The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

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

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

I rise today on a sad note as we acknowledge the passing of Gregory J. Campbell, one of this Province's leaders in the business community. Greg was a businessman who was involved in a number of successful companies including the Campbell Group of Companies which include Campbell's Ship Supplies Limited, Campbell's Meat Market Limited, SME Limited, and Striker Offshore. As well, he was involved in several other businesses.

Mr. Speaker, from the very beginning of the offshore, Greg played an active role in the development of this Province's offshore industry.

Mr. Speaker, Greg Campbell was a kind and gentle man who has made a tremendous contribution to our Province and our country in general. On behalf of all members of this House I want to pass along our condolences to his family, especially his wife Eleanor and brothers Paul and Bruce. His presence will be sadly missed by his many friends and acquaintances. A memorial service will take place at George Street United Church here in St. John's tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, Greg's contribution to our business community will be long remembered and we are saddened by his passing.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This being National Volunteer Week, it gives me great pleasure to recognize two individuals in the local service district of Little Rapids, who epitomizes the true spirit of volunteerism and community spirit.

Last October, Sandra Spencer and Linda Leamon started a Sunday afternoon recreational program for the fifty-two children of Little Rapids at the town's newly constructed community centre. To date they have had a Christmas party, a sliding party, and a slumber party. They have had a Valentine's Day dance and a St. Patrick's Day dance. They have had story times and craft times, but most importantly they have had a great time.

In addition to their fun times, Linda and Sandra and their fifty-two kids recently held a dance-a-thon which raised $1,538 for the new cancer treatment centre in Corner Brook. These Sunday afternoon activities are provided at no cost to the children. Sandra and Linda firmly believe that every child should have equal opportunity to recreational opportunities regardless of parental income.

Mr. Speaker, I ask this hon. House to join with me in extending congratulations to Sandra Spencer and Linda Leamon for volunteering their time and talents to establishing this worthwhile community activity at Little Rapids.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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 a constituent of mine who has played a huge role in the preservation of the history and heritage of the Burin Peninsula. Evelyn Grondin Bailey of Burin was recently recognized by the Historic Sites Association of Newfoundland and Labrador for the Manning Award for Excellence in the Public Preservation of Historic Sites. Ms. Bailey has worked diligently to promote the Town of Burin's unique history to the Province. Through her work with the Burin Heritage House, and the Oldest Colony Trust, as well as bringing the RCMP Musical Ride to the Burin Peninsula last year, her work has showcased the Town of Burin to all visitors. I congratulate Mrs. Bailey on this achievement, and her contribution to her community and her Province should not go unnoticed.

Mr. Speaker, the importance of preserving our history is monumental with the increase in our tourism sector, and contributions by such individuals as Mrs. Bailey should certainly be commended.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to advise hon. members that government intends to introduce a bill during this session of the House to enact a new Residential Tenancies Act.

I believe the proposed changes being put forward will be acceptable to the vast majority of landlords and tenants. We have consulted in these areas on these issues, and we have received a positive respond. I look forward to a full and thorough debate on the bill.

Under the proposed legislation, a landlord will not be able to increase rent during any fixed tenancy or during the first twelve months of a month-to-month tenancy. This will be welcome news for tenants.

The proposed legislation would also provide for more flexibility in the periods for term leases. A term lease would be permitted for any term of six months to one year. The current act only provides for a term lease of one year. The change to permit terms of six months to a year will be especially beneficial to students who often wish to rent for shorter periods of time.

Under the proposed act, tenants would also be given improved rights when apartments are converted to condominiums. For example, in circumstances where a unit is converted to a condominium, a tenant who has resided in the premises for five or more consecutive years will be given the right of first refusal to purchase.

Another proposed change would see the maximum security deposit increased from one-half to three-quarters of a month's rent. This would assist small landlords, such as those with basement apartments, in making repairs as a result of damages made by vacating tenants.

Whenever we introduce proposed legislation that affects different groups, we must achieve balance. Such is the case with this proposed change. I would also like to point out that, under proposed changes, the right of landlords to ask for the last month's rent in advance will be removed.

Under the current system, we often receive complaints from tenants and landlords that it is costly to collect amounts owing to them after receiving an award in their favor from the Residential Tenancies Division. Under the proposed act, awards for claims of up to $3,000 will be filed with the Small Claims Court, rather than the Supreme Court, substantially reducing fees for enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, these proposed changes and the amendments we brought in during 1997 will provide us with an effective act that fairly balances the interests of landlords and tenants.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are some positive things here. I had a chance to read some to them in The Telegram - the not-so-positive ones, I certainly read there today. A couple of things are particularly noteworthy of mention; one, by having a period for less than one year. Because, from my own experience, I know people who rented for eight months - they thought they were renting for eight months - and could not get out and had to end up paying, and were forced to pay for the following - I think they let them by with three months by giving so much notice. That is costly for students especially, who only want to rent for eight months. That would be positive in that regard.

There is another particular point here that is probably not so positive. Now, with paying three-quarters of the security deposit they are paying up front, in addition to that month's rent that is coming up, they are paying almost two months now with the security deposit up front for someone who moves into a new apartment or new rental there. So that is going to be almost double one month's rent up front as opposed to 1.5 under the past. That is detrimental for tenants, I might add, in that particular case.

Another positive aspect, of course, is with the Small Claims Court, which is a much cheaper process and allows people to be able to avail of that option as opposed to the Supreme Court. That is a positive aspect. There are some positive things here for tenants, but there is an up-front cost in one of the particular things there that is not too enticing, especially for students who are trying to borrow money, have not received student loans and they have to borrow from wherever they can to try to carry themselves through until they get the money. So that is not going to be possible.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly there is a need for significant improvements to the landlord tenant act, and I am pleased that this is going to be done this session. It is the type of legislation that I think is probably best studied by a legislative committee. Although the minister has done consultations, there may well be improvements that could be made in committee to the bill and perhaps modify some of the more negative aspects of it.

The minister, for example, says that the three-quarters of a month's rent is necessary for small landlords with basements apartments; however, he has not indicated that provision will only be related to that particular type of tenancy. So there may well be improvements that could be made and I would recommend that this be studied by a legislative review committee as is provided for in our rules.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

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

I would like to take this opportunity to inform the House that at the recent Annual General Meeting of the Dairy Farmers of Newfoundland and Labrador, held in Corner Brook on March 30-31, the third annual Daphne Taylor Milk Quality Award of Excellence was presented to the Westvale Farm of the Goulds.

Mr. Speaker, the award was named after Ms Daphne Taylor, a dairy farmer from Cormack who died prematurely in 1996. The Daphne Taylor Milk Quality Award of Excellence program was established in her memory. The program is supported through the joint efforts and financial contributions of this government as well as dairy producers and processors. A key objective of the program is to recognize excellence in the production of milk from our Province's dairy farms.

Westvale Farm is owned and operated by Allan Ruby and family. The Rubys have operated a farm on their present location ever since 1860 and in fact are still working out of the original barn as well as a second one constructed in 1931. They originally ran a mixed farming operation but changed over to a full time dairy in 1923, first selling to the Newfoundland Butter Company - later known as Newfoundland Margarine - and then to Sunshine Dairies.

Allan Ruby and his son, Sean, have won many awards in recent years including being members of Purina's 1000 pound club in 1994,1996, 1998 and again in 1999.

I would also like to acknowledge the other winners of this year's Daphne Taylor Milk Quality Award of Excellence. These include second place winner Harcourt Farm of Musgravetown, and Mr. Aiden Williams of the Goulds who placed third.

It is a result of the combined efforts of these farmers along with others throughout the Province that the dairy industry has been able to achieve significant levels of growth in recent years, reaching $100 million contribution to GDP and self-sufficiency within our Province. I commend the dairy industry of this Province on their commitment to quality and dedication to advancing their industry.

In closing, I would like to reinforce government's commitment to supporting the growth in our Province's agrifoods industry.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

It is ironic. I said to the minister before he came in that I had a private member's statement done today because Mr. Williams and Allan Ruby are both dairy farmers in the district that I represent. I would certainly want to be associated with remarks from the minister and to congratulate both farms for the top quality and the excellence that they not only have achieved but continue to achieve in the dairy industry.

The dairy industry in the last fifteen years has come a very long way. It is now a very important industry in the Province, contributing greatly, not only in terms of jobs, money, economics, et cetera, but is known nationally for the quality of the product that we produce.

Recently as well, within the agricultural industry, particularly in the dairy industry, the amount of value added coming from that industry is increasing and people within the industry are continuing to search for ways and means -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: They continue to search for ways and means to add value, to promote our products, to export our products. I can only say to the Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods: Continue to support to the extent that you can. One of the things dairy farmers need desperately in this Province today is access to more land. In order to gain access to more land - much of it is now covered certainly in a variety of trees that are known in Newfoundland and Labrador - some seed capital is also necessary in order for land to be cleared.

That is the biggest challenge that dairy farmers are facing today in view of the terms of free trade and the MAI. We are now at a stage where we are about to compete nationally. The notion of marketing boards is coming into question. What our industry needs and what dairy farmers need in particular is access to more land. I urge the minister and his Cabinet colleagues - because I know he is a minister that wants to produce it and move on side - but I urge his Cabinet colleagues to support him when he goes to Cabinet requesting seed capital and money to do exactly that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We too would like to congratulate Westvale Farm of the Goulds and the other winners of the Daphne Taylor Milk Quality Award of Excellence. It is important to have in this Province quality milk and dairy producers, and it is also important for government to continue to support programs such as this whenever the opportunity arises.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My questions are for the Minister of Mines and Energy today, now that he has had a day to reflect upon the questions yesterday. I will ask a series of questions dealing with it again today.

Last December the Premier told The Telegram reporters that the transmission line was no longer a make or break condition for the development of the Lower Churchill. Again on March 14, 2000 he told The Telegram that he no longer believed a publicly funded transmission line was the best way to bring energy to the Province, but now favored natural gas from offshore with infrastructure being paid for by the private sector. On the heels of the Premier's comment the Minister of Mines and Energy has publicly said that a natural gas pipeline to the Island is certainly way off into the future.

I would like to ask the minister this question. What was the basis or analysis that changed the Premier's and government's position in policy? What was his source of information?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I presume the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is speaking about the in-feed. Let me just repeat the answer I have given repeatedly in the House, and that is that we have said from the beginning that the line to the Island was not feasible unless the federal government subsidized it substantially. If the federal government does not come up with any money, does not contribute toward it, then it is not feasible to build it.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let the it be known that the minister did not answer the question. There was no reason for the change in policy. I am asking what was the reason or the basis upon which the Premier changed his mind? He clearly changed his mind.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, it is the same question -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: - and I will continue to ask it until we get an answer to the question, I say to the Member for Topsail.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: What was the basis for the government's change in policy? What analysis was it based on?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I suppose if I say it often enough he will get the answer, which I have given. There was no change in policy. What we said from the beginning was that in order to build the line to the Island it would have to be subsidized by Ottawa. It couldn't be built on its own merits if you looked at the economics. The assistance from Ottawa does not look like it is forthcoming. What the Premier said, basically, is that because of that it is unlikely an in-feed will be built. Now there is no change of position.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, surely when the Premier of the Province speaks publicly he communicates the policy of government, and surely government policy is made at the Cabinet table and is based upon well researched information. The minister, I know, has had difficulties in dealing with that, but that is the truth. He must know the answer to my question. The federal-provincial working group did an analysis on other aspects, some more information which I know was submitted to you because it says right here it was. The federal-provincial working group did an analysis of the lowest cost alternative for Newfoundland to meet its present and projected energy needs. Was that the basis for the Premier's change of heart and change in government policy?

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

MR. DICKS: No, Mr. Speaker, there was no change of heart. There was no change of policy. The analysis that the federal government has been bringing to the table is that in their view there are cheaper forms of alternative energy available than building a hydro line to the Island. We haven't completed it, we are still attempting to persuade them, but their position to date is that they don't see the economics of it. That is not a change in position. That is consistent with what we said from the outset.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the economics are skewed and I will explain why right now. The federal-provincial working group, in a document submitted early this year to the provincial government, a progress report submitted to this provincial government - yesterday you denied it - the working group didn't make a straight comparison of costs between the transmission line and other energy sources. What it did, in fact, was to subtract the value to the Province of exporting hydro power on the one hand to Quebec -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: - from the cost of developing alternative energy sources.

Mr. Speaker, the question is this. Using that basis, wouldn't any other source of energy be cheaper than bringing power to the Island from the Lower Churchill, using that skewed model? Why not reverse the formula, I ask the minister, and subtract the value to the Province from oil and gas exports from the cost of the transmission line? Wouldn't that make a transmission line to the Province very economic?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member continues to refer to documents and not file them. I would like to see the document he is referring to. I would like to have it tabled. I would like to see the document the hon. member has. Yesterday he stood in this House and asked a series of questions about some document he purported to have obtained from the federal government. I asked him to show me a copy and I would verify and answer his questions. Twenty-four hours later he hasn't had the courage to send it over here so we can look at it. So if the hon. member persists in standing up, referring to documents that may or may not exist, refusing to table them, to provide them to us - I would be happy to answer any question on any document he provides, but I would like to see it, of course.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the documents I am referring to are his documents. These are documents that the federal government sent to the provincial government for their approval to either release or not release. These are joint studies submitted to the Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. E. BYRNE: - in early January and it clearly says it. So if he is looking for his documents, go to his own filing cabinet and pick up the information that I have and he will find the documents that I am talking about! That is what I say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

I would like to ask the minister this question: Isn't it a fact, minister, that the study that was submitted to you, the study of the federal-provincial working group, the progress report, is contrived to produce a predetermined result? It is very clear if you look at it that it is contrived to produce a predetermined result which is the continued export of Newfoundland and Labrador power from the Lower Churchill River system across our border.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The only thing contrived here is the hon. member's line of questioning. He continues to refer to a paper that he doesn't have the courage to table in the House so that the rest of us and the media can see what he is referring to, to see if it is a legitimate document.

Now the only thing that has changed in this is the lack of support of the federal government to date. As we have said from the beginning, in the kind offer I made to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, if he himself wants, or if he has a group of friends who want, to build a $2 billion hydro line to the Island, we would be glad to put the power across, provided it doesn't increase rates.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, there were two consulting firms contracted to give a financial analysis of the transmission line in 1999, and they were supposed to report in January of 2000. One of those groups was AGRA Monaco.

MR. DICKS: Monenco.

MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to ask the minister - Monenco? So you did hear the word before. So you have read the documents before. Monenco, is it? I see. We now know that they know, and they now know that they know that I know! That is what is going on here, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to ask the minister this question: Have the consulting firms reported back to you giving their so-called independent financial analysis?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AGRA Monenco is one of the largest engineering firms in the world. They did not, to my knowledge, do a financial analysis. We have had several engineering firms involved in costing the Gull Island power project, the diversion, Muskrat Falls and the line to the Island.

In all likelihood - and again I say the hon. member should table his papers - I suspect that what he is referring to is an engineering report on the cost of building that to the Island, not a financial analysis of what the cost would be of power on the Island to say whether or not it can be justified.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to ask the minister this again. Their study is done, it is supposed to be completed in January of this year. So I would like to ask the minister: Does he have a copy of what they did study? If he does, will he table it in the House for all of us to see?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government does not retain engineering firms to do financial analyses. I do not know what the practice of the members opposite would be. Retain engineering firms to tell us how much it would cost to build things? Yes, we have several reports from several engineering firms saying what each of the components involved in this development would cost. No, we are not prepared to release them at this time.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: So, yes you have the information and no, you will not release it. That is the answer essentially that you have given us.

Mr. Speaker, it also goes on to say that by January the joint studies done by the provincial and federal working groups - the joint studies that have been put in place - will be produced for a first look for this government.

I would like to ask the minister this. Yesterday, he said they had not concluded their work. Have they concluded their work? They were supposed to by January. Some of the work is completed. I know you have it. Why won't you release it?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the federal and provincial working group has not completed its work.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: So they have not completed their work, but at the same time they have written off a transmission line before the work is completed. That is what they are saying.

Final question to the Minister of Mines and Energy. When do you anticipate the federal-provincial working groups - the four separate groups that were established on this process - when have you been told will they complete their work? When will it be presented to Cabinet? When can we expect that information to be released to the people of the Province?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker the working groups will complete their work when it is finished. They will continue until such time as we believe there is no further work to be done, and it is ongoing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal.

Minister, on the Bonavista Peninsula today there exists an opportunity for work, but because of a silly rule or regulation that has been implemented by your cousins up in Ottawa many people are being denied and deprived of an opportunity to apply.

There is a film being made, and the name of the film is Random Passage. They are about to build a model community. A lot of the fishermen in the area are afraid to go and access employment because the criteria clearly states that in order for them to maintain their core enterprise they must make at least 75 per cent of their employment from the fishery. We do not know if there is going to be a crab fishery. We do no know if there is going to be a cod fishery.

Fisherman do not know how much money that they are going to be allowed to make in order to come up with 75 per cent of their earnings. Hence, Mr. Minister, we have fisherman here -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: - who are unable to access a job for fear of having their livelihood taken from them because their licenses will be removed and they will not be able to fish when the opportunity arrives. Is this the fair way to treat unemployed people in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. gentleman brought up the question that he did because this indeed should provide some employment for that area of the Province that needs as much employment as they can get down there. I want to say to him that we are in constant contact with the people who are producing, spending some $16 million in Newfoundland and Labrador to produce that film, Random Passage, for which the setting is, by the way, in my own District of Bonavista North in Cape Freels. We are working on any problems that are out there with the people who are producing it.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the question is not answered. The employment opportunities are there today. They were there yesterday. The fishermen are unable to get an answer from their union. They are unable to get an answer from government. I ask the minister: Can those fishermen go to work on this project and still maintain licences so they can return again and fish within the industry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the hon. gentleman that I understand that all of the bed and breakfast houses out there are full. People out there are looking -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Oh, yes. I will get to your question in a second.

They are looking for people to employ. I would suggest to him that not only should this employment be available to the fishermen, but it should be available to other people out there who are carpenters and laborers as well. I want to say to him that we are working with the production crew to iron out any problems that are there for any employee who is working with the production company to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, we are working with the production crew to try and take care of any problems that they might have out there in regard to laborers, carpenters, accommodations, or anything else.

I want to assure the hon. gentleman that it will employ a large number of people in his district, and for that we are grateful regardless of what occupation they are in.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that has been raised with me several times. I have to ask the minister again: The laborers and carpenters don't have any problem. They will apply for a job and, if they are fortunate enough to get a job, it won't effect their employment opportunities down the road.

I ask the minister again: Is he personally involved, or is the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs personally involved in seeing that this problem is resolved so that at least those people can go to work and be able to feed their families - those fishermen?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I don't know how many ways the hon. gentleman wants me to put it. I can tell him, I can only put it in two languages and the best one is ‘Newfunese'. I will try it in English. Let me just say to him that I think I have said to him twice already, and I am amazed that he has not brought this to me privately -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, my member seems to be terribly upset again today. I would ask him to cool down.

Let me say to the hon. gentleman again that we are working with the production crews to work out, in as far as possible, any problems that people might be encountering out there in getting both accommodations and in getting work, regardless of who they are. I can only put it in one language that I am best at and that is ‘Newfunese'. We are doing our best, chappy!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services. I understand the minister met this morning with members of the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I understand the minister met this morning with members of the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association regarding payments to emergency room doctors outside St. John's. Now, doctors in Newfoundland have given notice that they will withdraw services effective the 17^th of this month if the matter is not resolved. I want to ask the minister: Did their meeting this morning resolve those unsettled matters?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am a little surprised, actually, that the hon. member did not get up and tell me the result of the meeting; his sources are usually that good. In fact -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: Probably I will just sit down and in the supplementary he will give me the answer to the question as he knows it and then we will go from there. That is what we will do.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for the very informative update on the status there on a very serious issue, I might add, in the Province.

I want to ask him just a simple question: How do you expect to attract and retain doctors in rural Newfoundland when you are paying them $17 an hour less than they are getting paid for doing the same work here in the City of St. John's?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can give one further piece of information. From what I know in the meeting that we did have this morning dealing with several issues of importance to the physicians of Newfoundland and Labrador, that I was not informed at that meeting by Dr. Smith, who is the President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, that the hon. Member for Ferryland will now become the spokesperson for the physicians of Newfoundland and Labrador. I understood that Dr. Smith is still taking that role very seriously.

We dealt with, as we usual do at our meetings, several items of importance to the physicians of Newfoundland and Labrador. They are taking some information to their physicians that provide emergency room coverage in all of Newfoundland and Labrador, including St. John's, and they undertook to get back to us at some time in the not-too-distant future.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask him probably in another manner if they are going to continue to pay doctors $17 more an hour for doing the same work here in the City of St. John's? Does the government have some other contingency plan to enable doctors to stay in rural Newfoundland and practice there at this differential? Is there some other plan other than payment that the minister has proposed to fall back on? If not, we are going to see a further exodus of doctors from rural Newfoundland into urban areas.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: We have been trying to reverse that trend in the last while.

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I think that when Dr. Smith speaks on behalf of the physicians of Newfoundland and Labrador he will explain that the proposition put forward by the Opposition health critic is not totally correct, that there is not a blanket situation in Newfoundland and Labrador whereby emergency room physicians in other parts of the Province are all paid less than the ones in St. John's. There are a whole series of payment schemes for the physicians in Newfoundland and Labrador, and for the hon. member to suggest that every single emergency room physician outside the overpass is being paid less than the emergency room physicians inside the overpass, and that is the case all the time, he should check his facts and check his information; because that is the impression he is trying to give, that we have a particular problem in rural Newfoundland as opposed to St. John's.

The Medical Association takes this issue very seriously, we take it very seriously, and I am sure with the appropriate people representing the physicians, that being the Medical Association, and with the appropriate people speaking on behalf of the government and health care boards, we will come to a satisfactory resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Mines and Energy. A recent presentation on a redesign gravity based structure for White Rose demonstrated the cost of a GBS for White Rose would be $1 billion less than the GBS built at Hibernia.

Mr. Speaker, why does the government, through the Premier, persist in talking about concrete versus royalties for GBS and not recognize that the proposal for White Rose is an economic proposal that is designed to ensure gas production at a cost comparable to the FPSO and not a choice between royalties and concrete or jobs as the Premier seems to be putting it forth? Why will the minister and his government not recognize that this is a serious option?

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

MR. DICKS: None of what the hon. member said is true, Mr. Speaker. The government has not decided before hearing the evidence which is a preferred mode of production.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is quoted on CBC on March 31 as saying: concrete means jobs, but not much in the way of royalties.

Now the minister should know that this proposal for a GBS has nothing to do with jobs versus royalty. Why does not his government take seriously and either advance, promote, or even investigate, a strategy that would guarantee not only production at White Rose of oil but gas that could have the potential of creating many, many jobs onshore.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government does take it seriously. We take it so seriously, in fact, that we want to hear the evidence before we make up our minds and not do it vice versa. I say to the hon. member, the Premier has made some comments in recent days illustrating the effect that the gravity base at Hibernia has had on our royalties in this Province, and they would be substantially higher were it not for the gravity base system at Hibernia. The Premier has never said that a gravity base system at Terra Nova would cost more than an FPSO. That we do not know. We have dealt with both parties. We have met with North Atlantic Pipelines. We met with Husky on several occasions and we have told them both, we are going to listen to them both. We expect the hearings at the C-NOPB, that they will bring forward their evidence and that we will consider and we will make a final decision when it comes to us.

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

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

I presume these questions can be directed to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Mr. Speaker, we hear of oily sea birds washing upon the shores almost every month, and the reason that they do it in our waters is because the Americans have stiffer penalties and enforce those penalties. The American surveillance is greater, which is an insult to the people of this Province that the Canadian Coast Guard has not kept their surveillance strong here. What is government doing to eliminate this serious environmental concern off the shores of our Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, we are working constantly with the federal government to ensure that we have the level of protection and services that we need off the coast of our Province and we will continue doing so in the future.

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

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

We have asked this question in the House on a couple of occasions now. The first time we asked the question dates back two years. I would like to ask the minister more specifically what he has done? If the American government can deter ships' owners from pumping bilges in their waters, why haven't we been able to deter them from pumping their bilges in our waters? Our fines simply are not strong enough; the surveillance is not strong enough. What specifically has this government done in the past two years to eliminate this concern?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, we are constantly working with our federal counterparts to deal with problems like this. Some of the ships that are doing this sort of thing have been charged in the past and will continue to be charged. We will continue to work with our federal counterparts to ensure that we have the strongest enforcement possible around our shores.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Recently we had a court case out of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland where again it was found that our provincial government had violated the provisions of the Public Tender Act. When tens of millions of scarce taxpayers' dollars are repeatedly being misappropriated because ministers are failing to comply with the act, some sort of action or education is needed, I say, Mr. Speaker.

Teachers require in-service, medical professionals require in-service, so I ask why not the ministers of the Crown? I ask the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, as the minister entrusted with ensuring that the law is upheld, will he strongly recommend to the Premier and all his ministers that they participate in a compulsory course on the importance of and the provisions of the Public Tender Act in the Province, when it is applied, how to apply it, and what constitutes a breach of the act?

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I assume the hon. member is referring to the Johnson's Construction Limited case, for which the decision was rendered back in January of this year by Justice Welsh out of the Supreme Court in Corner Brook. That case in not finalized. A decision has been rendered but there still has to be another part of the proceeding to deal with the matter of damages that would be involved there.

I feel a little uncomfortable addressing a matter that is certainly not finalized, but the judgement itself has indeed been rendered. As in any case that goes to court, there are at least two sides to every story. In this particular case, decisions were made based upon proper advice. I think it is a complete insult to the ministers of the Crown, and certainly to the staff who are employed by the Department of Justice if they are involved in giving legal advice, to suggest that they are incompetent. I feel they are indeed very competent. They give advice based upon the facts which they are dealing with at a particular time, and what they feel is in the best interest of this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General, obviously you must be concerned about these decisions; and this most recent one is the last in a series of such decisions, I say to the minister. You are obviously concerned about it. You must be concerned about it, as the person who is entrusted with ensuring that the laws of this Province are upheld. I ask you, Minister, as the Attorney General for this Province: What are you going to do about it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, again, the hon. member can rest assured that we do certainly have very competent staff in the Department of Justice. They are all very experienced and well-trained solicitors.

With regards to the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Maybe if the Opposition would take an opportunity and look, there have been fifty-nine decisions that this government has been involved in since 1996. For the record, we have won the majority of those cases.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Were the hon. members interested in an answer or interested in chirping? I am not sure what -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

My questions are for the President of Treasury Board, or maybe the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. As we know, the Province is very quick to charge taxes to the municipalities but they are not very anxious to pay the taxes that municipalities would assess by way of property taxes.

Taxation of municipalities, I say to the minister, by the provincial government is counter-productive and a great limitation on the restrained financial resources of our towns and cities. We applaud the government on a decision to change the payroll tax but we regret that this tax still applies to our large municipalities, and payrolls in excess of $400,000.

Given the fact that this tax is very regressive, and given the financial constraints of all municipalities, particularly in view of the changes to the grants that come from the Province: Why has this government not abandoned completely its policy to impose the payroll tax on municipal governments in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, it is really a finance issue. I would like to point out to the hon. member that we have not relieved municipalities of the payroll tax for the same reason we have not relieved government of the payroll tax. The provincial government, all its institutions, pay the payroll tax, and the municipalities are treated the same way as every other government in the Province, including the federal government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

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

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Resource Committee has considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report approval, without amendment, of the Estimates of the Departments of Fisheries and Aquaculture; Forest Resources and Agrifoods; Tourism, Culture and Recreation; Industry, Trade and Technology; Mines and Energy; and Development and Rural Renewal.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port. I am sorry -

MR. JOYCE: Bay of Islands.

MR. SPEAKER: Bay of Islands, right.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I gave it up for ten years but I am here now.

Mr. Speaker, the Government Services Committee has considered the matters to them referred and have approved, without amendment, the Estimates of Expenditure of the following departments and agencies: Finance; Works, Services and Transportation; Government Services and Lands; Municipal and Provincial Affairs; Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, and the Public Service Commission.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time to thank all members on both sides of the House for their assistance and their diligence in these matters. I would like to thank all the ministers for their support and their social activities, except the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

Thank you.

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

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

I rise today to present yet another petition on behalf of the constituents in my district, and I will read the prayer again: To the honourable House of Assembly:

WHEREAS the deplorable and unfit condition of the La Scie Highway, Highway 414, makes travelling to and from school unsafe for our children; and

WHEREAS road conditions jeopardize the safety of the travelling public, betray a lack of commitment to rural areas of our Province;

THEREFORE we, the undersigned residents of La Scie and area, in the District of Baie Verte, do hereby petition the government to upgrade and pave Highway 414.

Mr. Speaker, this is another petition, of course, that I am continuing to present. What is interesting about this one is that, as I look down through the list, there are people from Corner Brook, Marystown, and all over the Province. I asked why these names were there, and was told that these were people who were visiting the area for some reason or another and had to travel that particular road, and they were glad to be able to sign a petition or help in any way they could. Those people saw firsthand what they had to travel over. Of course, the entire Province saw what they had to travel over recently when the cameras visited that area.

Mr. Speaker, it has gotten worse. It has deteriorated to a deplorable state, and the people are still protesting today. How long that will go on, I don't really know. Now they have decided that they will continue a protest to a point until they get some answers.

They have also been frustrated by conflicting reports of how this could be resolved. At the end of the day, whether there is enough money in the provincial budget or whether there has to be some compromise or some partnership with the federal government, the people in the district really don't care how it is done, whether it is through a partnership, an 80/20 slip, a 50/50 split. Whatever way it is done, provincially and federally, it has to be addressed.

Mr. Speaker, this problem will not go away. The people in the district have made sure that they are going to make their statement. They did not want - and this is the point I want to make today, that was made clear to me by the people who continue to call and write - the last thing they want to do is to be on the highway at 6:00 a.m. to protest road conditions. They are not looking for a luxury. They are not looking for an office tower or a ring road. They are looking for a basic, two-lane highway that they can put their children on in the mornings and feel safe about.

Of the many calls I have been getting lately, more and more today are from businesses in the area who are so frustrated that even over the last couple of days they have seen their business jeopardized because of the protests going on. Really, they are in a Catch-22 when they don't know if they should be protesting. They don't want to hurt their businesses, they certainly don't want to have their kids out of school, but they have to continue to do it because they are in a desperate situation and they are trying to send a message.

Mr. Speaker, although I don't support the fact that they have to keep children away from school, and I don't support the fact that we have to jeopardize businesses in the area, what else can they do? I am certainly hoping that they will have some kind of indication very, very soon, sooner rather than later, so they can get on with their lives and not have to be out at 6:00 a.m., as decent, hard-working people, to prove a point again and put a point forward. I am hoping that we can hear something very soon.

I totally support these people in whatever they have to do, even if it has to be this type of situation, which nobody really wants to see. I hope that, at the end of the day, we can say: Yes, it is going to be addressed and it is going to be addressed immediately. We are hoping to hear something very soon.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition, and the petition reads:

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

WHEREAS approximately 4 kilometers of the main road through the Community of Lethbridge was upgraded and paved in 1999; and

WHEREAS approximately 4 kilometers of the main road through Lethbridge remains in a deplorable condition; and

WHEREAS this section of the road has not been upgraded since it was paved approximately thirty years ago; and

WHEREAS this section of the road is in such terrible condition that vehicles are being damaged, including school buses serving three schools in the area, and schoolchildren are finding their daily trips over the road very difficult;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to complete the upgrading and paving of the main road through Lethbridge in this fiscal year.

Mr. Speaker, this is another in a series of petitions that the residents of Lethbridge have brought to me and asked me to present here in this House. They are not asking that all the roads in Lethbridge be paved and upgraded. There are several gravel roads there, and they understand that it is not a time when there is a lot of money on the go, or when government can go in and pave every road in a community. What they are asking for is the main road through the Community of Lethbridge, and the two approaches to the town, that those two areas be upgraded and paved. Last year half the work was done and the minister took time out to meet with the concerned residents there because we thought that we might get the road completed at that particular time. We thought it was an opportunity, with the contractor was in town, that we would look after the main road through Lethbridge and then we could move on and look after the need that was somewhere else in the district.

This road has continued to deteriorate. It is to the extent now that a lot of times vehicles driving the road drive just as much on the shoulder of the road as they do on the paved portion of the road. It was only yesterday, in fact, or a couple of days ago, that I went into a service station there to get gas and there was a gentleman pulled in with the two front tires of his car flat. I said: What do you have, a couple of flat tires? He said: Yes, boy, I had the air pounded out of them on the pavement out in Lethbridge. That is how bad this particular road is. While the department of highways go there and try to use some kind of a coal mix to fill it up, and make it, I suppose, a little more acceptable, if you would, the first time it rains then you have this filling coming out the potholes again and out on the side of the road.

They are not looking for sidewalks. They are not looking for double-lane highways. What they are asking for is for the main road through the community and the two approaches, which makes up for the approximately the four kilometers that is left, to be upgraded -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - and paved in this fiscal year. With the new school going in the area, Mr. Speaker, it will certainly mean that there will be much more traffic using this road. Their plea is real and I plead with the minister to look at those petitions and at this request. Hopefully we will see this road work done in this fiscal year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TULK: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Budget.

MR. TULK: Yes, we are going back to the Budget Speech today, aren't we? Yes, we are going back to the Budget Speech today.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1.

MR. TULK: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are back here, I guess, to the motion of non-confidence in a budget set out here that does not tell the real truth. When I was talking about that the other day I was asked - I think the Minister of Health is all ears there. I will get on health now while he is so attentive.

Estimates show that $31.7 more has been put into health care than last year and all their news releases say $130-odd million. I cannot figure out why the Estimates are not accurate. Why are they putting false information in the Estimates and why are they putting out false news releases to the contrary? It is the same thing the minister said in the House. Somebody is wrong. The Minister of Finance is wrong or the Minister of Health is wrong, because the two of them are saying different things. Both of them cannot be wrong, I suppose. It is quite possible, based on past performance, but I have a funny feeling that the people who prepared this document here, called Estimates 2000, provided what they perceived to be accurate information. If you look at Health and Community Services on page 206, it shows that the budget increased in this area from $1.212 billion to $1.244 billion. When you do the math it comes to $31.7 million more in health care. I cannot see where they are getting all those figures telling what extra is put into health care, because it is not accurate and we are not getting the right impression.

Then somebody tried to intervene and said: Tell us about the debt that occurred when the PCs were in power. I said sure, I will tell you about it. I told you it increased by 40 per cent. I was at this yesterday and I had to finish it. It has increased from 1989. The total public sector debt was $4.845 billion, and today it is forecast to be $6.672 billion. That is $1.8 billion on top of $4.8 billion. If you work that out, 40 per cent would be about $1.92 billion, a little over $1.8 billion. That is about a 39 per cent increase since 1989. A lot of this debt had been incurred prior to 1972. There was $1 billion of that debt up to 1972. The total accumulated debt was $1 billion and $35.93 million in 1972 when the PC Party came to power.

So you take $1 billion financed, because we had shown deficits every single year. This year it is $35 million, last year there was a deficit of $10 million or so it came in under, whatever it was. I think it ended up as $4.9 million when they threw all that money in, the big handout from Ottawa, and they spent nearly all that they could. They were left with another five. It shows that $1.8-some billion has gone on the debt since 1989, and another $1 billion was on it before 1972. You have almost $3 billion in debt incurred by the Liberal Administration of the Province. It is not accurate when people tell you: Look at what debt has been incurred.

Nobody like to incur debt. One of the big factors, and I was touching on this briefly the last day, is that the total public sector debt is only relevant - it is not necessarily the amount - to the economy and its ability to be able to generate growth, your ability to repay the debt, and how that progresses here. That is important on the gross domestic product of our Province. If we have a province that is showing positive growth by having a balanced budget or just slightly out of balance in a budget, that would not have such a serious negative impact then if it were to continuing to grow. Because really, the GDP to debt ratio are pertinent things. I was trying to find the exact figure here. I do not see it here in front of me. Anyway, the GDP has been increased over the last three years from close to $10 billion up to now. I am not sure of the exact figure, probably eleven point some billion dollars, in the range, whatever. It is in that ball park. Our debt has leveled off somewhat. The GDP to debt ratio certainly is improving now. The ratio has improved in the last while. I think that is the relevant factor there. If we are not getting economic growth and we are increasing debt, then it is a very serious problem.

Overall, I think we have to look at, and one of the areas I wanted to touch on a little in this amendment here, our health care system. Because I do not think our health care system is the most efficiently administered system not only in this Province, but in the entire country. I really think we need to go back and look at how we deliver health care right across this entire country.

Maclean's magazine made reference to 40 per cent of the money spent in health care in this country as inefficiently spent. I made the statement that based on our Province that is about $500 million. I am not prepared to say we waste $500 million out of $1.25 billion. In fact, I do not think there is that much waste at all. In fact, I am sure it will be in the tens - who knows what it is? - but I can identify dozens of areas of inefficiencies within the system.

Let's say you are going to buy a piece of equipment, even. Just take an ordinary piece of equipment that you need several hundred thousand dollars to buy; or multi-million dollar machinery, sophisticated diagnostic equipment. Look at MRIs or various other pieces of equipment used in nuclear medicine. Do you buy a piece of equipment - I will just use an example - a $120,000 or a $250,000 piece of equipment? Maybe the $250,000 piece of equipment might have double the life span. It might have very little maintenance cost and ongoing cost. You have to look at it in a business sense to say: Where can we get the best return on that equipment? On the cost of buying it and the overall maintenance contract over the life of that, how expensive is that compared to that?

I would hope that tenders don't just look at the cheapest piece of equipment you can buy. That is not necessarily the best return for the dollar that you are spending. Those type of investigative, closer looks at spending do not really show up in costs really to people that are using the system. They do not see those costs.

I will tell you, a lot of costs that people are seeing today in health care in this Province are increased transportation costs. We have sort of regionalized health care facilities, and with declining populations it has probably become necessary in many areas. You cannot have sophisticated equipment in every single nook and cranny of the Province. That is not practical.

We raised the issue back a couple of years ago. Granted, the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, the President of Treasury Board, spoke too on the very same issue here in the House on, for instance, dialysis. I think the minister said: It is more than plugging in a machine. I said: Yes, but it is not as complicated. We have home dialysis. We can haven that overseen by specialists in that area, and it can be done. It was done in Grand Falls-Windsor and now there is a waiting list even more than there is enough to utilize the machine. Then we pushed the issue and we said it is needed in other areas of the Province. I would not be able to say exactly how many other areas, but I did say there should certainly be one in maybe Clarenville, one on the Northern Peninsula, and possibly another region or two, such as Baie Verte and other areas. We saw, too, this year -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am very pleased with that. I think that is positive too.

The point I am getting to is the untold costs that people bear out of their pockets because facilities are not available in their area. Imagine the young man who has since passed away. He had a problem. Mr. Quigley (inaudible) had to come in here away from his young family three times a week, and could never get home. I spoke to people from St. Anthony. There was a man who left St. Anthony who was about eighty years old, who never lived out of there in his life, had to leave his home and come to St. John's and get a basement apartment. He was an eighty year old man out of rural Newfoundland who had never been accustomed to it had to do all that just to hang on and be able to carry on his life. Had that been in St. Anthony then, that person could have gone to the hospital for the few hours, gone back home, and could have the comfort of living at home.

People have been turned to social assistance. The Member for Bonavista South has a constituent who I visited in the hospital, and he related his story to me about a year ago. He was here on Budget Day and he was tickled pink with the announcement that it is now going to be in Clarenville. Because he doesn't have to pack up the pickup truck and the little fridge and all that and come in to a hospital on Sunday evening, and have to get out on Friday to make room for someone else; and come back again Sunday and drive all the way down for three-and-a-half hours.

Those type of things are the costs we don't see. The cost of coming in from Labrador is another area. I get numerous letters and calls from people all over the Province mentioning the personal costs. They are coming in here from Labrador to get treated in a facility because they can't get the service there. You are treated for it, and then you are told to find your way back to Labrador. It is not like calling a cab and going down the street, or calling a friend to come to pick you up. It costs several hundred dollars to get an aircraft, that is basically what it is, and you have to wait to get that rate. If you want to go right away you are paying closer to $2,000, or $1,500 to $1,600 in many parts. It is an extraordinary expense.

A young boy who had a body cast on was discharged and wouldn't be flown home. He had to take up three seats on a small plane, and they had a job to even get him on to the aircraft. The cost had to be picked up by the family. Granted, a group in Goose Bay, the Forces or somebody in the area, chipped in and they helped pay for those costs they didn't have to incur.

That is the cost of coming in for services. I read a letter this morning, dated earlier this month. (Inaudible) who spent nineteen years coming back and forth here for every type of diagnostic test for a particular ailment. I called her when I read the letter. It was something that struck home to people I have been talking to regularly.

People don't appreciate what people who live outside the City of St. John's have to go through in extra costs out of their pocket. Not just the medical costs. Coming in, maybe you don't have any family here. If you do, you have to try to move in with them, and that creates a great inconvenience too. You lose your own (inaudible) privacy. Sometimes you are here for weeks at a time. It is difficult. We have to look at moving services as much as possible out around the Province.

Another area, for instance, is audiology. That is just one other area. I haven't even really got to address this much at all. I think we need possibly a mobile audiology clinic that can go out into areas on a basis and access people in those areas. Can you imagine getting in your car in Port au Basques and driving in here for treatment? I have talked to people from Stephenville and all over the Province who come in here across the Province. One person I have spoken with earlier, and I must say we got a positive response - I went through the minister's office on this rather than make it a public issue - on a person who had to come from Corner Brook regularly to get a certain injection. It was done in hospital and it wasn't considered a hospital treatment which it should have been. Granted, eventually it saved hundreds of dollars if not thousands of dollars actually on a yearly basis for somebody who should have had that covered earlier.

Those type things are crucial to the individual. Their life has to go on and there are so many medical problems there that it affects their normal course of life. They don't see their young kids for days and weeks at a time because they have to come to an area where the services is available. Granted, in the City of St. John's, the Health Sciences Centre and the Janeway and that are tertiary care facilities that serve the whole Province. We don't expect to have those services everywhere because they would be spread so thin you wouldn't be able to combine your resources, but there are services we can bring out to the people of the Province, and they are ones we can make available.

While we have seen over 1,000 beds closed in this Province over the past ten years, pulled out of the system, down from over 3,000 to about 2,000, we have not developed community health care to the level and put the funding there to allow a sufficient number of community health nurses to go out and work on changing dressings. I know people who had gaping wounds and had to do dressings themselves, and put ice-packs and things like that on their own on weekends and that because there was no one available to do it.

My colleague for St. John's South raised an issue, too, on home IVs. That one got resolved. A community health nurse now can go in and do these. That is an important part, really, to develop the community resources and so on there that eases the burden on institutional care because care in acute care facilities is expensive. It is in the vicinity - I think, it was, at last count when I looked - of $800 a day at the Health Sciences. At one time it was, up to two years ago anyway. I think it was around $600 a day or so at St. Clare's and the Grace. That was the cost per person per day, and that is pretty expensive.

There are inefficiencies in the system. One person from Labrador was flown in last month and unfortunately -

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Just leave for one minute to finish up?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Just one minute.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: I just wanted to mention this. One person had to be flown in by air ambulance from Labrador to come in here to the City of St. John's, and unfortunately the person has since passed away. The person was here for two weeks on a procedure. A part had to be brought in to help feed that person, a tube. They brought it in from the mainland.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) a body part?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, a part had to be brought in, a feeding tube for this person who was very seriously ill. The person was here two weeks and the part hadn't arrived then. If a part broke down on a machine in a business, in your operation, your factory - I happened to spend twenty years in business - you didn't wait two weeks to get it in because your profits for the year could be gone, if it is during a busy period. You have to look at the mechanics of having something available. Why tie up a bed in a critical care facility or in the City of St. John's if the person wasn't going to get the procedure done? They could have been in the hospital in, we will say, Labrador City or wherever without incurring those higher costs. When it is ready, have the person brought in and the service provided. Those types of things are costing the system money in the long term and we need to be looking at those types of efficiencies.

I won't have time to elaborate on them all here in my time today, but I certainly thank you for the extra minute to clue up.

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

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

I have just a few comments on the Budget. It is interesting to note that it was labeled a health care budget. The Budget received different types of reviews, I say to the Speaker. Some people praised the budget. The business community praised the budget because of the elimination of the payroll tax to a higher level. There were other people in the health care industry who condemned this health care budget, saying it didn't do enough for the health care industry. There were others in the social sectors who condemned the budget as well. There were many people who condemned the budget. However, it was a good budget for the business community. It should have been labeled the business community budget not the health care budget.

Government are speaking out of both sides of their mouth. The Premier has said on record throughout the country, in his own campaign, that this Province is performing well, that he has done a great job as Premier of this Province, that he is somebody that can be trusted on the national level. They say that the GDP in this Province is leading the country. It led the country last year, it is leading the country again this year. The economy is growing faster than it is in many other provinces.

Exports have grown. The Minister of Industry just this week mentioned to us that exports have grown by some 13 per cent in this Province. The manufacturing industry has grown. Manufacturers are manufacturing more. The fishing industry is now more valuable than it has been for years. The oil industry is growing. In fact, we are being told by the Premier that very soon this Province will be producing approximately 40 per cent of the nation's light crude. Yet there is not enough money for health care.

The government has gone to Ottawa with hat in hand again, begging Ottawa for more money, for more social transfers. This government has condemned Ottawa for not providing enough health care money to this Province, and that in itself is ironic, because the Premier in 1995 was part of the federal Cabinet, was in fact this Province's representative in Cabinet, when there were massive cuts made to the health and social transfers to this Province. Now we see the same Premier taking his banner and riding across the country, back and forth, promoting himself as the health care savior of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, people are complaining in this Province about a number of issues through the health care system. They are complaining about the dialysis services offered by the Province. We heard the people from the health care boards condemning this year's Budget because it did not provide enough for essential services. All we saw in this Province in this Budget really was enough money to pay off some of the debts of the health care boards throughout the Province.

Government has put a freeze on beds and even children's cribs for newborn children, and that freeze has still not yet been lifted. Brand new children, infants, coming home from the hospital are expected to sleep in the bed with their parents. There are no cribs available. Yet, this was a health and social Budget. This Budget had a social conscience. According to who? That is the question: According to who?

Mr. Speaker, people in the Province are complaining about school reorganization. We hear complaints on a regular daily basis from people down in Milltown, St. Alban's area, from people out in Arnold's Cove area, from people throughout many areas of the Province, and they complain about how government are going about school reorganization. They complain that government promised during the referendum that money saved would be redirected back into the education system to improve education at the classroom level; that people would be going to neighbourhood schools; that children who lived next door to each other - the great thing that was being shouted loud and clear by the Premier - that the children who lived next door to each other and played with each other in their gardens should be able to go to school with each other in neighbourhood schools. Yet, we hear in many parts of the Province that the neighbourhood schools are disappearing and the children are, in fact, being bused further than they had been bused before.

We hear, here in St. John's, that they are removing the high school system from the West End of St. John's. We hear in this city that the children in the West End of the city who have had a high school for decades now have to give up that high school.

Mr. Speaker, there is not enough money being spent on the upkeep of schools and we hear that shouted loud and clear by the people who are doing the upkeep, the people who are operating within the school system, that there is not enough money to do the upkeep within schools. We hear of air quality problems within schools. We hear of problems with curriculum development and the professional development of teachers.

Mr. Speaker, we have to wonder, if this Province is performing so well, if the Province is leading the country in economic growth, if the Province is leading the country in GDP growth, why is it that the Province is cutting back in some essential areas? Why is it that we hear that children are not provided beds, that infants coming home from hospitals are not provided with cribs? These are some of the questions that remain to be answered by this year's Budget: Why the Premier can go across this country and proclaim that he is the savior of Newfoundland and, in fact, could be the savior of Canada; why this Premier can go across the country wearing his Captain Canada uniform, waving his health care banner, when this was supposed to be the health care Budget and we find out that it is not; far from that. It falls far short of being a health care Budget.

When we were told that this Province would see a better tomorrow over four years ago - and while we see the GDP growing in the Province, while we see offshore oil production growing, what is the Premier's claim to fame on that? That was put in place long before this Premier came back to the Province; and it is the offshore oil, I say, that is creating the economic growth in this Province, for the most part. It is the offshore oil industry that is creating the growth in the GDP in this Province, for the most part. It is certainly not the deal that the Premier has worked out on Voisey's Bay, because there is no deal on Voisey's Bay.

In 1996, he campaigned that he was the great negotiator. He was going to put a deal together on Voisey's Bay. In 1999, over a year ago, we heard him campaign on the same promise, that he was the best one to negotiate a deal on Voisey's Bay. He was the best one to negotiate a deal on the Lower Churchill. Those are the same things we heard him say in 1996.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to make a prediction. I am going to predict that the great negotiator is not going to be leading the Liberal Party in the next provincial election, because the great negotiator has not delivered. He has not delivered on Voisey's Bay, he has not delivered on the Lower Churchill, and he is not going to deliver on those items before the next provincial election. Instead, he is going to dress up as the saviour of the health care system of Canada and run off to promote himself as that saviour.

He did the same thing with the Estai. We can all remember the Estai. He said he was going to be the saviour of our offshore fishing. He was going to prevent overfishing from foreign nations. Well, there is just as much overfishing by foreign nations today as there was in 1995 when he held a turbot up in New York. When he fired a shot across the bow of the Estai and hauled them in to St. John's Harbour, and took their catch and took their nets, and at the same time treated the crew of that ship probably better than they have ever been treated before - he put them up at the hotel. They had the finest kind of accommodations and the finest kind of meals while their ship was in port. What did we see then? We saw him give back the equipment, give back the gear. They received their nets back. They even took their fish back and sailed off back to Spain. The next thing you know, they are suing Canada. We have to ask the question: What has this Premier done for this Province? That is a question without an answer.

MR. ANDERSEN: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Now, Wally, don't get like that now. Honest to God, Wally. Go back to sleep now. Your seat might be safe.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Wally, I say this to you: If this Premier has done anything good, it has been for your district. Your district is probably the only one that has received major benefits from this Premier. So I can see how you are praising him. I understand why you are praising him. I can certainly appreciate where you are coming from, but I can say this: What did this Premier do for the people of this Province? Nothing. That is the answer to that question.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that your final answer?

MR. T. OSBORNE: That is my final answer.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: I have lots of those, I can tell you that. Over 4,000 of my friends put me here. I can tell you one thing -

AN HON. MEMBER: Blind trust.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Is certainly isn't. It might have been blind trust in 1996, but they knew exactly what they were getting in 1999. They were getting a member who worked for them, a member who delivered on his promises, a member who is willing to speak out for them; not somebody who was willing to take a flag and run around saying that I was the savior of Newfoundland, that I was going to negotiate a deal on Voisey's Bay, that I was going to negotiate a deal on the Lower Churchill, and not deliver.

I certainly would not tell the people of Marystown that I was going to save that community by giving away their shipyard for $1. One hundred and fifty million dollars worth of assets, he gave away for a $1, and he didn't even have the guts to put in place a $5 million fine when they did not deliver on their employment promises. They did not even audit the company to ensure that the employment statistics that they were providing the government were accurate. Now we have more layoffs taking place in Marystown. We see Friede Goldman signing a Memorandum of Understanding with a Brazilian shipyard which is going to take even more work away from our shipyard. He stood up in 1996 on a steel plate and told the people of Marystown that they could drop him from that steel plate into the ocean if he did not deliver on those promises.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that is the reason we have not seen this Premier in this House in over a week, because he is afraid the people of Marystown are going to come in and take him and bind him in the steel plate and throw him out with the promises on the Estai and the promises on the Lower Churchill.

Mr. Speaker, I am sick of what that Premier has had to say. I am sick of his empty promises. I am so sick that I don't even know if I can speak about it any more. I am going to let one of my colleagues here get up and say something, because I am sick and tired of even talking about his broken promises.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker..

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I guess the news and the attitude around the Province is just too much for the Member for St. John's South and the Member for Ferryland.

I had the chance, a couple of weeks ago, to address The Rotary Club in Grand Falls-Windsor. The feeling out there in this Province today did not happen overnight. Four years ago, when this government came to power, we had a lot of work to do. We had to deal with a $350 million deficit. For the first time since Confederation, we have been delivering balanced budgets here in this Province. What does that mean to the economy of the Province? That means that there is a great deal of stability in our public sector right now.

When you look at the employment figures around the Province, and I will zero in on what Peter Fenwick said. He indicated that the "central tiger" in Central Newfoundland were the group to look at. The Member for Windsor-Springdale should be paying attention right now, because he would be able to get some important information here that he can bring back and tell the people from his district.

The region in Central Newfoundland, so-called the "central tiger", last year alone had an increase in employment of 3,000 people. Do you know what has happened over the past four years? The people of this Province have developed what we call a can-do attitude. All you want to do is go out around the Province and have a look, see what people are doing. People are remodeling their homes, they are buying cars, they are investing in the big ticket items.

A couple of weeks ago when I talked to The Rotary Club, there was a business person in the audience who said - this particular person had been contacting me for three years in succession, saying: Why don't you remove that horrible payroll tax? It is such a deterrent. I want to hire more people and I cannot do it because of the payroll tax.

Of course, we were in no position to do that. We gradually worked up to where we are today, and with the recent Budget Speech there are over 1,300 small companies that are benefitting from the floor of $400,000 for payroll tax.

In the Throne Speech that was delivered a short time ago in March, the plan was outlined where we should be going with our economy. People who are out there investing in this Province will tell you that the two biggest indicators of how our economy is doing is in new housing starts and new car sales.

I happened to be talking to a business person recently who told me that they cannot keep up with new car sales. The trend, of course, in new car sales recently is to lease. If you look around the Province, and particularly the Member for Baie Verte who is driving home almost every weekend, whenever he is driving home he will tell you, apart from the road in La Scie, most of the cars on the highway are in good condition, so that tells you a lot about our economy.

Not only that, look at the new housing starts. In a small community like Grand Falls-Windsor - not small, but urban by nature - look at the growth they have had in new commercial building starts over the past few years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is that?

MS THISTLE: Grand Falls-Windsor. The area known as Hardy Avenue is almost completely built up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: And what did you see?

AN HON. MEMBER: All built up.

MS THISTLE: All built up. That is an indication of people having confidence in the economy and confidence in new investments. You see that all the time. In fact, Grand Falls-Windsor has become a distribution point where companies all over this Province have set up because it is so accessible. They can drive right in off the Trans-Canada, load and unload, and drive out again without any hassle.

I want to tell you about tourism; tourism on the Northern Peninsula this summer. It is going to be a record year. Tourism has been so for the past three years. Cabot 500 has done, I think, for this Province, what we could never have purchased through advertising. We would never have had a budget to offset it. Cabot 500 set the stage for us and, of course, next year with Soiree `99 and this year the Vikings! 1000 Years, and Marconi next year. I think what we have to do as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in this Province is look at creating a theme every year that we can build our tourism on, and keep building, because the clientele we will attract this year on the Viking Millennium is going to be different than the ones we will attract next year for the Marconi. We have a great number of European visitors who have already given us an early indication that they would like to come next year and take part in our Marconi celebrations. So for those history buffs out there, get thinking. All we need to do is come with another theme after Marconi and build on those.

I was talking to a bed and breakfast operator in Bishop Falls last year who was making a presentation to our Jobs and Growth Consultation as we were traveling the Province. What struck me the most when I listened to that person was that he had been in business for two years and actually last year he had to turn away more people from his establishment than he actually rented a room to in the previous year. That tells you how we are doing with tourism in this Province.

The tourism potential is unlimited. We are seeing a high calibre of bed and breakfast establishments opening up throughout the Province, and the Northern Peninsula, even last year, with just the Soiree '99 that was happening, it was almost impossible to get a room. I think the plan they have out for this year, actually allowing visitors to come into private homes, will probably take up the necessary extra rooms that they need.

I want to tell you what government has done for health care in this Province. Health care is our highest priority in this Province and I know that the members opposite, and particularly the Member for Ferryland, was talking today about dialysis. I appreciated his comments because we recognize, too, that we needed to do something about dialysis both in Clarenville and St. Anthony. Of course, we would like to have the ability to even put in more dialysis units throughout the Province, but it is based on our fiscal ability and spreading our budget is always quite a challenge.

We have a large number of facilities now that are under construction. We have fourteen major construction projects in health care throughout the Province. We have three that are about to open this year: the new Janeway Children's Health and Rehabilitation Centre, which we are looking forward to, the health centre in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and of course the Harbour Breton Health Centre. What a beautiful hospital. I'm sure the Minister of Health would agree with me that the facilities now under construction throughout this Province are going to take care of the need that is out there.

We have a $30 million contingency fund put aside for any unforeseen circumstances that might come up over the next year. I guess what is happening around this Province means that many of the people, particularly the members opposite, cannot stand the good news. All the economic forecasters around the country are predicting we will lead the growth in the economy of the country. I know that is hard for the members opposite to accept, and they will be doing their best to squash any of this good news. However, all of this good news changes the attitude of any possible investor out there that might want to invest in this Province and in communities all over.

We are seeing that, in fact, in Grand Falls-Windsor. There is a new technology company out there called EXCITE. They moved into Grand Falls-Windsor approximately eighteen months ago. They started out with a staff of five people and now they have fifty-five people, and the fifty-five people are not from Grand Falls-Windsor. They are from all over the Province. They are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that have left home, realized that there was an employment opportunity for them in this Province, and they have returned back home. In fact, I had the opportunity to visit that location about three weeks ago, and it was just a wonderful experience to move around amongst the employees and talk to each one individually, just to see the smile on their faces and the excitement that was within their eyes just knowing that they had come home to make a new start in their home province and there was employment here for them.

I will tell you another thing that is happening with our health care professionals. I attended a retirement party for a dentist in Grand Falls-Windsor about a week ago. It was so heartening to be introduced to two young dentists, two Newfoundlanders, who had come back home to set up a dental clinic within the town of Grand Falls-Windsor. Apart from that, we now have three doctors who are original residents of Grand Falls-Windsor who have come back to Grand Falls-Windsor to settle into the medical profession in Grand Falls-Windsor. Of course, that brings with them a bit of a stability for our board because these are young people, and of course no doubt they will have young families. Once young families get attached to a community it is highly unlikely that the parents, the professionals, will want to move out. I think people are seeing the benefits that are in towns and communities right throughout this Province, and wanting to come back and make a life for themselves and their families.

This government has committed $54 million into new equipment over the next three years. I am familiar with a lot of this equipment in some of the facilities that are in my district, and districts all over this Province. It is well needed equipment that will enhance the lives of patients and of course make life easier for the staff who will be operating that equipment.

Look at the money that is put back into education.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: What I am trying to say here today is that this is a time in our Province that we have to look around and also embrace what is happening here, be part of the positive attitude that is happening here. People in this Province are investing heavily in the Province and people from outside the Province see the benefits that are now springing on the horizon. We have to keep this momentum going and we have to believe in this Province because the attitude that is out there today is something that wasn't there four years ago, and in 1992 when our cod fishery collapsed. We have now reached a place where the rest of the world is looking at us.

I would say to members opposite, don't squash the feeling that's out there today. Build on what is out there today and we will all benefit from the good feeling.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I just spoke to the Opposition House Leader and by leave he has agreed to let me give several notices of motion so that I can do first reading either tomorrow or Thursday, and then give the members of the House their bedtime reading for Easter so that when they come back after Easter they will be well prepared to do legislation. As always, he has agreed to let me give the notice of bills. What I would like to do is just read a number of them into the record on behalf of various ministers.

I give notice, on behalf of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Pippy Park Commission Act."

I give notice, on behalf of the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following bills entitled, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act" (Bill 10), "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999" (Bill 17), "An Act To Amend The Municipal Affairs Act" (Bill 18), and "An Act To Amend The St. John's Assessment Act."

I give notice, on behalf of the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands, that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following bills, entitled, "An Act Respecting The Tenancies Of Residential Premises," and "An Act To Amend The Lands Act." (Bill 15).

I give notice, on behalf of the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour, that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill, entitled, "An Act Respecting Environmental Assessment." (Bill 12).

I give notice, on behalf of the hon. the Minister of Finance, that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill, entitled, "An Act To Amend The Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957." (Bill 13).

I give notice, on behalf of the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services, that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following bills, entitled, "An Act To Amend The Child, Youth And Family Services Act" ( Bill 6), "An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Act, 1994" (Bill 7), and "An Act To Amend The Psychologist Act." (Bill 8).

I give notice, on behalf of the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy, that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill, entitled, "An Act To Amend The Mineral Act." (Bill 14).

Mr. Speaker, I give notice, on behalf of the hon. the Minister of Justice, that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting The Enforcement Of Canadian Judgements." (Bill 16).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: There are sixteen, I believe. I think there are about four or five more that are not yet completed with Cabinet.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to stand and make a few comments on the Budget and to partake in the Budget debate. I listened with interest as the President of Treasury Board talked about the glowing economy of Newfoundland and Labrador, and how easy it should be for all people on both sides of the House and throughout the Province to be glowing, to be up and announcing from the hilltops what a great Province we have and what a great economy we have, and that everybody is working, everybody is happy, and everybody is enjoying the good life. Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ because I represent a district of the Province that listened with interest back in 1996 as the Premier of the Province travelled throughout the Province on an election campaign and talked about a better tomorrow. I remember back when people bought into the dream. When I listened to the President of Treasury Board today, I sat in my chair and said to myself: Where is that better tomorrow?

I am going to take a few examples, if I could, of things that are happening in the Province. I would like to ask the President of Treasury Board: Does she think, or does this government think there is a better tomorrow happening in this Province in health care? I will take one issue at a time.

We have, I guess, one of the most serious situations that has ever encompassed this Province happening today in our health care system. It is hard to give a glowing report. It is hard to be up in your seat thinking that everything is wonderful when we have doctors, nurses, LPNs, all kinds of people who are involved in the health care system in the Province, who are stressed to the limit. I say that from experience, from talking to these people, listening to these people in my own district and throughout the Province. It is hard to think that they are enjoying a better tomorrow.

When you walk into any hospital in this Province, any health care centre in this Province, and you find stressed out, lowly paid people who are working in the health care system who are stressed to the limit because there are not enough bodies there, there are not enough people there to provide the services. Thank God we have people in the system today who are giving 150 per cent in order to be able to provide the services that people need in our health care centers throughout the Province today. Thank God we have these people who are dedicated to providing the services they were trained to do. It boggles the mind how we think that could be a thing to be glowing about, when we walk into the Health Sciences Complex.

I happened to attend the health care forum at the Health Sciences Complex last night, and listened to speaker after speaker talk about concerns and issues throughout the health care system. I can guarantee you that there are many people in this Province who don't believe they are living in a better tomorrow, when it comes to the health care system in this Province.

I would like to talk about education for a minute. Education is another very vital issue in our Province, a very vital aspect of the Province. I ask: Are people in the education field, where we have large classes, a large pupil ratio, where we have a number of teachers who have been laid off or taken out of the system, where we have cutbacks in funding to these schools, where we have buildings that are falling down around students, where we have air quality problems, where roofs are leaking, and there are many concerns, are these people in the education field in this Province enjoying a better tomorrow? Are they enjoying a better tomorrow, I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands? No, I am willing to bet they are not; because I hear the concerns of people from Laval High School in my own district, from St. Anne's Academy, from Fatima Academy in St. Bride's, from St. Catherine's Academy and Dunne Memorial Academy in St. Mary's. All these schools need extra funding. There are cuts in programs, programs have been eliminated. Then we ask ourselves: Are the people in the education field in this Province enjoying a better tomorrow? I say not.

Then we look at the transportation issue. Yesterday and throughout the news media over the past couple of days the people up in La Scie district - which is only a touch or a small example of the transportation problems throughout this Province.

I have the same problem in my own district, roads that have been put in place twenty-five or thirty years ago that need major work done. The people who are involved in this process, the people who are involved in providing proper transportation in this Province - I ask, are they enjoying a better tomorrow? Are the people who are driving over the highways and the byways in this Province enjoying a better tomorrow? Again, I beg to differ with the President of Treasury Board that everything is so glowing, as one would think.

Mr. Speaker, we talk about our students - the people involved in post secondary education in the Province with the loans, when they are lucky enough to be able to finish their degrees and they come out owing a fortune. For the past ten years now we have listened to a government that has said, time and time again, that they are going to do something to assist these people who are coming out of the schools in this Province with their loans. What have we heard in ten years? Nothing from the other side of this House to help alleviate the concerns of parents, to alleviate the concerns of students, and to alleviate the concerns of potential employees in this Province who can contribute to society in a meaningful way after spending years training in whatever field they have chosen in their life. I ask: Are they enjoying a better tomorrow? I think not.

We talk about the many people who have been forced on social assistance in this Province due to changes in the EI system over the past several years. Over $500 million has been taken out of the Newfoundland economy over the past couple of years from changes in the EI system. Many people have been forced for the first time in their lives to go on social assistance. Along with being very tough on the individual themselves, it creates an atmosphere out in the Province that certainly is not conducive to what we hear and what has been preached from the other side of the House.

I ask here today, are the people who work with the social recipients in this Province enjoying a better tomorrow? The people who have to go out and listen to the stories and to witness the conditions these people have been forced to live under - the family, the children of the family that has been forced on social assistance. I ask the President of Treasury Board: Are these people enjoying a better tomorrow?

When we look back over the last five or six years, 40,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have left this Province and gone elsewhere looking for work; 40,000 people who have had no choice whatsoever only to pack a suitcase. Instead of packing fish in this Province now they are packing their suitcases. We have 40,000 people who have left this Province over the past four or five years who have gone elsewhere looking for work. I ask the simple question once again: Are they enjoying a better tomorrow? Maybe some of them have. Maybe some of them have lucked out and managed to get a job elsewhere in some other part of the country and are enjoying a better tomorrow in that regard.

I ask, are the seniors of this Province - I know several in my own district. The cost of drugs and medication for these people, an aging population in this Province now, we have people who cannot avail of proper medical services because they live in a certain part of the Province versus if they lived in an urban part of Newfoundland and Labrador. These people cannot avail of the services that should be theirs. I have concerns in my own district down in St. Mary's with a doctor situation. We had a pharmacy that closed up at the head of St. Mary's Bay, up in the St. Catherine's area. These are all major important issues that need to be addressed and certainly issues that concern our seniors.

So then I ask: Are the seniors of this Province enjoying a better tomorrow? I beg to differ. One issue that is very important to the seniors of the Province is an issue of a program that was announced several years ago and was re-announced by the Minister of Municipal Affairs a few years ago, and it has to do with the RRRAP. I get almost every day of the week three to four calls from people who are looking for the RRRAP. Especially seniors, who were left with the impression by a news release a couple of years ago that every senior in this Province could avail of $5,000 to do some repairs to their homes. That was not the case. It was a blatant misrepresentation of the facts in regards to what the people really were allowed to do. This $5,000 was not there for all seniors to partake of, even though the impression was left with the people and the seniors of the Province that this was the case.

I think it is time that we brought in a program that was earmarked for seniors' housing, that was earmarked to address some of the concerns that seniors have. I hope over the next little while we can see that addressed in the House with some type of agreement with the federal government. Definitely, the RRRAP that is in place today is not addressing the needs or the concerns of the people in my district, and it is definitely not addressing the concerns of the seniors in my district which are most important in this regard.

When we look back and hear people talk about the glowing report and how great the Newfoundland economy is doing, and we have to address some of these concerns, we have to ask in all honesty: Is this the better tomorrow that was promised to us a few years ago?

The Minister of Development and Rural Renewal has gone outside, but we talk about the employment rate and how many jobs are being created in the Province, and indeed the concerns we have in relation to the opportunities within the Province. Sure, we have in some regards an economy that is moving in the Avalon region, especially in the St. John's area, that has a lot to do - and not only a lot to do, but I guess everything to do - with the oil and gas industry. I'm very pleased to see that this industry is moving ahead in the Province, but at the same time we have to take into consideration that it is not providing jobs in many parts of the Province. I refer to the editorial today in The Telegram where the unemployment rate on the South Coast of this Province has reached 37.6 per cent, a far cry from the thousands of jobs that people think are happening in this Province.

We have a major problem in parts of rural Newfoundland that are not being addressed and we need to have them addressed. Certainly the economic growth that is happening in this Province is happening in most cases in St. John's and the urban areas. Out on the West Coast, around the Corner Brook area, I think the same thing is happening in some cases, but we have an awful problem between Notre Dame and Bonavista Bay. The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate, according to Statistics Canada, has risen to 22.5 per cent. These are staggering numbers that are not a very good reflection of what the people opposite would try to persuade us that we are going through in the Province.

The Avalon and the West Coast saw slight drops in their unemployment rate but the rest of the Province saw increases, Mr. Speaker, and indeed it is something that needs to be addressed. It needs to be addressed soon because what we have once again in rural Newfoundland is massive out-migration continuing, because people are finding it very difficult to work in the areas and indeed to have an opportunity to raise their families. I come from a community that at one time had almost 700 people, and now it has dipped below 500 in the community of St. Bride's.

There are many concerns out there and I touched on a few here, and none so important as the fishing industry. Most of the communities I represent depend 100 per cent, or pretty close to it, on the fishing industry, and certainly to hear possibly - the talk now is that the crab quotas will be announced tomorrow. They are definitely going to have an impact if any reduction takes place. They are definitely going to have an impact on many communities and many families in my district. Just in the past couple of weeks we saw a decrease in the cod quotas for 3PS this summer. It went from 30,000 tonnes down to 20,000 tonnes. In some cases, especially for small boat fishermen, these cuts could be drastic. It could drive them out of business. Many people depend on their cod and crab quotas. It is about the only income they will have all year. Trying to feed in some cases two and three families from these boats for the entire year is a very difficult situation. Indeed, the small boat fishermen and the concerns of small boat fishermen need to be addressed.

The inshore fishery in this Province did not destroy the fishing industry. It is the uncontrolled, out of hand, offshore fishery that we allowed to destroy our fishery resource. The problem is that because of that we have a situation where the inshore fishery and the smaller communities are paying a very political price for that. It is unfortunate, because we have many people who try to put the blame on the inshore fishery, but I stress again, in my view, and in the view of many people I represent, the inshore fishery did not destroy the fishing industry of this Province. I think that needs to be addressed and certainly needs to be taken into consideration when any decisions are made.

We talk about transportation and we talk about the need for highway improvement in this Province. I certainly need some dollars and some improvements in my district in transportation. In 1989, the last year of the Peckford administration, there was $40 million spent from provincial coffers on roads in this Province. At that time, the economy was pretty tough.

MR. McLEAN: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: No it wasn't, I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands. No, it was spread around evenly and fairly, I say to the minister. Everywhere except Port de Grave got some money in 1989.

Mr. Speaker, $40 million was spent in 1989 on the provincial roads program, supposedly under a time when we were financially restrained and things were not as plentiful as they are today in regards to financial resources. Now we have a government that stands in its place and talks about how great the economy is, how much money is rolling into the Province, how much money is rolling into the coffers of the Province, and we go from spending $40 million in 1989 on the roads to $17 million in 2000. If things are improving on one side of the ledger you would think they would be improving on the other side of the ledger, but that is not the case. We have gone from $40 million in 1989 to $17 million in 2000. You don't have to be a mathematician or a scientist to figure out that that is a decrease of $23 million from the provincial roads program.

We sit down and hear then the government stand in its place and say: We are announcing this year the largest road program in the history of the Province. Then we have to sit down and say: If we have gone from $40 million down to $17 million, how do we announce the largest program for transportation in the history of the Province? How do we do that? We go back to the federal and provincial roads programs, the Roads for Rail program, the trunk roads programs, that were put in place when there was a PC Administration. They were put in place when there was a PC Administration in Ottawa headed up from this Province by John Crosbie. Here we have a PC Administration six years ago that were alive and well in Ottawa at the time that signed a federal-provincial agreement to provide hundreds of millions of dollars to the transportation initiatives in this Province. This provincial government can take the opportunity of still spending that money; after ten years they are still spending Crosbie's money on roads in this Province. Then we look at what the provincial government themselves have put into it and we come up with $17 million for this year. I say it is a shame on this government, it is a shame on the Minister of Transportation, it is a shame on the Minister of Finance, that we can still only find $17 million to spend on roads in this Province when there is such a need for them.

Yesterday we heard conflicting reports from the MP out on the West Coast, Mr. Gerry Byrne, to our own Minister of Transportation. Mr. Byrne said that if they came up with $17 million he could match the funds. Now according to our own minister that is not the case, but that creates an immense amount of confusion. It creates an immense amount of confusion to the people of the Province and, indeed, the people who are out there looking for much needed improvements to the roads in their districts. Really, we have to try to find out - and the Member for Baie Verte asked some questions here yesterday in the House, trying to find out - exactly what is going on, trying to find out exactly who is telling the truth, because really there is a difference of opinion. It is not only a difference of opinion, when you get an MP who goes in the media and says that the provincial government, all they have to do is ask and they will be provided with the money. All they have to do is ask. I heard it myself. I say to the Member for Fog, I heard it myself. He said that all you have to do is ask. That is the MP, sitting shoulder to shoulder with the Finance Minister of Canada. He is not sitting down with some fellow out on the side of the road. He is sitting down with the Finance Minister of Canada and, shoulder to shoulder, says: all they have to do is ask.

Then, we find out that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation in the Province has not asked yet. He hasn't asked yet, according to what the MP for the West Coast says, Mr. Byrne. He said that all you have to do is ask and you will receive.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: By leave, if I could, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, it is not very tough to pick up the phone and call the MP, Gerry Byrne, call the Minister of Finance in Ottawa, and ask for a few dollars for the roads in this Province.

If there is a misunderstanding there, if there is a misrepresentation of the facts, if there is someone who doesn't understand what the other is doing, if the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, all of these different clichés that you could use, I would like to ask that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation get on the phone, call MP Gerry Byrne and get the story straight so the people on the Baie Vert Peninsula, the people in the District of Placentia & St. Mary's, the people down on the South Coast, the people who are looking for road improvements, highway improvements in the Province, are not listening to Gerry Byrne on TV saying that all they have to do is ask. On the other hand, the local Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is saying: It is no good to ask; there is no money there. Someone has their signals mixed up there.

We have many concerns. That is just one of the concerns. We have the local minister, the present Minister of Health and Community Services, making comments with regard to the federal government going to put more money into health care in the Province.

I found a little bit of information that I thought might be interesting. In 1994-1995, the Province of Newfoundland received $425 million in cash transfers for health and post-secondary education. In this year's federal budget it will receive $271 million. Twenty years ago, federal transfers paid for 50 per cent of Newfoundland's health care costs. Today, the federal government pays for less than 15 per cent. It sounds like we have a money crunch problem in health care in this Province and in this country.

We have to ask the members opposite, and indeed the Minister of Health and Community Services, to get on the bandwagon, get up to Ottawa and get them to spend more money. We need more money put into health care.

Mr. Speaker, Paul Martin's $2.5 billion gesture would be great if the Liberals had not already gutted the system over the past five years. The federal government has gutted the health care system in the Province.

I heard the Minister of Health and Community Services the other day, talking to some group in the Province, say: As soon as the federal government gives us money, we will straighten things up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's leave has been withdrawn.

MR. MANNING: You cannot be passing the buck, I say to the Minister of Health. It is time that you stood up in your place and did what is right for the people of the Province in regard to health care. Don't be passing the buck to Ottawa, saying it is Ottawa's problem; as soon as they give us money we will straighten it up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: You have responsibility for the people of this Province, and you should take your responsibility more seriously!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I like listening to the Opposition, I do, but there comes a time when I can't take it any more, and I can't take it any more.

If you want to find out what is wrong with the world, all you have to do is listen to the other side. If you want to find out what is wrong with the whole world, if you want to find out what the government is doing wrong, and what everybody else is doing wrong, all you have to do is listen to the other side.

I was listening to the Member for St. John's South about half an hour ago, and it was the most depressing speech I have heard since I have been in the House of Assembly, the most depressing speech I have ever heard. He talked about our Premier, Mr. Speaker, in a way that I have never heard, and we are not going to stand for it in this House. I am not going to stand for it, Mr. Speaker. Not going to stand for it!

He talked about the Estai incident, Mr. Speaker, when our Premier was the federal Minister of Fisheries.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Estai?

MR. K. AYLWARD: The Estai. The Member for St. John's South over there trying to describe a situation that he knew nothing about and still knows nothing about. Here he was trying to describe a situation where our Premier, who used to be the federal Minster of Fisheries, was able to accomplish getting the Canadian government, for the first time, to pay attention to a serious issue for this Province. He was able to do it, Mr. Speaker, when John Crosbie who used to be there said that you wouldn't be able to do it; you would never get it done, as a matter of fact, and you could never convince the Canadian government to do it. It was on the record that former minister Crosbie had said that there was no way the Canadian government would ever do this. He said it, it was on the record, Mr. Speaker, and here we are, our fellow gets in as a federal minister in Ottawa, he ends up getting the Canadian government and the Prime Minister of the day to agree to go offshore and defend the interests of Canada and defend the interests of our Province. You know, to have the Member for St. John's South describe that the way he did, Mr. Speaker - we have to correct the record and I am going to do that today.

He talks about Churchill Falls, Mr. Speaker. This government has been able to do what no other government has been able to do in three decades. Mr. Speaker, without even the new deal done yet, we are getting more revenue that before we started out the negotiations. We are getting more revenue than we were getting annually without having the new deal done yet. So, when the new deal gets done, Mr. Speaker, they are going to be shivering on the other side again. They will be shivering on the other side, I guarantee you.

I think, Mr. Speaker, I am starting to understand the psychology of the other side. They are hoping that we don't get a deal on Churchill Falls, they are hoping that we don't get a deal on Voisey's Bay, because they will be another ten years in Opposition. I am starting to get it now.

MR. TULK: You have to realize something, they are all Crosbie's students.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Oh, yes.

MR. TULK: Crosbie, remember what he said about the offshore fish?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes.

MR. TULK: Can't be done! Can't be done! Can't! Can't!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Can't be done! Can't be done!

Mr. Speaker, this economy is rolling along , is leading the country for the last two years and is going to lead it again this year. Now, from the other side you would hear they don't believe it. They don't want to believe it, Mr. Speaker. They don't want to believe the half decent news that our employment rate, the number of people employed, is over 204,000 in the past year. That is probably a record in the Province for employment, one of the records that we are reaching, and the news keeps getting better.

On Voisey's Bay, they would have us give that away. I don't know what their position is today. I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, but on Voisey's Bay we are going to do the right thing. Again Voisey's Bay was discovered because this government brought a policy in to aggressively pursue mineral development. That is how Voisey's Bay was found. We should remember how it was found, Mr. Speaker. We invested some funds to get mineral companies into this Province.

MR. TULK: And we are putting more in this year, by the way.

MR. K. AYLWARD: And we are putting more in this year, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TULK: Putting another $250,000 in it each year.

MR. K. AYLWARD: That is right. To have mineral development, Mr. Speaker, and we are going to get more of it.

Mr. Speaker, this Premier and this government brought in a generic offshore regime for oil, which is now stimulating oil development. That was a problem when we were looking at it four or five years ago. We brought in a new regime and all of the sudden now the oil industry is going right through the roof, Mr. Speaker. It is starting to take off and it is all private sector spending now coming up in the next four or five years. So we see an industry building up, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TULK: Do you remember Mulroney coming down here and inflicting prosperity on us?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, we remember it. I was one of those young fellows. I remember when he was going to inflict all the prosperity on us, Mr. Speaker. I remember when he was going to do that.

We have to point out, Mr. Speaker, if the other side is going to be so depressed about life we have to talk about a bit of optimism on this side, and that is what I think we should do. Our optimism is based on some facts. Our school system is being reformed because our Premier had the leadership and showed the leadership for our government here and for the people of the Province and put out a question that everybody wanted, Mr. Speaker, and the question was answered. Now we are moving ahead with school reform. We are moving ahead by building new schools, renovating schools, $125 million worth of capital, new money being invested in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and the money that we are now investing in health care.

We are trying to keep the Budget balanced, we have the books cleaned up. We are investing new money in health care, we are building new hospitals, we are renovating health care facilities, and we are increasing the wages to the public servants. We have finally been able to do that after a number of years of tough fiscal policy which we brought in.

If you look at what is happening today right across the water from us, in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick right now they are going through big problems. They are facing major deficits because they did not face them four or five years ago. At least now, we are in the position where we have a foundation where we can move forward and start seeing where we can have a stable workforce in our pubic service. We can move forward with programs. We can increase a bit of funding into the education system now to help improve education.

The new report brought down recently by the minister and the two gentlemen, Dr. Sparkes who was out there, and Dr. Williams, those new recommendations are very positive. We are going to see that some or most of them come in and get implemented as soon as we can. At the same time, you cannot give everything to everybody when you are in government because if you do that there would be no budget. If you did what everybody wanted you to do all of the time and said yes to everything then there would not be a budget, you would be in a fiscal crisis continuously, and you cannot manage your economy that way. At least now we are able to manage the economy and move ahead in a whole range of sectors that we were facing problems in. That situation is straightened out. That is good news for this Province.

When you look across Canada, you look at what BC is going through because of the deficits that they are facing off with. There are big problems in British Columbia because of what they are facing. In this Province, we have our economy starting to move ahead, young people have opportunities who are coming out of school now, they have job offerings coming to them that were not there before. So there is a lot of positive changes occurring in the economy and that means that it is going to help in our social policy.

We brought in the best reforms in social policy across Canada, as far as I'm concerned. The Minister of Human Resources and Employment is leading the charge there. That policy reform is an example and other provinces are even now calling and asking and looking at the policy reform that we are bringing to help people improve themselves. It is very positive policy reform, and so not on just the economic front are we moving ahead, but we are moving ahead also on a social policy front. It is very positive.

When I hear consistently nothing but bad news or depressing news, it is always good to get up and at least remind ourselves that it is not all gone. There is another day and the day is here now. There are so many very positive things going on. It is really good to see. We have a lot of economic development occurring. Our forest industry is very stable. A lot of good things are going on there. We are looking on getting the Coast of Labrador developed now. On the South Coast of Labrador, in the L'Anse au Clair area, we are looking at getting proposals there now for sawmills in that area to create jobs for the first time in the forest industry. Very positive.

I want to thank the other side for the chickadee that they gave me. I want to thank the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's for that. It was very nice of him to do that.

Even when they were hoping for bad news, it turns out not to be so bad. That is the thing about it. I keep saying to them that they should not always hope for bad news, that there is good news around the corner. There is a whole range of other initiatives that we are doing. We are working on a further mineral development on the West Coast. We have oil and gas development occurring off the Port au Port- Bay St. George area now for the first time. We are going to have a well tapped into. We are going to see what the result are of that. We are hopeful that maybe there will be some development there. We also have, it looks like, a further well that may be developed over there, may be drilled for further expansion. There is a whole range of initiatives that are going on around the Province.

Now, certain parts of the economy and certain parts of the Province are struggling. There is no doubt about that. We are facing that reality. We have such a great Minister of Development and Rural Renewal who has the pulse of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. He has traveled the Province and has his RED Boards all set up. These RED Boards are talking to the government saying: Here is what we would like to do. We do not want the government to solve our problem, we want to solve our own problems. What they are out there doing is they are asking for some help and they are prioritizing what they want to do. That is very positive.

The Minister of Development and Rural Renewal is doing a great job, I will tell you. It is great to be traveling around with him and making sure that we have got the pulse. That is the whole part of it, we have the pulse, and you have to keep the pulse. There is a lot of positive things going on.

Out my way we just opened a new stadium out in Stephenville, an absolutely beautiful facility, a partnership with the town of Stephenville. Really, it is very positive. We are going to be hosting the Commonwealth Judo Games out there this summer. There are about twenty-five different countries coming in to Western Newfoundland. I did a snowmobile tour only a few weeks ago with the snowmobile club out in Bay St. George, on the snowmobile tourism trails that we are developing together on the West Coast. Big-time tourism is coming on the West Coast because of everybody working together. That is the message. We have to work together if we are going to make this place grow and make the economy move ahead.

It is a just a pleasure to be part of a government that is trying to do that. It is a real pleasure. All I ask on the other side is let's not get too depressed. I think the Minister of Health is here. I don't know if you have any prescriptions, sir, for what is on the other side, for their depression, but whatever you have, if you could get some advice on that we would appreciate it.

The thing is there are a lot of positive things occurring, a lot of positive things going on: the economic performance, the social policy changes that are occurring, the opportunities that are opening up all over the Province for the first time. Yes, there are problems, but there have to be problems to overcome. There have to be challenges to face, and this government will continue to face them. We look forward to seeing further progress being made, and I look forward to hearing and seeing the very positive news on a number of major projects on deck be realized, because we have a very strong government that is committed to all of the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It has been a pleasure.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I actually thought for a while, listening to the minister - because he finally found his tongue - that Jimmy Swaggart was here this afternoon, because he was shaking over here, he was shaking over there, and he was shaking in here. I thought one of the biggest load of bunks I heard came from the President of Treasury Board, but I tell you what, he topped the list. If there was an Academy Award for this afternoon's performance I would certainly hand it to the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

The Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods talks about human resources in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. What a crock! Go out and look at people in the various districts in this Province who have their problems with human resources, who have their problems with social assistance. How we willy-nilly change the rules. Overnight we snap our fingers and we have a new set of rules tomorrow. Today you can get this, tomorrow you can't. Who is in charge? Who is piloting the ship over there? If you listen to the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I think you are, Gerry, believe you me.

If we listen to the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods everything is great, everything is rosy. I listened to the President of Treasury Board talk about our balanced Budget. Where is our balanced budget, Mr. Speaker? How much have we given away? How much do we continue to give away? Such things as Term 29. We are gambling on our future. We are taking all our money up front and there will be a day coming when this money will be gone.

AN HON. MEMBER: A day of reckoning.

MR. FRENCH: There will be a day of reckoning, I say to the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods who is not here today. There will be a day of reckoning when we will have to account for all the things we have taken up front, that we have gambled on our future. That day of reckoning is not very far away.

I heard the President of the Treasury Board say: Look around. I say to the President of Treasury Board: Go look in other provinces, and we will find more young people from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador who have had to go away - our brain drain - out of this Province to find employment. I can name many of them. Many of them come from my own district. I have calls from parents today, Mr. Speaker, who are trying to find jobs for their sons and daughters back here in Newfoundland and Labrador, but they are not here.

We go back and look at the civil service commission which is completely done away with. We send out resumes. I have sent out hundreds since being elected in 1996, and can't find a job. There are no jobs in the provincial civil service for these people. I have to ask the question: I wondered if they came from other areas would they be accommodated or would they not?

I remember going back some years ago; I had two people from my district who were trained in fire prevention in this Province. All I wanted for these two individuals was an interview. It couldn't be given - it could not be given - only to find out several weeks after the job was awarded, it went to some minister's relations. Who are we kidding? Somebody with absolutely no training in the particular field, but that's where they went. That's where the jobs went.

If we go back and look at our health care system, we look at people who go in and out of our hospitals, I can talk about a lady from my own district who had an operation. They sent her home with eighty-seven clips in her. When the woman woke up the next morning she was saturated in blood; some health care system. We are taking people in, we are doing the operations, and we are throwing them out. We have people sleeping on stretchers in the hallways over there. I had a good friend of mine call me, who lives outside the Avalon Peninsula, who went in for a heart attack and spent some twenty-four hours lying on a stretcher in the hall. If that is good health care then God help us all.

The other day when I was up, I touched on the personal care homes, and from time to time I always do that. I talk about an allocation of funds in the Budget, and I see the minister is here today. I don't know if he missed me the other day but he is here today. We have put more money in, supposedly, but there is nobody in the minister's department who knows how the money is supposed to be spent. They have absolutely no discussion on how the money is supposed to be spent, I say to the minister, for the personal care homes in this Province. There is certainly none there. When we call over and talk to the deputy minister, they don't know how they are going to spend this extra money.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bob, don't tell me she is (inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Oh she is, yes, because you are certainly not talking to her, I say to the minister.

We are budgeting these kinds of funds. Is this a big joke? Is that what it is? If it is a joke then go out to the people who have their lives mortgaged on the homes that they have in this Province. They are the people we should be talking to.

Before we bring in these monies, as I said the other day, somebody should have some knowledge as to where we are going to spend this money. What are we going to do with it? Where are we going to spend it? So far there is nothing, absolutely nothing. On a daily basis I receive phone calls from owners of personal care homes wanting to know exactly what is there for them. The only thing I can tell them is that the minister and his department have no idea, absolutely no idea of what this money is going to be spent for. I think it is time - we brought down the Budget, I believe, on March 22 - I think the time has come and gone as to how this money should be spent; where this money has gone. To me it is a total joke and a total farce. If we are going to allocate this money then let's allocate it so that people in this Province know where the money is going.

Maybe over the next several days, or before the minister goes on his vacation, hopefully before he goes on vacation, he will have made up his mind and can tell the homeowners of this Province exactly how the money is going to be spent.

If you ever want a tour of some of these homes, Minister, give me a call some day and I will gladly take you around to a lot of them. I am not so sure you will get out with your head but I will certainly take you around and introduce you to the people who are having the troubles. Hopefully, at the end of the day, you will then have a different view than you have about these homes today.

These things are here this afternoon and, as I said -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is very interesting to note some of these things in the Budget. Where is our balanced Budget? I heard the President of Treasury Board say for three years we have balanced our Budget. I would like for the President of Treasury Board to tell me how, when and where we have done that, because this member here has not seen it. These are things that we should be able to tell the truth about. When we talk about no tax increases, I mentioned the other day 500 brands of spirits in this Province went up. The prices went up; the taxes went up.

We are hoping, I think, to retrieve another $80 million this year from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. I have it on very good source that the extra $80 million from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will have to be borrowed. It will have to be borrowed because Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro does not have that kind of money to turn over to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Who are we kidding? The $80 million is a fallacy is somebody's mind because, as far as the people of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro are concerned, this $80 million does not exist, Mr. Speaker. It does not exist. So, if we are going to acquire more money from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, the only way that I see to do it is that we are going to have to up the ante to consumers in this Province, the users of the electricity. That will be done, I guess, through Newfoundland Power; but is that the way we are going to raise our $80 million, on the backs of Newfoundlanders? Because if it is, again that is totally wrong. You may not want to call it a tax increase but, at the end of the day, what is it? What is it, I ask you, where we are going to increase the amounts of money that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro are going to give the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? Where will this money come from? Because, as they told me, they do not have the money now

I would say to my colleague from Cape St. Francis, there is a great discussion going on about the Herder Memorial Trophy. I would say to my friend from Cape St. Francis that if he wants a hockey player or an imitation of a hockey player, he should probably go to the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health knows how to skate. He certainly knows how to stick handle, I will say that for him. I have watched him here since I have been elected.

I heard a couple of days ago that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology will soon have her pilot's licence. I don't know if that is true or not, but I heard that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology has enough hours in flying now that she will actually qualify for a pilot's licence.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I didn't dream that up myself. I heard that from members on her side of the House, I say to the minister - to both ministers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I am not sure if she is flying on Jack's plane or not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: You are not going flying again, I say to the minister?

MR. SULLIVAN: She is going to play hockey.

MR. FRENCH: Oh, you are going to play hockey? Are you going to take one of the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Me? No, I don't play hockey. I have enough trouble playing softball.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it with the indulgence of the House that we begin the pre-game show now that (inaudible)?

MR. FRENCH: I think we are gone there, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry, I got kind of distracted, but the Minister of Health can do that to you sometimes. I know he has some degrees from Memorial University, but I don't know if, after his name, he has an MD because he has to be the best spin doctor that I have ever met.

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't think he should play.

MR. FRENCH: Oh, yes, he will play tonight and I am sure he will do a very good job. You know, he is kind of gambling a bit because he says he is going in goal and he is going to line people up to go in and take shots on him. I heard through the grapevine, Mr. Minister - I hope this is not true - that they are going to bring back Hubert Hutton, so you had better be very careful.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, with those few words I thank you for your indulgence. If we ever do decide to put up an academy award, I think we have seen the performance in the House this afternoon by the Minster of Agrifoods. I am sure we have seen the academy performance of all of them over there. I have watched them all since 1996. I couldn't believe that the minister had a tongue and was capable of saying the words that came out of him. He was jumping from one side to the other. He was going up and down. As matter of fact, as I said earlier, I thought that Jimmy Swaggart had gotten out of prison and had come here and sat in the House in Newfoundland this afternoon.

Again I thank you for you time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A great time, I say to the members on the other side.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: That is a good one, isn't it? That is a good one.

I say to the hon. minister that he would make a great student. In fact, I think it was a great idea and I am surprised that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Is that right?

AN HON. MEMBER: Absolutely.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: And you would have attended faithfully? It sounds good. Yes, at the university. I remember that as well, yes.

Mr. Speaker, just a few words today on the Budget motion. In fact, it reads: That the House condemn the government for its failure to accurately represent the true state of the economy of the Province and the government's consequential failure to take appropriate budgetary action to deal with the real problems.

Mr. Speaker, it is an important motion, an important movement, and this amendment - it is certainly appropriate that we speak to this on this side of the House, showing that as members on this side of the House we have no confidence in the Budget that has been put forward by this government. In fact, we indicate that the action to date is showing that it is a Budget creating real problems in this Province with real shortfalls and weaknesses.

Perhaps one of the areas that this is perhaps indicative of a shortfall would be in the whole area of - as it relates to the Department of Justice. I notice, when we look at the media reports that have been forwarded as part of Budget 2000, there is very little that we see within the Department of Justice. There is reference to the Province negotiating an enhanced police service for Coastal Labrador. That I commend, and that we on this side of the House would support; however, there are also other parts of the Province where police presence is not felt. I am referring particularly to an area, for example, represented by my colleague, the Member for Conception Bay South, where members of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary themselves feel that the police presence in that area is certainly not sufficiently felt and that efforts have to be made to improve the number of police officers in that particular area. I believe that same point of view is shared by the Member for Topsail. It is interesting to note that at least recognition was given for enhanced police services in a part of this Province and in particular, as I have indicated earlier, for Coastal Labrador.

Sadly, in the last few days we have heard of circumstances surrounding the Whitbourne Boys Home and we know that there are at least two, and possibly three, attempted suicides. Of course, the question that has to be asked when we hear about this unfortunate set of circumstances at the Whitbourne Home is: What provisions are in place? What individuals are in place to help and assist these young people who obviously come to the home with a history of turbulence and a history of difficulty? Are the resources present, are the resources in place at the home to help these young people and their families dealing with situations of crisis? There have been a number of studies and reports carried out in the past. I believe it was the Inkpen report that suggested strongly that in addition to having a solid institution. Certainly, from a physical pont of view, the home at Whitbourne is indeed an appropriate place but we must also have the resources and the personnel who can help with these young people in crisis. Therefore, the question has to be asked: Do we have the appropriate counsellors, experts, professionals, guidance counsellors, these types of individuals who can, on a one-to-one basis, deal with these young people as they go through a very difficult time in their lives?

I may mention that there was no reference, absolutely no reference, in the Budget to any real and significant increase in the Budget as it relates to the Justice Department. In fact, I would say there was absolute silence on the issue of the home in Whitbourne.

Another shortcoming, and I have referred to it before, is the total silence with respect to helping ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as it relates to the cost of petroleum products in this Province. We see, when there is a comparison done throughout Atlantic Canada, that the highest form of taxation is in this Province. In fact, it is approximately six or seven cents higher per litre compared to the Province of New Brunswick. There was no tax relief, I say to the Minister of Health. In fact, there was no reference whatsoever to the increased costs in a litre of gasoline, albeit the price has reduced over the last few days, but of course the tax application is the same. There was no reprieve. There was no indication that this government wanted to assist ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians by giving simply a tax break.

Briefly, a further issue with respect to post-secondary education, I realize that there is a continuation of a two-year tuition freeze helping students at Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic, but there is another issue and it was reacted to loudly by members and representatives of the students' union at Memorial; that is what has been done to deal with and to combat the increasing costs and the increasing student debt which has been experienced by our students. Again, it was an issue that was silent in this year's Budget. There was no attention given to any new reprieve to students who are experiencing, in some cases, as high as $30,000 and $40,000 in student debt.

One positive note, and it is good to add a positive note from time to time, is the fact that we do see in the Budget the commencement of a Newfoundland history course. That is something that has been advocated by scholars and academics throughout the Province. So, at least we saw that one small example, the injection of an idea that was positive and meaningful and of benefit to the students of this Province.

There are a number of other areas that I could speak on, but I have just been advised that there is another colleague of mine who wishes to stand for a few minutes and just add a few minutes in furtherance of this Budget debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to rise and speak again. The President of Treasury Board alluded to the fact that, I believe, 3,000 jobs were created in Newfoundland last year. I had a personal experience last week when I had to take my two nephews to the airport to send them off to Alberta to look for work. They were only there for about three or four hours before they found a job; a list as long as their arm of jobs in that area where they went.

I see that a lot in my district, young people having to leave to get work. It is a crime to see these young, energetic, not all that experienced and not all that well-trained, but very eager to work, to see those types of people leave our Province today to go into areas unknown; some of these young people for their very first time having to leave Newfoundland, for some the very first time working.

It is sad to see that we cannot hold on to these people, to use these people in our Province to enhance their abilities to contribute to our economy and the well-being of our communities in the outports here in Newfoundland and Labrador, in areas where young people are appreciated and young people are needed to do the things that the residents of the communities in the outports cannot do any more. They get at that age where they cannot do the things that they need done for themselves, and now they are looking for people outside of their communities to come in and help them because their young families have grown up and are having to leave to get work outside of our Province.

That stuff seems like a crime to me. The fact is that when some of them stay and we train them in a post-secondary education we create another big problem, the problem of debt load for young people who wanted to stay, wanted to get trained, and wanted to work in our Province and stay in their communities, to work and help their parents and the seniors in their community to live a better life, and stay in their own homes. That benefit is being taken away from our seniors. They are dependent now on family members who still live in the Province but live outside the community to come back to repair their roof, to cut their firewood, and to do repairs in the home.

Some of these seniors I talk to, it is unbelievable what they have to go through just to get a simple little task done in their home. Because they live so far from central areas, from health care and other services that are being provided to people in the bigger areas that we take for granted, these people have to make a special effort. It is very hard for them to get any type of service in small communities, in our outports, in our rural areas of this Province. So I really sympathize for these people.

I sympathize for the young people who, when they get this post-secondary education and have this big debt load hanging over their head, with some hope that they may get a job in our Province, realize that the jobs are not here. Then they have to make plans to move, and the only way they can repay the loans that they had to get this education is move. They have no other choice when people are breathing down their backs looking for their money and telling them that they have to pay up. That pressure is on these students continually. If they do take a job it is a low-paying job, a job that still does not give them any meaningful way to support themselves and repay that loan and that burden that they have because they tried their best to get an education and a training.

That is one thing that I see is devastating to our young population in this Province and a thing that is driving them away. Hopefully, maybe once they get their debt load repaid, some of them will return to the Province. I have seen that firsthand this past week when a friend of mine returned from Louisiana to take a job in the IT sector in the Province. That was a good thing. It is one of the positive things that I have seen. Other people who are trained, doctors and nurses, I know two who live close by me who had to go to Wisconsin to get a job. One was a doctor and one was a nurse. They did not want to leave. They were very upset about leaving, but the only way they could pay for their education and have a meaningful lifestyle was to move. It was devastating for their family, for their parents, to see these young people leave to go into another country, another area, for the first time in their young lives having to make a way of life in an area they are not familiar with, wishing they could stay here and wishing they could have a meaningful life and a meaningful living. Not a low-paid living like most people have to put up with today when they stay here in the Province.

So this debt load is taking its toll on our young people and our young students who graduate. Some of them who graduate are family people. Even though they are young they have family commitments and some of them are married and find it very difficult trying to make a living, very difficult to provide for their families and stay here, so they are being forced to go. They are being forced to move to other provinces and to the United States where incomes are not the problem. The income down there is pretty good and they have a very good way of life down there, and it is sad to see that opportunity is not being given to them here. Some day we hope they may return and there will be a job waiting for them in this Province. We need them to come back and take care of their families, take care of the seniors in their families. I see that as a very big problem.

It is nice to see a lot of good things happening, but I can't stand here today and talk about the good things when there are so many bad things, so many needs, in this Province. I feel that it is my responsibility to present to this House, to all the members, the needs of our people in this Province.

The EI process is certainly not fair to our Province, to our people. We have a unique way of life here, and to see that so many people don't qualify for EI benefits because of some of the policies and regulations in the EI department, particularly when it comes to availability and an arm's length rule policy, it is just unfair to people who need this way of life, who can't move to get a better of way of living and a better job somewhere else. They need the EI benefits to sustain them in their communities, particularly in rural Newfoundland where the EI benefits are a way of life. It is a part of their life, part of their income. For the biggest part of the year the EI sustains them to feed their families, to pay their bills and to keep them in their own homes, to keep them in their communities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Of the appeals that I attend, some I win and some I lose. Some of the ones that I lose, it is just unbelievable how we, in this day and age, can allow these types of policies to deny benefits to some of our EI applicants in rural Newfoundland. I believe that if someone worked a meaningful job and paid into the program they should get a fair chance of receiving the benefits. When you have young people having to work for relatives and being denied their benefits, and to attend an appeal and the Board of Appeal says: No, you don't qualify because of the arm's length rule. Which is that if you are working for your father, your mother or some family member, they say you don't qualify for that. I know firsthand that some of these people put in the required amount of hours and worked hard to try to qualify for the EI benefits.

It is so unfair for this department to deny these benefits to these people because in the areas where they live there is no other way to make a living. There is no other way to supplement the income in the homes other than EI benefits. It is so hard to go into the smaller communities and see these people who are dependent on the EI so desperate, so confused, and they are so mad. They are really mad over the system and the policy where they put in the required amount of hours but still do not qualify. It is unbelievable -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am trying to see that the hon. member is heard.

MR. HUNTER: To see if I'm still alive.

The EI system is certainly a big problem, with $25 billion in an account sitting there, Mr. Speaker, to be there for people who need it, and the people who don't qualify certainly need it and certainly deserve it. We have to address that problem. Hopefully, the government here will lobby more to get some of these policies changed to allow more people in our Province who depend on this way of life to sustain and feed their families. It is unbelievable that we can allow that to happen in our unique society, a society where we are spread out so much and don't have the opportunities that most people have in the bigger urban areas, where if they need a job they can certainly go around, put applications in, do interviews and possibly get a job. Even though it is a low paying job they have an opportunity to find a job. In rural outport Newfoundland that opportunity is not there. They depend on forestry, mining, fishing. If we do not supply the jobs in these sectors then these people will be very devastated, and find it very hard up to sustain that life for their families.

Even though the forestry is in such a time now where the supply is low, we will see in the near future a lot more benefits from our forestry resource, because that resource is starting to replenish and grow up. In a very few short years then we will see more timber resource being available to our operators and our -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HUNTER: Would you? I want forty minutes.

The Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods knows how hard it is for a member that lives in rural Newfoundland where his constituents depend on the forestry sector to make a living. I am in close contact with the minister and trying to find ways to alleviate the problems of some of these small sawmill operators, trying to find a way where we can allow them to make a living, we can allow them to create jobs and still protect the resource, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is working diligently to see that some of these concerns are being addressed even though time is what it is going to take to fix the problems in our forestry sector. In the forestry industry today it takes time, because it take time for trees to grow. It takes time to correct the problems in that industry, to do the necessary programs like silviculture which requires a lot of labour intensity, a lot of capital, a lot of money from the federal and provincial governments.

We must lobby, and the minister and his department must lobby, the federal government to get more money to put in the silviculture program to ensure that our resource remains sustainable and also that the jobs remain sustainable. There is a lot of jobs in Central Newfoundland and rural Newfoundland pertaining to the forest industry. We must lobby our federal people to make sure that federal dollars are put into our provincial departments so that the minister and his department can address the problems with forestry, address the problems with silviculture, to ensure that the best interest of the industry is at heart and the best interest of the industry is taken care of by the minister and his department.

There are other forestry problems that we have, particularly when it comes to the older loggers that are depending on some sort of support by both levels of government for them so that they can retire with a meaningful way of life, with a meaningful income, and recognizing the fact that technology has taken away a lot of the jobs with our older loggers. They are too old to retrain and not old enough, really, to take advantage of the pension benefits. We have to recognize the fact that something has to be done for our older loggers and some type of pension mechanism must be put in place so that they can get out of that industry and go back to their communities and rural areas and live a meaningful life with a meaningful income to sustain their families.

It is important that we recognize the contribution that these older loggers made to our economy in the past twenty or thirty years. I would like to see more emphasis put on trying to come up with a solution to help pensioners in the logging industry to survive and sustain a family living. I think there is not enough being said. There is not enough being done by the minister and his department to force the federal government to look at this problem, and recognizing the technology aspect of it, where many jobs are going to be lost because of the technology, particularly when it comes to the mechanical harvesting. Mechanical harvesting is not such a bad idea. It is friendly to the environment. It provides high-tech jobs, and a lot of the younger loggers and workers in the industry certainly are capable of being trained to handle these jobs. I think that within the next few years we will see a lot of these new jobs created because of the technology.

Having said that, we still have to recognize the fact that the older loggers within the next couple of years are ready to go out and we have to do something for them. We have to ensure that their interests are being taken care of, and also the promises that were made to these loggers last year when the strike was on in Corner Brook when the federal and provincial governments, the President of Treasury Board and the minister committed to coming up with a program that they were quite happy with. I must say, they did find a solution. Since that, Revenue Canada said: No, this solution can't apply because it contradicts the act for Revenue Canada. Now these members of that local loggers union gave up their jobs and are not capable of going back into the workforce because they made other plans to be retired. Some went so far as throwing away their working clothes, getting rid of their chainsaws and other equipment, and settling into the fact that they would be pensioned off and be in retirement. Now these loggers have to go back and say to the company: We have to come back to work because we have no other source of income.

By doing this, they are displacing a lot of the younger workers who were hoping to get in on some of these high-tech new jobs that were created because of the new technology in harvesting. That creates another big problem in our forestry industry today. I think the federal government is going to have to hold up to the commitment they made last year in putting a program in place to help pension off these loggers. It is not good enough to give them something one day and the next day say: No, you can't have it, we changed our mind. Then everybody walks away from the table. We have to get back to the table and come up with ideas to help alleviate the problem of people pensioned off in their careers. It is important that we make room for the new workers coming up. It is important that we make room for our young people to keep them from moving away from the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HUNTER: I certainly have a lot more to say on a lot of other areas -

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that.

I have just one more point in respect to the forest industry. I have a small sawmill operator in Springdale who has been in the business for thirty years. That operator has been developing an industry outside of his own sawmill industry by providing core boxes for the mining industry, and doing a very good job. His customers are very pleased with the product they are getting from this man. We have to find a way to help keep this company viable and surviving to provide jobs for the people in that area. I hope the minister will look at that, and I hope we will find a way to help Mr. Butt sustain his business and maintain the jobs that he have in his business. I'm relying on the minister and relying on his department to find a way to do that. I am sure he is going to do that. The minister was sincere when he told me he would look into that, and he is sincere, I believe, in that he will help to correct this problem.

Do you want me to continue?

MR. TULK: Leave is withdrawn.

MR. HUNTER: Is leave withdrawn, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is withdrawn. I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will be back.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am pleased and proud to stand in my place today and support the motion put forward by the Member for Waterford Valley, a motion of non-confidence in this Budget. I will tell you why in due course. Before I get into this -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: What did he say?

AN HON. MEMBER: In due course is right.

MR. J. BYRNE: In due course, yes.

The Minister for Forest Resources and Agrifoods was on his feet today, Mr .Speaker, talking about the Premier of the Province. Someone made a comment in the House of Assembly yesterday that there should be a Ministerial Statement come down from that side to let the Premier know that the House of Assembly is open. I hardly ever see the man. I do not know if he still knows he is Premier or not, but -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member knows he is not to draw attention to the fact that any hon. member is absent today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods was on his feet today and he was talking about the Premier, as I had said, and he was talking about the Estai. Before I get into that - and that has to do with the fishery - I want to tell you a little story. It is so ridiculous and unbelievable. I heard it on CBC radio yesterday or the day before at lunch hour. I was driving across town and I heard this lady being interviewed from the mainland. Do you know what she wants to do now? She is starting an international campaign to stop the fishery because she does not want anybody fishing any more anywhere in the world. She wants the people to become vegetarians, yes. This is some lady from the mainland. She is starting a national campaign -

MR. FUREY: Are you a vegetarian?

MR. J. BYRNE: Like yourself, I say to the Minister of Tourism.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: A vegetable (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: A vegetable. The reason why she does not want the fishery any more, and she does not want anybody out salmon fishing and hook-and-release or catching trout or anything at all, is because every separate fish has a personality.

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Honest to goodness, I say to the Minister of Tourism. That is what she was on about. This is what this lady had said. She wants to start a national campaign to stop the fishery. No more fishery. Not only the seals, not the seals now - I wish the Minister of Fisheries was here - but to stop the fishery because fish -

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) he is gone after her.

MR. J. BYRNE: He is gone after her. He must be. Every fish has a personality. Fish feel pain, so she wants to put an end to that. The interviewer said: Do you understand you are talking to Newfoundland now? Do you understand you are talking to Newfoundlanders and what they would say?

MR. GRIMES: Jack, does that mean you are a fish because (inaudible)?

MR. J. BYRNE: All trout are fish but not all fish are trout, I say to the Minister of Health. If the Minister of Health thinks the way he just said or the comment he made, Mr. Speaker, no wonder health care in this Province is in such a shape, and I will get into that in due course. We had him as the Minister of Mines and Energy and that was a complete farce before Christmas. He has moved on. We had the Premier saying one thing last November, minutes away from a deal on Voisey's Bay. The Minister of Mines and Energy at the time, the present Minister of Health gets up -

AN HON. MEMBER: Now, what went on there?

MR. J. BYRNE: I wonder what went on there. All of a sudden the minister is saying one thing and the Premier saying something else. He was moved out of the portfolio altogether, Mr. Speaker, and made Minister of Health and Community Services. Health now is in such poor condition in the Province. During the last election, the Premier of the Province goes to Ottawa right in the middle of an election and there is $150 million coming down for health care. Right after the election, there is no money for health care. Then before that, the Minister of Health who was the Minister of Mines and Energy, but before that he was the Minister of Education - he wasn't the Minister of Mines and Energy very long and I can understand why.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) hurricane. Havoc is wreaked in every department he has gone into.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, he creates havoc like a tornado, Mr. Speaker. They are going to be calling him ‘Spin Top Grimes' soon. In every department he wrecks it, causes havoc, cuts it to the bone, and moves on. That is what he does.

Anyway, this lady wants to end the fishery worldwide. She wants all people on the planet to become vegetarians, eat nothing but vegetables, so what is coming then? Just say she accomplishes what she and her group have set out to do. It is so ridiculous it is not even funny. Then what you are going to see is that we are not going to be able to cut vegetables or pull vegetables out of the garden because you are going to be destroying the roots, or you are not going to take a turnip, like the Minister of Health, and cut the leaves off because the leaves will feel pain. How far do we go and how ridiculous do we get? How politically correct are we going to be? That is a topic in itself, I say to the member for - where are you the member for?

AN HON. MEMBER: Bay of Islands.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Bay of Islands. I'm after confirming for him, in discussions with the Member for Baie Verte, is that after the next election when we form the government the Member for Bay of Islands is going to be our token Liberal somewhere. We are not sure where, but he is going to be our token Liberal.

This lady was sincere. The interviewer said: You are speaking to Newfoundlanders. Do you understand the impact it is going to have on Newfoundland? The economy of Newfoundland, a lot of it is based on the fishery in Newfoundland. She said: Maybe they can find some other jobs they can do. Obviously she do not know Newfoundland and Labrador very well, Mr. Speaker. I found it so funny and ridiculous to be listening to this person. She really seemed to believe what she was saying. I do not know if the interviewer was stringing her along or what, but it was the most ridiculous conversation I have every heard, I will tell you that.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I do not know. Maybe the next time round they will get someone else to say that vegetables do have feelings. Do you have feelings, I say to the Minister of Health? Say yes or no and we will find out. Let's vote on it in this House of Assembly. See how things happen? Everything in due course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, the Estai. The Premier made a big show, a big to-do about nothing down in New York with the net up, and they are still out there doing the same thing. All a show to get him back here to Newfoundland to become premier of the Province. Now with respect to that issue, what do we accomplish? What we did was we let the Estai go out of here in the Harbour in the dark of night. I saw the stubs for the checks, and $120,000 we paid for the fish to be sent back to Spain or whatever country it was from. They are still fishing out there. What did we accomplish? Nothing, as usual. We saw the individual, the Premier - I hate to be attacking him but he is the main man, he is the one who sets the rules over there.

We saw Voisey's Bay before Christmas, it was going to be the big deal within days. No deal. We talked about Churchill Falls, that there was going to be a deal. Now we see him trying to use the back door, anything at all, to get out of the deal. The present Minister of Mines and Energy was answering questions from the Opposition Leader the other day in the House was so weak. I say they are going to have to put the Minister of Health back in that department.

I had to laugh. The Premier of this Province was in the news the other day saying that the deal for Hibernia was as bad as the deal for Churchill Falls was. He tried to give the impression to the public -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, yes he did. Bottom line.

He tried to give the impression that the former PC government signed a deal, but the former Liberal government signed a deal. The former Premier Wells signed a deal. Then he comes out with well: Oh yes, I made a mistake. He had to, he had no choice but to sign this deal. Just think about this and draw the comparison to Meech Lake. We had -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: They all stayed. Good for them. They will hear the facts and the reality of the situation, Mr. Speaker.

We had the Premier of this Province saying that the former Premier Clyde Wells had no choice but to sign the deal for Hibernia.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: You should be thanking Peckford and Crosbie for it. Anyway, he said he had to sign it, he had no choice. What happened with Meech Lake when the former premier was there. He was up in Ottawa somewhere, on the mainland, and he had all the provinces trying to put the pressure on him to sign, we had the federal government trying to put the pressure on him to sign, but he would not sign. So he withstood that pressure from all the provinces, the territories and the federal government, but he had to sign the deal for Hibernia. Now, the Premier of the Province is trying to say that it is a bad deal, that we should not have signed it. It created an industry for Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what happened with that. In the long-term it is going to give us a lot more money in the next few years than Churchill Falls is giving us or going to give us.

With respect to the Lower Churchill, by the way, we can see now the Minister of Mines and Energy, when he is asking questions, trying to create a back door to get out of it, to say that we are not going to sign a deal unless it is the best deal for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; but, when listening to the Premier of the Province, it was supposed to be done, pretty well a done deal.

With respect to the balanced Budget that has been coming forth the past few years, the so-called balanced Budget -

MR. TULK: Listen, Jack, they never realized (inaudible) really did have a balanced Budget.

MR. J. BYRNE: The so-called balanced Budget, and I will tell you why it is so-called, because it is not. If you look at the Auditor General and the statements that she makes with respect to this Budget, and last year -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, it doesn't match, does it?

MR. TULK: No, they don't match.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Auditor General drew attention to government's selective reporting of deficits in her report, in the 1998-1999 Budget. They were saying that the government said they had a surplus of just over $4 million; but the audited financial statements for the year, called a consolidated summary financial statement, indicate the real deficit was $163 million.

To go further, had the Budget included a reasonable estimate of over-expenditure by the government's twelve health boards, ten school boards, forty-two Crown agencies, as the Auditor General and the government's own auditors advised, the deficit reported in the Budget would be $165 million. That is what I was talking about last week with respect to the trickery, the trickery of the Budget, trying to make people believe one thing but in reality they were actually receiving and getting something completely different.

Let's go a little bit further. The revenue estimated for the year includes $162 million, in one-time payments. We have $110 million from the sinking fund - $110 million this year - money that has been set aside to pay down the debentures of the debt when they come due; now $110 million taken from that and into the Budget, a one-shot deal. We have $10 million from Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. Where is Newfoundland and Labrador Housing getting an extra $10 million? I say to the Minister of Health, he is a member of Cabinet. I would assume he was in the House of Assembly when the Budget was read, I would imagine. I think I saw him there. He wasn't hiding away. He should have been covering his face and hiding away, by rights. He has a copy of the Estimates. He has a copy of the Budget, and all of this is in the Budget. Unless he didn't read it, which I wouldn't be surprised, not at all with the minister, a minister who causes havoc in every department he's in. No wonder, when he doesn't even read the Budget. He just pretty well confirmed to me that he didn't read the Budget.

MR. SULLIVAN: They call him hurricane. That's his nickname.

MR. J. BYRNE: The hurricane - no, tornado is more like it.

One hundred and ten million dollars in the sinking fund, $10 million from Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, and we have $42 million, the one-shot deal that was supposed to go over four years -

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. J. BYRNE: Over $42 million, actually, from the feds with respect to health care, this infusion into the health care system in the Province. Again, it won't even cover the deficits of the health care boards in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The minister is trying to give the impression that we are doing wonderful.

I will agree with the Minister of Health on one thing, though. He said, when we are taking this $42 million we are taking a chance. We are gambling with that money. If the feds don't come down with more money and we have the $42 million one-shot deal, we have the $10 million from Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, $110 million from the sinking fund, $85 million from Newfoundland Hydro.

I was in the Estimates meeting here last night with the Minister of Finance and I asked him about the $85 million. Basically, the bottom line is: Well, we really don't care where Newfoundland Hydro gets it. If they borrow it or whatever, or if they put up the rates to Newfoundland Power, so be it. The bottom line. He said they probably might have to borrow it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) didn't care about it.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker. I agree. He didn't say he didn't care, but he agreed that they may have to borrow this money. If they have to borrow this money, obviously it is going to be passed on to Newfoundland Power and then that will be passed on to the consumer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no.

MR. J. BYRNE: We have the ministers on the other side, shaking their heads, saying, no, no, no, but $10 million from the liquor board and what happened with the liquor board? The Budget came down on March 22, and I have a letter here dated March 23 stating that liquor prices were going up on over 600 products in Newfoundland and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: Six hundred products.

MR. J. BYRNE: Over 600 products went up, different and varying rates - products.

We had the Opposition House Leader saying that liquor prices would go up, heating prices would go up, and housing prices would go up because of this.

MR. GRIMES: Liquor increases are all tied to the price of crude. It has nothing to do with tax increases.

MR. J. BYRNE: I was wondering all day what the Minister of Health was either smoking or drinking. Now we know, because the Minister of Health just said that the prices for liquor are all connected to the price of crude. So he must be sipping a drop of crude. Does he drink three-in-one oil, I wonder, Mr. Speaker? Does he drink WD-40, I wonder? What does he drink? I understand he is pretty smooth on the ice and that is why his bones don't creak and crack, because of the WD-40 that he drinks.

It is shocking, isn't it? Can you believe it, a minister of the Crown making that statement? It is embarrassing, I can guarantee you that.

AN HON. MEMBER: You feel bad for him, don't you, Jack?

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I feel bad for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who have to go into the health care system with a minister like that. No wonder there is mass confusion. We had that same minister stand up in this House last April 1. On April Fool's Day, that minister stood in this House and jeered the nurses in the gallery. Then he went outside and attacked them. He attacked the nurses outside. Now he is the Minister of Health. How can the nurses expect a fair deal from that minister?

I hope I didn't hurt the minister's feelings. He looks like he is hurt.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: With respect to this Budget again, over the past number of years we saw the government bring in a budget and say there are no tax increases, but they didn't talk about all the licences, the fees, the permits, that doubled, tripled, quadrupled. Some of them went up six times in that period of time, so they had extra revenues coming in, but what they were doing was taking by the back door what they were afraid to do by the front door. That is what happened there.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. TULK: I have no doubt that the hon. gentleman has his research done, but I wonder if he would just tell us, so we can have a go at the Minister of Government Services and Lands for doing such a dastardly deed, which ones tripled and which ones doubled, because we want to have a go at him if he is at that kind of stuff, don't we?

MR. GRIMES: Yes, that is ridiculous.

MR. TULK: Yes, it is ridiculous.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I will address that. Not a problem, I say to the Government House Leader, or whatever he is supposed to be over there. I will bring in, from the last few Budgets, the licences and fees and permits - pages full of licences.

We had the driver's licence go up. As a matter of fact, you brought in charges for services that were never charged before - not this year but previous years leading up to it.

MR. TULK: Oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: That is what I said. Pay attention, I say to the Government House Leader - oh!

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: You thought I hurt his feelings or something? Pardon?

MR. TULK: You said he did it in this Budget.

MR. J. BYRNE: I did not. Get Hansard and read it. I said that over the past few years, when they talked about balancing the Budgets. This year you didn't balance your Budget, I say to the Government House Leader for Hansard purposes.

MR. TULK: You are talking about a number of years.

MR. J. BYRNE: The past few years, when you said you balanced the Budgets, and you said that you had no tax increases.

MR. TULK: No, no (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That is what I am talking about now, so be clear.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: What if I don't want it?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: I will go on for another few minutes, Mr. Speaker.

Also, over the past few years, the HST transitional assistance grant from the federal government, $350 million.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: We have someone else coming up after me, I say to the Government House Leader.

Also, there is one year of the two year $850 million Roads for Rail agreement, only two years left -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, that is not true.

The $850 million Roads for Rail Agreement. I said this before in the House of Assembly, and I said it to the former Minister of Finance and I will say it to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation over there, that they should be on their knees every night thanking God for Brian Peckford and John Crosbie for the amount of money that has gone into this Province for the Roads for Rail Agreement. They are still spending the money. They have two years left.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Who did it? Well, Mr. Speaker, did you ever see the like of that? How can you have such a group twisting stuff around. They can't take credit for the Hibernia, because they had to sign it. Now they are trying to take credit for the Roads for Rail Agreement because they signed it. You can't have your cake and eat it too, I say to the Member for Bay of Islands. You had better sit back and relax. It is unreal. What a contradiction. You are a living contradiction, I say to the Member for Bay of Islands. You can't have it both ways. You can't say we can't take credit for Hibernia, because we signed it, because they negotiated it. Then you say you can take credit for the Roads for Rail Agreement because we signed it. How foolish, childish and immature.

I think there are other members here who want to speak.

With that, I am sure I will have opportunity in the future to say a few more words when I am in the mood.

Thank you.

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise again to support the amendment. The last part of the amendment is the one that I like in particular, when it talks about the government dealing with real problems; the real problems this government appears to want to ignore, especially in areas such as education and in health -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: What is that? That is a good question, I say to the Government House Leader. When I reach your particular age, maybe I will consider it.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible). It doesn't take years off you, but it takes it off around your waist.

MR. HEDDERSON: Then, I say to the Government House Leader, I would have to get a new wardrobe. I would have to change some of my clothes, and that sort of thing, and I really can't afford it at this particular time.

That gets back to the Budget. When you look at the Budget, and an increase in things like liquor, that affects not only a select group but perhaps all of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I say to the Government House Leader, I can't afford to go on a diet, because I can't afford new clothes.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: I don't know if I would want to go along with that, I say to the Government House Leader. I am not particularly impressed by your dress, but I do like your shirt. I like the color of your shirt there.

I would like to go on and on, and get on to adjournment, I would think.

I say to the Government House Leader, with this type of Budget we are going to really have to draw in our belts, because there is very little in this Budget for the average person.

Mr. Speaker, on those words, I would like to adjourn debate.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, it now being 5:30 p.m., I would move that this House adjourn until tomorrow, Wednesday. I believe at that point we will be debating the resolution put forward by the tiger from Cape St. Francis.

I move that the House do now adjourn.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.