along. Yes, sir!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: In the Senate? You will need one because you will fall

asleep up there, it is so boring. You will need a bed in the Senate.

Listen here, I don't think I have an extra amount of clout with the Prime

Minister. I don't think I am on the priority - your Premier cannot even agree

with the Prime Minister. They cannot even have a conversation. They don't know

what happened at the meeting. Can you imagine myself and a colleague having a

meeting and we come out and one person says: I have a commitment. The other

person says: I didn't get a commitment. That is not true, he doesn't know

what he is talking about. That is what they indicated.

The Premier thought he had a commitment. In fact, the Premier thought he had

a commitment on Voisey's Bay. Yes, sir, he got a commitment, but when the

Premier of the Province read the public opinion poll, he said: Roger, there is

no agreement and you have to go. In comes the new Minister of Mines and Energy

there, that is what scuttled the deal on Voisey's Bay. The public opinion poll

that followed the settlement. Yes, the Premier delivered on his deal back -

when? Two years ago? Whenever. A couple of years ago, but it got scuttled. That

was two years ago. It got scuttled because the opinion poll said: under no

circumstances are the people of the Province going to tolerate this. Just as

there are many people over there today who do not agree.

I cannot see how you can agree to say we are going to allow so much ore to go

out. They are not going to use the conventional method. They are going to use

the hydro method that has not be proven, especially for the type of ore we see

here, unlike the ore in other parts of the world. (Inaudible) technology. What

happens if it doesn't fly, if it can only produce low quantities? If it is not

successful, what do we do then? Do you think they are going to come back and

build another one? No. Let them keep their hands off that ovoid. If they get at

that ovoid, in a matter of four years, I think, it is possible to deplete all

that rich, on the surface, easy cost to mine ovoid, and that would be disastrous

for our Province. Why would they want to go to cost then in underground mining,

and added cost, if they can get at the prize and pick the plum out of there

first? That is a major, major concern. That is one I can assure you, Leader of

the Opposition and Mines and Energy critic, we are not going to be letting the

Premier off the hook.

The Premier is going to have to take somebody along with him. He is going to

have to bring along a recording. We are going to have to listen to what the

Prime Minister said. We do know what the Premier said because we have it on

tape. I sat back after 1 a.m. on the weekend, on NTV, and listened carefully. We

have what the Premier said taped. A reporter asked a question: We are looking at

equalization in 2004? No, he said, immediately. As soon as they could get it

together, basically. I thought we would be getting a cheque in the mail before

March 31. We would not have all these problems here looking for so much money.

Here we have the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board looking

for expenditures of over $1.25 billion. She wants that just for three months. At

that rate it will be $5 billion in a year. That is $1.5 billion more.

MR. TULK: Now, Loyola.

MR. SULLIVAN: I do believe, I stand to be corrected, but I say to the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development - that is the correct

department, it gets kind of complicated - to my knowledge - and the minister

should know that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, you do. I shuffled the deck. I do not recall looking

for as much money as this ever before; $1.09 billion - $1.1 billion, it went as

high as - but $1.25 billion over the next three months. It is going to be a big

payroll, big party, big commitments, a lot of commitments to be met out there,

and a huge amount of money.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Wait until we see the Budget? I expect the Budget must be

close to $5 billion. We are spending one-quarter of it. They want one-quarter

for three months. Why do we need so much money, because by the end of June it is

three months? We should have the Budget passed by May.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, I don't think there is an election coming. No, I don't

expect that. I don't think there is an election coming.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Danny.

MR. SULLIVAN: Listen here, talking about Danny, there are two Danny's

you have to be worried about: One coming at you front on, flat out and one

coming up behind you. I don't know which Danny you have to fear about most. I

don't know who you should fear the most!

MR. TULK: Loyola, you can have both of them.

MR. SULLIVAN: To the Member for Port de Grave, we don't want your

Danny. We do not want him. He sat in the chair where the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse

au Clair was. He sat in the House for three years when I was here and never

moved out of that. When he moved, do you know where he moved? He moved down to

Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier, Parliamentary Assistant. He moved down

there.

AN HON. MEMBER: He moved up actually, not (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, he moved down because he came down a step. Look! I am

talking about altitudes now because in the public's mind - it is the voters

who tell you whether you move up or down. He moved down here at a lower

altitude. When he got down to the lower altitude he became a lapdog for the

Premier. He neglected the people up on the coast of Southern Labrador, and he

went to Florida. In fact, he went to Florida in the 1996 election. That is where

he went. He went to Florida when the election was called and stayed there. He

came back a little later.

AN HON. MEMBER: And we paid for it.

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't know but he visited you there. I don't know if

he did.

MR. MATTHEWS: I stayed home then.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, you did. You go at more opportune times, at less

conspicuous times when there is not as much at stake. That's right. I must

say, the Mines and Energy Minister is very choosey when he travels. He tries to

pick the spots, the openings, and tries to look at the ceiling that is there for

flying and gets in at the proper time under that ceiling. He does so. He is more

selective, I might add. He is more selective when he decides to abandon the

people who elected him. He is more selective in doing it. We are not saying he

does it, but we are saying he is more selective in doing it.

This Minister of Finance gets in the job for a few days and comes here to the

House and asks us to approve, within like two days, $1.25 billion. She is the

most extravagant, the most lavish Finance Minister in the history of this

Province. I don't recall - I stand to be corrected - ever coming to this House

of Assembly before looking for $1.25 billion in three months. I haven't seen

it before. A little over $1 billion - I don't know what she is doing with the

other $200 million, or the other $150 million, but she is looking for a lot of

money. She was stingy when she was in health care. I can't see why she is so

lavish now. She wouldn't spend it when she was in health care. We couldn't

get hospital beds open.

Talking about hospital beds; I will give you a little indication of what is

out there now in hospital beds. In this Province today there are 1,807 acute

care beds. There were thirty-some hundred when the Liberals came into power in

1989, and basically that has caused a big problem, that has caused a major

problem. Take 1,300 hospital beds out of this Province, take forty-some per cent

of hospital beds from this Province, and no wonder people are dying waiting to

get into hospital. No wonder they are dying waiting to get into hospital. That

is a major problem we are having here, a major concern, and that should not be

allowed to happen.

Now we have a person as Minister of Finance who has some control over the

divestiture and allocation of funding in the various departments, and I guess we

are expecting to see a significant change in the misery and suffering that

people in this Province are experiencing today. We have to see what is happening

in that particular light.

I have a lot more to say on this particular thing, a lot more to say before

this supply is there. My colleague has a few important things he wants to get on

the record, and I am sure the former Finance critic has a few comments he wants

to make on this particular bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to say a few words on Bill 2, "An Act For

Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of

The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2002 And For Other

Purposes Relating To The Public Service"; something like the straight

answers that the Premier has given, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the title of

this piece of legislation.

Now, as the Member for Ferryland said, government are looking for

$1,226,446,100. I wonder what the $100 is for. You could easily round it off, I

suppose, and make it $1.25 billion.

Mr. Chairman, so much to say with so little time to say it. I have a few

comments I am going to make because this is a supply bill, of course, a finance

bill.

MR. TULK: Use your time wisely.

MR. J. BYRNE: I will use my time wisely.

The first thing I am going to say, Mr. Chairman: I am curious as to when the

budget comes down, what abuse - they are going to be making use again this year,

Mr. Chairman, seeing as we are in the month of March and we are coming to the

end of March, of the special warrants. Last year, for example, we saw the abuse

by this administration of the special warrants; $78 billion in the last month to

help balance the budget. That is what they were doing last year. They were

trying to give the impression that the budget was balanced. They were trying to

give the impression that there was no deficit.

When you look at the hospital boards, I think the hospital board here in St.

John's now are up to - if you look at $90 million and $50 million they had

from previous years - $140 million which they are now using, their operating

expenses.

MR. TULK: Make no wonder Danny (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Aha! There is a long story behind that, I say to the former

premier, the proof that miracles exist, the present Minister of Industry, Trade

and Rural Development. I say to the minister, he doesn't know what he is

talking about, just like when he gets up on points of order all the time; not

the click, not the clue, as usual. There was more proof today.

MR. TULK: Of what?

MR. J. BYRNE: That you don't know what you are talking about when you

get up on points of order. I don't know, have you ever had one ruled in your

favour yet?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh! You wanted to make sure that the former premier of the

Province -

MR. TULK: Hold on, now. The former, former, former.

MR. J. BYRNE: The triple-former premier of the Province got his money.

Supreme Court Justice, is he? Clyde K. Wells.

MR. TULK: The Chief Justice.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Chief Justice. There it is, the Chief Justice.

Anyway, I won't go there because I had enough arguments with that man in

the House of Assembly.

Loyola, do you want to continue on and I will continue on later? Can we do

that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure you can.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, we are in Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I see that the Opposition House Leader is very anxious to

continue with the few words he had said. I have so much to say on this, I will

guide myself by what the Opposition House Leader has to say, and anything that

he says I will try not to repeat.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The current Finance critic.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

That Minister of Industry, yes, he is an intelligent fellow, you know. He is

usually right, but this time he is wrong.

MR. TULK: Who?

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Industry.

The Member for Cape St. Francis is never wrong! There might be a couple of

hundred people in his district wrong about him - the couple of hundred who did

not vote for him - that might be it, but the rest of them pretty well know.

MR. TULK: It just shows how (inaudible) you are -

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, thank you.

MR. TULK: - when you say he is never wrong.

MR. SULLIVAN: Is he? Give me an instance. If you can give me an instance

where he was wrong, then I will change my view. If you can tell me when he was

wrong -

AN HON. MEMBER: I gave you an example where his math was (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What was that?

AN HON. MEMBER: All of that money (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: But that was the new math.

I would like to know where the most extravagant minister in the history of

our Province is going to spend all of our $1.25 billion. I see here that she is

looking for $229,153,000 for roads.

MR. TULK: There is nothing wrong with that.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, nothing wrong with it, not a thing wrong with it, but

she failed to indicate that it is really an in-and-out item.

MR. TULK: What parts should she take out?

MR. SULLIVAN: What parts should she take out? She should look for an

amount of money that is adequate to carry until then.

AN HON. MEMBER: Until when?

MR. SULLIVAN: Until such time as the Budget is passed, which would be in

May. Let's say it is June. Three months up front, you do not have all of these

expenditures up front on contracts. Why $1.25 billion when we never even

utilized in the past 1.1 and 1.09? Why do we need over $1.25 billion, 37 per

cent roughly of the budget. She wants to spend it all in the first few months.

MR. J. BYRNE: It is not a billion and a quarter; it is one and a quarter

billion.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, one-and-a-quarter billion. One billion-and-a-quarter

would be 1,000,000,000.25, right? That is right. One-and-a-quarter billion is

more than a billion -

MR. TULK: Loyola, (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What?

MR. TULK: Spend money on roads.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, we are talking about roads now. I want to address

roads now, too. I am glad the minister put some thoughts in my head. If we talk

about roads, let's look at the Labrador Transportation Initiative. That is

something that I support. I think we should have a road through Labrador

connecting all of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is important. Where we got

sold out - and I asked these questions in the House back in 1996-1997 - I am

sure the members remember - I think the figure was $347 million. I stand to be

corrected, but I think that is the figure under the Labrador Transportation

Initiative - $347 million?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: When I asked in the House: Is that to cover all of

Labrador, to do from Churchill to Goose Bay, and from Goose Bay to Cartwright

and on down to connect at Red Bay, I was told in the House, in 1996: yes.

Do you know when I got the truth? From the minister who is now the Minister

of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, who indicated in the House - the first

person to give the correct answer. About two years ago, he stood and said, it is

not including.... I have asked this question in the House; I am on the public

record, in statements. He said, no, it is not going to cover from Goose Bay to

Cartwright.

What we have done - I really think we have sold out at too low a price. We

got $347 million to take over the complete ferry service from the federal

government. We still need a ferry service to service, of course, Northern

Labrador. It is kind of difficult to visualize getting a road link there. It is

very difficult to visualize that in the short term anyway, because of the

enormous distances and so on involved, and other factors. Now we are still going

to be spending millions on a ferry service that the federal government was

paying for, and our money is all gone on roads and we still do not have a road

to link Goose Bay to Cartwright.

I said the same of the South Coast. We took $55 million, and the Member for

Port de Grave was minister at the time. Do you know what he said? When he was

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, he said: We are going to take

that $55 million and we are going to put it into a fund, into a trust. It is not

going to be touched. The interest on that fund, in the vicinity of $5 million,

he said, the $5 million a year on that fund would be used to pay for the ferry

service that was costing about $4.5 million to $5 million a year. He said it

would be there forever and we could always cover it. What did the government do?

The government took that $55 million, threw it into the general Treasury, spent

it all, and now we have to incur those costs forever and a day, the same as we

did on the Labrador Transportation Initiative.

We have let the federal government off the hook. Now we have to pay the

taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have to take it out of the provincial

budget, all the costs of this service that the federal government was paying.

Those are a couple of areas that are going to be, and are, very significant

costs.

Another point of what they did - I mention this, too, - and I don't

necessarily disagree with (inaudible), with the amount of money. Under Term 29,

in our union with Canada, we were guaranteed to get $8 million forever, in

perpetuity In 1996, they figured, how are going to get our hands on some money?

We want to do some things. They said to the federal government: How about, over

the next twenty years, give us twenty years payment up front, $160 million that

would be, give us up front. They said: Oh, we cannot give you $160 million up

front because that is too much. You wouldn't get that because for the next

nineteen years, if you had interest on that, you would make more than $160

million, but we will give you $130 million.

What did they do? This Province said: We will take $130 million in 1997, 1998

and 1999, spread over three years, and for seventeen years now we are getting

nothing. We have that $8 million which is called a structural deficit. That is

part of the structural deficit of our Province and it was built in for the ferry

service, built in from Term 29. Now we are seventeen years with not a penny, and

wait for another seventeen years, whenever it is, I think we started at 2000 -

in 2018, I think - we will start getting back under Term 29 awards. They took

that and spent it, and pumped that in there.

When I stood in this House as finance critic and Leader of the Opposition

back in 1996 on harmonization, I said that giving up and harmonizing taxes, when

only two other provinces in the country did it, two others in Atlantic Canada,

New Brunswick and Nova Scotia under harmonization, the HST, what did they do?

The only province in Atlantic Canada that didn't participate, they gave them

the centre and the jobs in Prince Edward Island. The one who didn't

participate!

I said that one hundred and some million dollars in revenue is taken out, and

they said by reducing the rate from 19.82 per cent piggyback, when you take your

- at the time 12 per cent and 7 per cent, that was 19.84 per cent in total, when

you piggyback the 7 per cent on top of the 12 per cent, or the 12 per cent on

top of the 7 per cent - almost 20 per cent, because there is so much (inaudible)

taxes, the economy growth, we are going to get back just as much revenue in a

few years.

Where are we in revenue under HST? We were getting in over $570 million a

year in revenue, and what are we taking in now? Four hundred and sixty-some

million projected in this fiscal year. One hundred million. We have not gained

one extra cent of growth in sales in revenues accruing back to our Province

because of this. What do we do? We went along with a plan that we were told we

were all going to buy into in the country. We took it hook, line and sinker.

Yes, the Premier of the Province, hook, line and sinker. Ottawa threw out the

bait and he ran for the bait as fast as he could, anything that would enhance

his chances to get the top job up in Ottawa. He took it hook, line and sinker,

and we have less revenue. The economic growth in our Province did not grow. We

got a false sense of growth in our Province. We have a jobless growth. We have

thousands, in the tens, of less jobs in the fishing industry in our Province.

We stand up and talk about the growth in GDP. We talk about our export value.

Why are we getting an export value in our Province? Why do we have an increase

in export value in the fishing industry in our Province? Because we now have a

significant increase in the quotas for crab, and a significant increase over the

last while in the price of crab on the market. We have expanded allocations in

shrimp; we are going up in the hundreds of millions. We have almost doubled in

value, what we had in the fishing industry, and tens of thousands of less jobs

in the industry in fish plants around our Province. Fish plants have shut down;

people cannot get 420 hours of work.. They put them in washing pans; they put

them out around a wharf doing work, anything to get them 420 hours, because we

have lost the most labour-intensive part of the fishing industry and that is the

groundfish in our Province.

So, we have had jobless- and we talk about how fantastic our Province is.

Why, if we are increasing, if things are so fantastic and we have the highest

rate of growth in GDP, the highest rate of growth of anywhere in this country,

why is our equalization going up significantly in terms of where we are in the

Canadian context?

The cap that was put in 1982 on equalization - and I stand and challenge the

statement made by Paul Martin, the Prime Minister, where he said that we need

the consent of all the Provinces to change equalization. Well, you did not need

the consent of every Province in 1982 to cap it.

What does capping equalization do? Here is what it does. Right now, this

country puts about $10 billion into equalization; we get over a billion of that.

By capping equalization, the federal government is not paying out any more money

than the cap. As our needs and disparities in our Province get greater, there is

less money to service and close the gap of disparity in our Province. That means

the rich get richer and the widening gap of disparity gets bigger. I did a news

release on February 28 and said: You did not need the consent to put the cap on;

you do not need the consent to get the cap off.

We did not come around in 1994, when the former Minister of Fisheries, Brian

Tobin, a member in our Cabinet, the federal Cabinet representing us, when he sat

in the federal Cabinet and slashed Canada health and social transfers to this

Province by a peak of $155 million a year, they did not need the consent -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and we are not talking about fishermen. I am talking

about a representative on finance issues, issues of important resource and

revenues in our Province. What happened?

MR. TULK: Tell them about Jim and the factory freezer trawlers.

MR. SULLIVAN: Who?

MR. TULK: Jim McGrath.

MR. SULLIVAN: Jim McGrath? That was before my time. That was so far back

in the past, I hardly remember who Jim McGrath is. Jim McGrath, that is so far

back.. How old is that man? How old is that man over there? I cannot even

remember that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), old enough for the Senate.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, he is old enough for that. He is old enough for the

Senate. I don't know, but he has deserved it. That is one thing I will say. If

there has ever been a workhorse, a guy who has trudged over there, bore the

burden -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: I thought, as critic, I had an hour.

CHAIR: Ten minutes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Ten and ten, okay; someone else go.

By leave to continue?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the Minister of Labour, the minister who is now in

labour: Yes, I would be delighted to go on. That is only a pun; there is no ill

intent. I have said it to her before.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You got jealous when the Member for Bonavista South went

out in the lobby, and now -

MR. TULK: That is terrible. (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, isn't, it? That should not be allowed.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, but we were talking about the cap on equalization.

Number one, it is wrong. It was wrong to bring it in. There was not consent of

the provinces in 1982 to cap equalization, and there should be no consent to

lift it. They could arbitrarily, with a federal election coming up - last fall,

they lifted the cap for just this year only. That is why we got $38 million out

of that $58 extra million. It comes from lifting the cap. The other twenty is

because the growth is occurring in the rest of the country more significantly

and the disparity is getting greater, in other words. That is why we got the

other. If the cap was gone, this would make sense. I am sure you have to agree

with this: If, in the equalization formula, the have provinces in the country

who contribute: Alberta, B.C., and Ontario, and the have-not provinces, and

sometimes Saskatchewan slips in and out of have-not, based on their resource

royalties. Sometimes they are there and sometimes they are not, but if under the

equalization formula we should get $1.3 billion, for example, or $1.4 billion,

when you add up all the equalizations for other provinces that comes up over a

cap of $10 billion - when they put that cap in, roughly $10 billion at the time.

Why should we be cut back on amounts of money that are needed to eliminate the

disparities in the ability of provinces to raise taxes and get revenues to give

comparable levels of service to maintain a national standard? Why should that be

capped? That should be lifted so we can reduce the growing rate of disparity in

the Province, and that is the fundamental principle that is in the Constitution

of this country that protects and allows people to give levels of service at

comparable standards around this country.

A cap on equalization is contrary to the constitutional right of

equalization. It is like telling you no more equalization beyond a point, and I

think that is contrary to the Constitution of this country that guarantees that.

They put it on. They lifted it with election coming up, and something should be

done about it. I will ask ministers to make that a very strong issue. Number

one, the cap can be changed right now. It was changed for this year. Why can't

it be lifted forever because there is so much pressure coming from the have

provinces? The have provinces are we want more and more. Alberta wants to get

rid of its deficit in two years. Ontario wants to reduce its deficit from that

mess created by Bob Rae when he was there. They are trying to get that back

under control. Mike Harris is doing such a phenomenal job up there.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. SULLIVAN: Such a phenomenal job. Ralph Kline is doing such a

phenomenal job in Alberta. Ralph! Ralph they are shouting! They cannot wait to

get him in.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That's right, but apart from that - I got carried away a

little there - we are back on the serious issue of equalization. It is wrong to

cap equalization. That is the number one problem. That is one problem we have.

The next problem - and we have talked about it today. The Premier tried to do

some fence mending on it today in his statement, but I sat back and watched NTV

news after l o'clock, the whole newscast, and we taped it. Look -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, I am disappointed you cannot stay because I would not

want you to miss some vital information that you might want to take to Ottawa

and press on in your future capacity on the hill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is good. I will send you a copy of Hansard and you can

click on the Net and find out what we need to be addressing.

One point is the cap, and I did not hear the Premier bring that up. He

brought up equalization but the cap is one point that should be done away with

immediately. That is contrary. I am saying it infringes on the constitutional

right to have equalization. They might argue: well, we guarantee a certain

equalization. How can we provide national standards when we don't have

appropriate revenues and clawbacks that infringe on the right and ability of our

Province to be able to provide goals? That should change.

Another problem we have is clawbacks. We have about thirty-six, I think. I

went through them a couple of years ago. I went through all the different

categories; I think thirty-six or thirty-seven. I have a list of all the

different categories which are subject to basic equalization in the resources

there. The mining sector is about 80 per cent. I think our oil is about 70 per

cent. There are other variations right up in the 100 per cent range. There are

numerous extra amounts. So why does a province, a part of the Country of Canada,

why are we not given the opportunity to be able to become self-sufficient?

Federalism has hampered our ability to self-sufficiency. It is done by the

current Liberal government, and by the former PC government. I do not care what

governments were there, they hampered our ability to be self-sufficient. They

regard us, a half-million people, as something that can be cajoled and a few

crumbs tossed here and there to keep us happy. We have not gotten our fair

share. Quebec, of all, was espoused nationalism. They have the best of both

worlds. They can keep a separatist government in Quebec and can go on the

national stage and get more. Play it smart. They play it smart and get the best

of both worlds.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What can we do? We can be more vocal. The only Liberal

government of a province in this country with a federal Liberal government. If

you cannot bend the ear of a government in the same stripe, what can you do? We

have to be more vocal. We have to be more demanding. We can't be so tolerant

of disparities increasing.

If Ireland in the EU - Ireland is a separate country. It is not a part of

Germany, or any other countries in the EU - can get certain preferential areas

until its economy got up to a certain level, why can't Newfoundland and

Labrador? Why can't Prince Edward Island? Why can't we stop that clawback of

resources there? We talked about it here. The Premier said he has been advised

it is millions. It is not millions, basically. Substantially, he said, up in the

millions. Let's face it, we only get $48 million, total, on all our royalties.

I will just take a look at it here. Our royalties are $44.8 million, of which

about $37 million or $38 million of that, in that ball park to my knowledge, is

from the oil in the offshore. Those revenues are the full revenues we get right

now. Out of that $37 million or $38 million we are getting, when they do the

equalization they take 70 per cent of that $38 million. Let's call it $40

million, a nice easy figure to work with, 70 per cent of that is $28 million.

Instead of getting our full amount of equalization of 1.3, for instance, they

will clawback $28 million out of that, and that is all we will get. So really we

are only getting, out of that $40 million, $12 million. It is only $40 million

in total. If we get a 10 per cent reduction from seventy to sixty, what are we

getting? Ten percent of $40 million; $4 million. That is all we are getting. If

they eliminate it all, every single bit, we would gain $28 million. If every bit

of clawback is eliminated, right down to zero, and he is only talking about 50

per cent or 60 per cent to be significant. Fifty percent would be $8 million; $8

million in a budget.

Look at what we are taking in on tobacco tax. The tobacco tax, for example,

the figure is up around $70 million, I believe. The figure is $67.5 million, it

says here. We are making $12 million in royalties in the offshore; net. On the

tobacco tax we are netting $70 million. We are netting six times as much on

tobacco as we are netting in offshore oil royalties. We are netting ten times as

much on gasoline tax as we are on royalties. We need to eliminate - until such

point that they come within a certain range of the equalization, a certain

range, a certain percentile, a certain part on that spectrum, within that main -

until we fall inside that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, why didn't we? We did not have these revenues from

offshore royalties then. It is only now we are starting to benefit from some of

these. The royalties have only started to go now. I don't care who is there. I

say to the Minister of Fisheries: I don't care who is there. I did not get up

here and compliment Peckford or anybody else. I am on the record of this House

as disagreeing with it. I disagree with what you did, former governments, I

disagree with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and I don't support that.

AN HON. MEMBER: What can we do?

MR. SULLIVAN: What can we do? Number one, we can be adamant in getting a

cap lifted because that is unfair. That is an autocratic stroke of the pen. That

is one thing we can do. The second thing we can do is demand and raise hell on

it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Who knows? I wouldn't say we would survive now because we

have given so much away.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Not right now, but if we get control of our resources -

there is a big picture here that we have to look at. We have a large coastline.

We have an ability to patrol and manage that coastline. There are a lot of

factors. I am not advocating that we jump off the edge or we are going to

separate and jump up and down. No, I am not saying that is the avenue to take,

but I am saying an aggressive approach - we can't be kowtowing. We have a

Premier here who kowtowed everything to Ottawa. He didn't want to disturb

Ottawa, that might interfere with his political ambitions; which we said from

day one.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. SULLIVAN: Brian Tobin, when he was here. Those points hurt us. We got

hurt on the federal stage. We got hurt on that issue.

Even Clyde Wells, on Meech Lake, would not bend over to the federal

government. He did not do it. A lot of people disagreed with it, but he did not

necessarily -

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) trying to get a better deal through that process.

MR. SULLIVAN: Through what process?

MR. NOEL: The Meech Lake process.

MR. SULLIVAN: Down here?

MR. NOEL: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: They would not bring it back. Sure the Premier of the

Province -

MR. J. BYRNE: Three times he went back on his word.

MR. SULLIVAN: He went back on his word. He would not bring it to

Legislature of the Province. I can't speak with authority on that, I wasn't

here at the time. I can't speak with any authority, and he wasn't here. None

of us sat. None of us sitting here today sat here at that time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Not as a member, no. He wasn't here as a member.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I have been serving longer, with the exception -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, with the member sitting here today. He was a member,

the only one who was a member at the time. I followed it but I am not intimately

familiar with all the details. I didn't sit in the House. I followed it in the

media the same as anybody else did. I can't speak with any particular

authority of being there. I have been here since 1992 and have followed,

reasonably close, of what happened then. We have lost strides by being too

tolerant, lacking a certain aggressiveness and we have to do something about it.

It's as simple as that.

Disparities; we are listening too much and playing the political big thing

with Quebec and western alienation, and because we have played it so strongly

with Quebec, federally, it has alienated the west. The same as Trudeau alienated

the west back in the time of the energy policy. We have a problem. We have a

distinct problem here and I think we have to realize that the Government of

Canada is not committed to eliminating disparities. We have widening gaps, I

might add, of disparity. If it is not committed to eliminating them, what is the

purpose of federalism? It defeats its basic underlining purpose of federalism.

It does not serve a purpose. Why do you want to be a part of federalism that

continuously take your resources, spread them out and not allow you to stand on

your own? If you never let a child stand up he will probably never learn to walk

until a later age, if you never give him the opportunity; if you tie him down,

strap him down. You have to allow him to survive, to grow and develop on his

own. Get back the money from our resources - build that.

We don't want equalization. We don't want it. We would like to have the

revenues coming in on our ledger that would not necessitate equalization. I

would like to see Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and these

other provinces there. Alberta has a wealth - they are part of a federalism

there. Ontario; massive growth. Ontario has such an increase of manufacturing

jobs. It will come back to show, and it is starting to show in history now, some

of the policies - Brian Mulroney, when he was in office, was hated in 1993. They

kicked him out in no uncertain terms, but some of the fundamental decisions that

were made then have been positive for this country.

In fact, before the ink was dry the Prime Minister was out talking about - I

heard on the news today, the federal minister said: The U.S. has been

protectionist. When Canada - when they fought free trade as the worse thing.

Manufacturing jobs in Ontario, the competitiveness - our exports have increased.

It has helped the growth that we have incurred in this country with free trade.

That is why, when they got into office, they saw the light. They saw how

important - that we can't operate in isolation in a global market today. We

have to take down the doors of protectionism and we have to be able to compete;

have our people be able to compete and produce a product that can compete and

sell on the world market. They saw that and rushed for free trade in North

America. They couldn't wait to extend the boundaries for free trade because it

was positive. Anyone who does an analysis will tell you it has a positive

effect.

You talk about helicopters, the EH101, whatever they are. Because the Forces

had gone to such a dangerous level they saw the need to have to get back and buy

helicopters. Because it was political they could not touch it, but they came

back and saw the need. When you are not in power - it is easy for opposition -

there are lots of times you probably don't see the full depth of the problem,

or if you do see it you don't want to recognize that you do see it. That

happens on times. That is what happened in that case and that has been

detrimental to the growth in the country.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: How much money did (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I do not know; you will have to ask him. They do not share

their bank accounts with me, and I do not know what they are doing on it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I do not know, I say to the Minister of Fisheries. I do not

know how much money they made on it. I am not aware of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I do not. I do not know him. I haven't met him. I

would not know him from the man the Premier called the man in the moon, whom he

alluded to in that interview I watched. I did not know there was a man in the

moon. Did you? The Premier said there was a man in the moon, I think he said

last week. I listened to him using an analogy of what they said in Ottawa.

Now we talk about the debt of our Province; the total debt of the Province. I

must say that the debt - each year we have not produced a balance. There has

always been a deficit each year, even though they projected a balanced budget.

We have not. We always just come in the red each year, which means the deficit

goes up, unless you are using higher dollars to retire your debt, from what you

are doing. So, our deficit is at a fairly high level and we are not as bad off.

You know, we are the best Province.

It is funny, you know; when we come to negotiations for contracts, we cannot

afford it, but when it is not at negotiation time, we have the best growth in

this country, economic prosperity. It almost bowls you over when it comes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, the Minister of Finance asked me to keep the level up

because she is not comfortable when I talk too low. Besides, there is too much

noise over there. I cannot even get to hear what I am saying. When I speak up, I

have a tendency to be able to hear what I am saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: The echo is coming back off the wall.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, whatever it is. There is a lot of hollowness over

there, I would say, and it is all an echo, I might add. I am glad the Minister

of Fisheries recognizes that.

Now, we have a GDP that is going up, and it is not all bad to have a debt;

because if you do not have a debt it means you do not spend money, and maybe we

deprive ourselves of services. God knows, in this Province we have deprived

ourselves of a lot of services, but as long as your GDP - there are a few

indicators - is growing faster than your debt, we are in a fairly comfortable

position. If your percentage of debt goes up in relation to GDP, your ability to

repay that debt is lessened, and that is a problem; because if we always have an

increase in our GDP over the increase in our debt, a point arrives in time - for

instance, if you owe $1 billion today, in twenty years' time if you owe $1

billion, it is not nearly as significant, especially if the GDP is gone up

significantly, and our ability to pay; but we have certain things that hamper

our ability to pay that debt. One is, we have to depend on revenues and

resources outside our Province. We have to depend on the federal government to

help us pay that debt and keep the bills paid and keep the services provided in

our Province, and that has fluctuated from up to 48 per cent right down to the

42 per cent and 43 per cent range.

We have seen some improvements. I must say, since I have been here I have

seen some improvements in the foreign debt; the amount that is foreign hold.

There is over 30 per cent of the debt in our Province now, roughly, that is held

in foreign currencies, which can be difficult, especially with the U.S. dollar.

Just take the U.S. dollar alone in comparison with the Canadian dollar. The

bottom has gone out of the Canadian dollar, which means that if we have to repay

debt, we have to convert and pay on U.S. borrowed money, that is very expensive,

and against any particular - certainly, currency fluctuations can be devastating

on the bottom line in our Province. God help us, let's hope the dollar cannot

go down any lower. It might be great for export to the United States, and some

companies have done quite well on export and on the exchange. Any export thing,

like the fishery, for example, has benefitted, but I think that is factored into

the mechanism now, too. Is that a part of the formula on mechanism on the market

now, too, that the U.S. - I am not sure if that is built into the settlement

formula mechanism in the fishery that was adopted what - two or three years?

This is the third year now, I think, that we are going into that. I did not see

it, but I think it is a part of it, I do believe, not just the market price but

the currency is a big part of it. I mean, if you are trading at 50 per cent -

right now, I guess, if you want to change into U.S. funds now, it is costing you

about sixty cents on the dollar, I guess, just about. Anybody who has traveled

that way lately, it is in that ballpark. I have seen when it was down to the

seventeen cent, eighteen cent to twenty cent range, and there has been a big

change.

We have seen -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not quite as old, I say, as the Minister of Fisheries;

I don't go back to prehistoric times.

There was a time, yes, I remember, when it was probably ninety-some cents, I

think, back - I don't remember when it was par. I guess I was certainly a

teenager, at the oldest.

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible) and John Diefenbaker was the Prime Minister.

MR. SULLIVAN: My God, that must be in the 1800s, John Diefenbaker.

MR. H. HODDER: It was in 1963.

MR. SULLIVAN: Diefenbaker got elected in 1957, if I remember correctly,

in a minority government. In 1958, I think, he had, up to that time, the largest

majority in the history of the country at that time.

There are a lot of concerns. I was speaking earlier on health care and I had

to leave, and I want to get back to that again. In our Province - and this is an

injustice too. I want to say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands, I

think he was asking some of the things we can do to change. Here is another

point I wanted to get to under another aspect to help level that playing field,

to help adhere to national standards. One of the bases of equalization was to

allow provinces to be able to provide reasonable service at a certain national

standard. That is the function that we do not allow discrepancies to occur.

Back in 1994, and this is just off the equalization scene, close to it, when

they wrapped up the CAP, the Canada Assistance Plan, and EPF, Established

Programme Financing, that covered health and post- secondary education, those

three were wrapped into - I don't have to give you a history lesson; you know

that - but when it was wrapped into the Canada Health and Social Transfer, they

moved from a need basis, because anything we spent on social services, in other

areas, whatever the case may be, we got 50 per cent recovery on those dollars

from the federal government. We were getting a need basis. We were getting money

here on a need basis, but it is not happening now. We are getting it on a per

capita basis, and our Province has gone from 583,000 people, down in the last

count, I think it is probably 539,000 now or 541,000. One figure I have there

shows 541,000 but around 540,000 let's say. We have lost close to 45,000

people. We are getting money- now it started to go down before they changed it,

of course. I am not implying that we saw the big reduction under that, but the

decline that started has gone down. So, under the Canada Health and Social

Transfer now, we are getting it on a per capita basis.

Every other province in this country has experienced an increase in

population growth. For some, the rate of growth has gone up even. In Atlantic

Canada, two of the other three Atlantic Provinces have shown a rate in the

increase of growth, not just extra growth but a rate in their increase of

growth. I believe that is P.E.I. and Nova Scotia, I think. New Brunswick has

increased growth but the rate of growth has not gone up. One of them has a

slower rate of growth but they are still growing.

So, what does that mean? When we carve out the pie per capita, we have less

people now and we are getting a smaller piece of the pie. Can anyone tell me if

it is cheaper to deliver health care in Newfoundland and Labrador, per capita,

or in Prince Edward Island? You can drive around Prince Edward Island in a part

of a day. Nova Scotia has a lot more people. Nova Scotia has 800-and-some

thousand people, going up to 900,000, close to that, I think, up in the high

eight hundreds.

Newfoundland - can you imagine delivering health care service to Labrador,

the immense geography of Labrador, parts of this Island that we have in

isolation, that you have to get to by boat? The Northern Peninsula is a

disbursed geographical area of our Province. I would say this is the most

expensive Province in the country to deliver health care, based on geography,

and we have a declining population so we are getting a smaller piece of the pie.

There is no wonder -

AN HON. MEMBER: ( Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What I am saying, Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, is

that we need to slice the pie a bit different, based on needs and geography, and

have demographics play a part, not just per capita; because it is not downtown

Toronto. The City of Winnipeg has more people than this Province. The City of

Winnipeg has 600,000 people; we have 540,000.

If they are doing it on a per capita basis - and you cannot just look at

that, because in Newfoundland and Labrador we are spread out so much that it

requires facilities. We have to have something in Burgeo, and you have to have

something in Port aux Basques and Stephenville and Corner Brook. You have to

have it. You cannot expect people to go long distances in emergencies. That is

the point I am making. We have to have, within certain distances, those

facilities.

Can you imagine someone in St. Anthony - between St. Anthony now and Corner

Brook there is no hospital in between, up the peninsula. There is nothing in

between. Can you imagine, that is a long distance. In fact, I have been told, I

think, the longest distance by road by ambulance to any hospital comes in my

district, Trepassey. It is the longest distance by road to any health facility.

That is what I was told. I don't know if that is accurate or not, but it is a

fair distance away, because at least other areas are fairly -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN: The nearest hospital is about 170 kilometers roughly.

AN HON. MEMBER: If you had Roger Fitzgerald there, you would have a

hosp