May 6, 2003 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 17


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before I call Routine Proceedings, I would like to welcome to the gallery today a delegation from Prince of Wales Collegiate, consisting of two teachers and three students. They will be hosting the National Student Leadership Conference to be held here in September.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand before this hon. House today to congratulate Kel Varnson, a twenty-three year old Gander native who recently made his directorial debut on MuchMusic.

Mr. Varnson animated, produced and directed a video last summer for "Classified", a rap artist from Halifax, who he met while studying at the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design.

The entire video, that took roughly five months to complete, was created and developed solely in Newfoundland, as Gander is the location of Mr. Varnson's production company, 12incheffx, which he and a friend founded three years ago.

The video was picked up by MuchMusic on January 10, and put into medium rotation, meaning that it usually airs twice a day. It is also getting high rotation on MuchVibe, a digital channel affiliated with MuchMusic, and it is anticipated that the video will soon be picked up by MTV Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Kel Varnson on this outstanding accomplishment, and wish him the best of luck with his future production projects.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted today to rise in this House and offer congratulations to a young man in my district who has achieved exceptional athletic performances in spite of his physical challenges.

Darryl Osborne, a twenty-five year old resident of Pine Bud Crescent in Mount Pearl, has cerebral palsy but that did not stop him from breaking the Canadian record during the Spring Splash at the Aquarena in St. John's and the 100-metre breast stroke in the Swimmers With A Disability category. His time of 2:14:07 broke the former Canadian record of 2:21:06, which, Mr. Speaker, he also held.

Mr. Speaker, Darryl also holds the provincial record for Swimmers With A Disability in the fifty-metre butterfly and the fifty-metre freestyle.

Overcoming challenges is nothing new to Darryl. He is presently a student at Memorial University and in the upcoming Convocation will graduate with a Bachelor of Arts Degree.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of this House would want to join me in offering Darryl Osborne sincere congratulations on his outstanding athletic achievements, as well as his determination not to let cerebral palsy stand in the way of his desire to complete his university education. Young people like Darryl are an inspiration to all citizens but especially to young people who face significant life-long physical challenges.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

By leave, for a Member's Statement?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to congratulate a soccer player from Burin who has performed extremely well in Canadian University Sports.

Mr. Speaker, Sarah Drake, who plays with the University College of Cape Breton Capers of the Atlantic University Sports, was a finalist for the Canadian Interuniversity Sport female athlete of the year presented last evening. While she was unsuccessful in winning the award, Mr. Speaker, she had an exemplary season.

Sarah was named the Atlantic University Sports Most Valuable Player and the Canadian Interuniversity Sports Female Soccer Player of the Year after scoring six goals during the season, good for second place in conference scoring and helped lead her squad to 9-0-4 record and the conference final.

Mr. Speaker, the Burin Peninsula is known Province-wide as a hotbed of soccer and I am sure all residents of the Province are proud of Sarah's accomplishments.

On behalf of all members of this House, I congratulate Sarah on this outstanding achievement.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

During lunch hour today I, along with several other MHAs, including the Minister of Education, had the opportunity to participate in a very special celebration here at the main lobby of the Confederation Building. The Kids Eat Smart Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador held a news conference to announce the winner of the Kids Eat Smart Challenge 2003: The Good Eating - Good Thinking Banner Project. This project sponsored by Petro-Canada involved students from all across our Province.

Early in the new year, schools were sent white broadcloth banners. They were returned painted, quilted, tie-dyed, crayoned, ironed-on and transformed at the hands of students from Kindergarten to Grade 12 into awesome and educational art.

One banner from ten schools districts was selected a "Tablecloth Contender." An independent panel selected one of the ten to be reproduced as a tablecloth, which will be available for sale as a fundraiser for the Kids Eat Smart Foundation.

The Foundation was thrilled with the response when 112 banners were returned from all over Newfoundland and Labrador. The judges narrowed down the 112 entries into ten finalist, which included schools from each of the school districts.

As the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, I was absolutely delighted to be asked to accept the certificate on behalf of a school in my district named St. Anne's Academy of Dunville. The banner designed by the students of St. Anne's depicted our four main food groups superimposed on a highway. It clearly shows the road to health is obtained by eating smart.

A few moments ago I spoke with Principal Pam Constantine of St. Anne's who was absolutely thrilled to hear that St. Anne's have once again risen to the challenge and once again were named the best in the Province.

My congratulations go out to all students and staff of St. Anne's Academy in Dunville for a job well done. The creativity shown through the banner display is a sure sign that students of this Province are second to none. This is indeed another proud day for the school community of St. Anne's Academy.

I would like to also send congratulations to the Kids Eat Smart Foundation itself and to all community sponsors and the people who support the foundation throughout the Province, including many of my colleagues here in the House.

A healthy body produces a healthy mind and statistics show the positive results of this program in our schools. Through Kids Eat Smart 4,000 volunteers and a partnership network with community groups, corporations and government, provide nutritious food for more than 15,000 children at 139 Kids Eat Smart clubs. The objective of the foundation is to help ensure children's rights to adequate and nutritious food.

I ask all members to join with me in congratulating St. Anne's Academy of Dunville on this wonderful accomplishment and to all the schools who took part in the banner program.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize what can only be described as a truly outstanding individual in my district. Grenfell Belbin, who is an employee with Aliant Telecom of St. Anthony, has accomplished what I would expect very few people in this Province have been successful in doing. He has worked the past thirty years and has been fortune enough not to have taken one sick day.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Belbin, when interviewed in The Northern Pen some time ago, commented that while he had the flu on a number of occasions and felt like staying home, he thought it was best to go in and go to work because the work would only be waiting for him the day after when he finally did get back in.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Belbin attributes much of his good luck and good health to heredity since his father, the senior Mr. Belbin who died earlier this year at the age of ninety-two, went through his whole life without once visiting the hospital and without so much as taking an aspirin until just briefly before he died. He also gives great credit to his wife who - it is interesting that today we had a function out in the lobby and spoke about healthy eating for healthy bodies and healthy minds. Mr. Speaker, he attributes a great deal of his success in avoiding illness to a healthy lifestyle and healthy eating at the hands of his wife.

While we all know that working with Aliant Telecom, and anybody who has any knowledge of the work that they do in climbing poles in very adverse conditions, he has been successful in avoiding injury through all those years. Just recently Aliant Telecom presented Mr. Belbin with a commemorative jacket and congratulated him on his achievement. The one thing they did not do was suggest that he take the day off on account of it.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, today I stand proudly to commend Mr. James Kennedy, the President of Branch 1 of the Royal Canadian Legion for receiving the Queen's Jubilee medal for his commitment to his community.

Last night, in my district of St. John's Centre, I had the privilege and pleasure of presenting Mr. Kennedy with his medal at a ceremony at Branch 1. The function was attended by over 100 people, many of whom were very much aware and very much appreciative of Jim's efforts.

Mr. Kennedy's involvement as a volunteer and as an executive member of the Royal Canadian Legion has spanned over twenty years, and he is currently serving his fifth term as president of Branch 1.

He also served as a volunteer with: the Boy Scouts of Canada; the Red Cross; the Food Sharing Association; the Froude Avenue Community Centre; and the Provincial Canada Day Committee.

Mr. Speaker, volunteering for any reason can sometimes take you away from your family and your personal life and I know that it is not always easy. I am very pleased to nominate someone of Jim Kennedy's caliber as he truly embodies all the good things that are associated with being a volunteer. He has spent countless hours volunteering his time and energy to help improve our community. The community will continue to grow and improve for years to come with people like Jim working for the good of others, as his first priority.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity of doing this this afternoon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was extremely pleased this morning to publicly release Beyond High School: A Follow-up Study of June High School Graduates. This document reports the activities of the high school graduates of 2001, one year following their graduation.

Information contained in the report is key to providing students, parents, policy makers and program administrators with insight into the decisions graduates make after completing high school.

Beyond High School indicated that 71 per cent of respondents were engaged in post-secondary studies at the time of the survey, as compared to 65 per cent in 1995. There was also a shift in the post-secondary institutions students chose. Forty percent of 2001 graduates attended Memorial University, up from 37 per cent in 1996; 17 per cent attended College of the North Atlantic, up from 12 per cent in 1996. This trend towards higher level of post-secondary education by the youth of this Province is very encouraging. Out of the 29 per cent who did not participate in post-secondary education, it is important to note that 93 per cent of those graduates expressed a desire to do so in the future, and that is good news.

In a recent research bulletin, Human Resources Development Canada estimated that over the next five years, 70 per cent of new jobs will require a post-secondary diploma and occupations requiring a university degree will see an annual growth of 2.3 per cent.

Beyond High School is the second in a series of research initiatives undertaken by my department. The first document entitled: Career Search, was released in November of 2002 by my colleague, the Member for Gander. It reported the employment and earnings of post-secondary graduates in 2000.

During the next several weeks we plan to release a third study, which is a long-term followup of post-secondary graduates. It tracks labour market activities over a five-year period. The fourth document, which will be released later this year, reports performance indicators on all aspects of the post-secondary system, including funding, student satisfaction and transition into the labour market.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is committed to providing the best possible information to ensure our students make informed educational decisions for career and employment success.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of her ministerial statement. I would say that when we look at the release of this document, it certainly gives us some good statistics as to where the high school graduates of at least a year or so ago have gone, one year following their graduation. That information will be of value to, certainly, students and parents and other stakeholders in helping students make informed decisions.

It is interesting to note that there is a high level of high school students entering post-secondary, but what is not said, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a low number of graduates coming out, that the percentage of those who actually fulfill the requirements of programs is one of the lowest in the country. Even though we have a high rate going in, we have a lower rate coming out. We do know the importance of post-secondary education in the job market.

I am also a little bit disappointed that the minister has just gone on and talked about the release of more studies. What I am more interested in, and I am sure most people are more interested in, Minister, is: What are you going to do with the information that you have in this report?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: What are you going to do to make sure that our post-secondary students get what they deserve?

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the department is tracking people and finding out what they are doing a year later. I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, it is important that students, upon finishing school or attending in the last stages of high school, certainly have a clear understanding as to what is available in the workplace when they graduate, so they know at least what to go in and train for.

I would like to also take this opportunity to say to the minister, that the rest of Canada must be pretty proud of this Province with all the graduates that we are training to go to work in other provinces. When is this government going to do something so that when people graduate from our schools they will have an opportunity to remain in this Province and find meaningful employment?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize May 4 to May10 as North American Occupational Safety and Heath Week, or (NAOSH Week). During this time, employers, government, labour and workers in Canada, the United States and Mexico will join forces to promote a greater awareness of the importance of preventing workplace accidents and occupational illnesses.

Just last week, Mr. Speaker, Canadians paid tribute to those who have been injured or who have died on the job, in an official Day of Mourning. In a ceremony here at Confederation Building, employers and employees were encouraged to strengthen their commitment and support of occupational health and safety, in an effort to bring an end to work-related illness and injury.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador recognizes the need to work with businesses, with labour associations and communities at large to foster an environment where we can reduce human, social and economic loss that often results from workplace accident, injury and death.

Mr. Speaker, the theme of this year's NAOSH Week is: Prevention is the Cure - Prepare Young Workers for the Future. As a government, we remain committed to ensuring young people are well prepared for long, healthy careers in the workplace. We will continue to work with employers, employees and labour toward this goal.

As a government, we remain focused on striving for excellence in health and safety in our Province's workplaces. We believe a healthy workplace means healthy employees, and that is good for everyone.

And we are having success in our efforts. Since 2000 we have experienced a significant drop in both short-term disability claims and health care claims which has seen the numbers of time loss claims drop from 12,847 in the year 2000 to 9,985 in the year 2002. This represents a drop of almost 3,000 claims which is quite a significant achievement.

However, Mr. Speaker, while we may have made great strides in health and safety in the workplace, there are still accidents and fatalities in this Province. Much has been accomplished but much needs to be done. It is vital we continue, as a government, to be vigilant and to continue to work with business and labour to promote safe and healthy workplaces in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, in recognition of NAOSH Week, I ask all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to encourage their employers and fellow employees to strengthen their commitment and support of occupational health and safety in an effort to bring an end to work-related illness and injury.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for a copy of his statement prior to the opening of the House.

There is no doubt, it is important to set aside a week so that we all can create an awareness of the importance of creating a healthy work environment. Certainly, over the past number of years we have seen the partnerships of the government, labour and workers themselves, and the positive results that has produced. Creating a safe, healthy working environment has to be a community effort. Everybody has to play a part, and I think that we are heading in the right direction.

Certainly, it is great to see any reduction in the amount of accidents, in the amount of work-related illness of any shape, Mr. Speaker. We are delighted, on this side of the House, to see that.

We also have to ask ourselves, in today's world, why, right here in our own Province - it is a great week to raise the issue - the workers with Newfoundland Hydro had to hold a demonstration in Holyrood this past Monday morning because power engineers in that company, Mr. Speaker, are being asked to do a two-day course so that they can do the work of electricians. We have to ask ourselves, Mr. Speaker, dealing with power pumps with 600 volts of power and we have power engineers out asked to do a two-day course to deal with that.

Mr. Speaker, I think we are playing with danger when we do that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, another place I feel that we have -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for a copy of his statement.

Earlier this week, or last week, Mr. Speaker, I distributed a canary in a cage to all members of the House, which was the thing that miners used to use many years ago when they were underground. They would have a canary there with them, and when the canary died from gas they knew it was time for them to get out.

We have advanced a long way since then, Mr. Speaker, but in this Province we have had our share of tragedies over the years. If we look around, what happened in St. Lawrence, in Baie Verte, in Labrador West, in the fishing industry, each of these industries can relate high numbers of fatalities during the past number of years.

On June 1, 1979, the right to refuse was proclaimed in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: I say to the minister, Mr. Speaker, while all these statements are good, and they look good on paper, what we need is more enforcement so that we do not have Westrays in this Province. What we need, Mr. Speaker, is for the minister to be on top of things, to make sure that the regulations in this Province are enforced and make sure - I ask the minister if he could inform the House, probably, of the number of safety reports that are required by regulation to be sent to his department, how many of these are actually done and complied with?

I say to the minister, it is all well and good to stand in this House and make a statement but in the workplace, on the shop floor, is where the enforcement is necessary and his department is ultimately responsible for seeing that happens.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise this afternoon to tell this hon. House about an exciting event scheduled to take place in St. John's this coming fall. Prince of Wales Collegiate has been selected to host the national Canadian Student Leadership Conference from September 27 until October 4.

This is only the second time a school from this Province has been chosen to host this prestigious even and we are delighted to have some student and teacher representatives in the gallery today. I would like to point out: Mr. Allister Dyke, Principal of PWC; Ms Bernice Langdon, Conference Chair; and students: Christian Dicks; Betty Soo; Zan Au You; and Kayla Dyer.

Mr. Speaker, more than 600 students and teachers from across Canada will come to St. John's for one week to participate in this leadership conference and explore the theme, Unlock the Future. Delegates will have the opportunity to develop their leadership skills so they can unlock the doors to the future and become leaders of tomorrow.

The conference will feature a full schedule of activities as the students learn about the importance of community service, volunteerism, team work, determination and education. This will help them develop the leadership skills that will prepare them to meet the challenges of tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, we are delighted to have this conference here in St. John's as it gives students from more than forty schools throughout Newfoundland and Labrador the opportunity to learn from the finest instructors involved in leadership training. Under their guidance, the students will access the highest level of instruction and strengthen their own personal leadership talents. For these students, Mr. Speaker, it will be an experience of a lifetime.

As an added bonus, Mr. Speaker, in addition to the workshops and seminars planned by Prince of Wales Collegiate, the hosts have also organized an array of activities to showcase the culture and heritage of our beautiful Province. Some of the out-of-Province students will begin their trip in Gros Morne National Park, and will then drive as a convoy across our Province.

They will show the student leaders from across Canada the real Newfoundland and Labrador, and these leaders will return to their own provinces as ambassadors for this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask this hon. House to join with me in congratulating the organizing committee of Prince of Wales Collegiate and wishing them all the best as they welcome the future leaders of our country to this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Official Opposition, we certainly congratulate Prince of Wales Collegiate as they host this very important conference that is coming up in several months here in St. John's. We certainly welcome, again on behalf of our party, the Principal of the school, Mr. Dyke, Ms Langdon, and the students of PWC.

It is interesting to note, as the minister has indicated, that they will focus on issues such as community service, volunteerism, teamwork, determination and education. Of course, these are the themes that are very important for young people today, and as they live out their lives in the future.

We certainly welcome students from across Canada as they visit our Province, and we certainly welcome students from other parts of Newfoundland and Labrador as they come to St. John's, our provincial capital, and participate in this very important and worthwhile conference.

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, congratulate the Prince of Wales Collegiate students and teachers on hosting this event. An important event, I might add, because it is important that all students in our Province have the opportunity, each and every time it presents itself, to develop the leadership skills they will require, because after all, they are tomorrow's leaders.

We wish all of these students from all across the country, all across this Province, a very successful conference. I am sure the students and teachers who will be visiting this Province from away will take back very many rich memories of the people and our land outside of the conference as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: Again, I congratulate Prince of Wales Collegiate on being chosen to host this event.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions this afternoon are for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, last week this House passed a unanimous resolution calling on the federal government to reverse its decision to close the Gulf and Northern Cod fishery. There can be absolutely no doubt that we all support this cause. Through debate in the House of Commons and the House of Assembly and public protests, the eyes and ears of our Province, and indeed the country, were focused on this very, very important issue. Unfortunately, the Premier has made comments that have moved this debate away from the fishery. The issue has now become a matter of law. We are now discussing two very, very separate issues.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most fundamental responsibilities of any government is to oversee the proper administration of justice. Today this government shirked that responsibility when the Premier enticed fishermen to break the law by indicating that his government would shield them from prosecution. This is a very serious matter.

Mr. Speaker, can the Premier please explain how he, as leader of our Province, can stand before the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and indeed our country, and entice individuals to break the law and then offer them protection from prosecution? How can any responsible government do that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, while operating in the interests of trying to get the right decision made here, it took us until Wednesday of last week to have the Leader of the Opposition decide that he was against the closure. He had accepted it before that, but we are glad to have him back onside.

Mr. Speaker, if he had checked his facts in this - as a matter of fact, in the interviews that I have done and everything I have said publicly, I have stated quite clearly that a leader of a government cannot, would not, and I would certainly not advise or countenance anyone to break the law. The objective here is to make sure that no law gets broken. The objective here is to still make sure that the government makes the right decision so that the people who have told me - and I reported this to the Prime Minister over a week ago - the people who have reported to me that they feel so aggrieved, and I understood last week that the Leader of the Opposition, the fisheries critic and others, also felt so aggrieved, that they themselves have advised me, as the Premier, and I have advised the Prime Minister, that if we do not make the right decision, law-abiding people are saying they feel it is so wrong and so aggrieved that they will likely protest fish.

Now, that has been told to me. I have done my job and I have told it to the Prime Minister, the head of the government, who has made a decision that might see respectful, law-abiding Newfoundlanders go out and protest fish. I am advising people, what we are hoping to do is this - and I thought the Leader of the Opposition, maybe he has changed his mind again, I thought the Leader of the Opposition was supporting us because the question we were trying to clarify last week: Is he still supporting us in trying to get the fundamental decision reversed, yes or no? Or, is he accepting that the decision is final and its time to move on? Now, which one is it? Because we do not accept that the decision is final. We still hope to get it reversed. Then there will be no illegal activity and there will be nothing to defend or protect. Our objective is to get the right decision taken, Mr. Speaker, in the first instance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, because of the seriousness of this matter I have no intention of

playing word games with the Premier this afternoon. I made it very, very clear, in introducing that question, that there is absolutely no doubt that we support the cause of reopening the cod fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, desperate people do desperate things, but this goes way beyond political grandstanding. This seriously undermines our legal system and our law enforcement officers in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, regardless of motives, regardless of how noble or right the cause is, and regardless of the fact that the entire Province supports our fishermen and women, the law is the law and this government cannot and must not interfere -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: - with the administration of justice.

Mr. Speaker, can the Premier please explain to the people how he plans, exactly, to shield individuals who break the law from prosecution? We have been told by fishermen that he has, in fact, given them that assurance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am not interested in playing word games either, I can tell you that for a fact, but maybe it is interesting to note that it was one full week after the announced closure, when the wrong decision was taken, that the Leader of the Opposition was saying to VOCM: I didn't ask for a reversal. I admit that I didn't use that word. Now, that was one week after the fact.

Our objective from day one, and the objective, I understand, of the people from his caucus who showed up at the rallies on the weekend, was to say to those people affected and impacted, that we believe and we support you in getting the decision changed, so then there will be no need to protect anyone from anything. The whole objective is to say, quite clearly, that we believe the fishing season is about to start, sometime soon, and we believe that with the full support of the Opposition there is still an opportunity in Newfoundland and Labrador, like there is in New Brunswick, where the Fisheries Minister is in the news saying: There is still time to negotiate.

The Member for The Straits-White Bay North is shaking his head in agreement, nodding that that is true. The Member for St. Barbe is nodding agreement, that is true. That is what we are trying to do, to get them to come right here to Newfoundland and Labrador and we will gladly talk about a fishery reduced by 50 per cent, a proper compensation plan -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: - and there will be no need to protect anybody from anything.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is very dangerous business that the Premier is about, disregard for the law, and public endorsement of that position by the Premier places the people of this Province, particularly the fishermen and our law enforcement officials, in jeopardy, even danger.

Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that there is no way that this government can protect people who break the law. They can be prosecuted if they do so, and they could lose their boats, their gear, their licenses and anything else connected to the execution of illegal activity.

Mr. Speaker, can the Premier, please, clearly explain to the fishermen and women the true consequences of their following his advise?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, again it is unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to suggest that I have said something that I have not said. I have given no advise, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, had he been in the meetings, any of the meetings - because I do not believe he has met with any people impacted or affected since this started twelve or thirteen days ago. He has been too busy doing other things that are important to him. The fact of the matter is this: in every single meeting I have had, and in every single public representation I have made, I have said clearly this: that I cannot and I would not advise anyone to break the law. But they stand up in the meetings and say: But, Mr. Premier, I am telling you that I do not want to break the law either but this decision is so wrong that I will most likely go out and fish.

I say, if that is the case, I cannot advise you to do it, I do not advise you to do it, because you do know the consequences, and they already know the consequences. What I am saying is that I fully support them. The decision is dead wrong. I thought the Leader of the Opposition also thought the decision that is in place is dead wrong. Maybe he has changed his mind again today, Mr. Speaker. Maybe he has changed his mind again today. We are trying to suggest to everybody that there is still time to come and talk to us. I spoke to our federal minister this morning about what we could do to have the decision reversed -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - and the right compensation packages put in place. We are still trying to get that done, and then we will not have to protect anyone because we will have the right decisions in place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what the Premier is saying is, by not enforcing the law, he is inciting and encouraging breaking the law. Mr. Speaker, without law we have anarchy. There is a stark contrast between the reaction of the New Brunswick Government to law-breaking by not justifying it and by encouraging calm and cooler heads to prevail.

Mr. Speaker, now that the Premier has said that he is prepared to facilitate individuals breaking the law, what will he do if the situation escalates beyond a protest fishery? How far does his offer of immunity extend?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, it is again unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition wants to misrepresent what I have said. Those people whom I have met with, those people whom I have talked to, know that what he just described is exactly the opposite of what I have said.

What I have said is that I understand the predicament that you are in. I understand why you feel so aggrieved. I understand why you are so frustrated and angry that, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, respectful, law-abiding people, that they would actually take down a Canadian Flag and burn it for the first time in the history of the Province. I understand that they feel the decision is so wrong that they are driven to do things that they normally would not even contemplate, and they understand and know that we cannot protect them and shield them from the administration of the law, because it will occur.

What I am doing, again, is repeating the message for everybody in the Province and the country to hear. I want everyone to know that these people are so offended at this point in time that they may very well go out and protest-fish if the right decision is not taken, and there is still lots of time for the Government of Canada, with the full support of the Leader of the Opposition and all the parties in this House, which we voted on last Wednesday -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - to have the decision reversed so we do not have to talk about anything being illegal and protecting anyone; we will just get the right decision made.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take my seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that the Premier has encouraged civil disobedience, for that was his proposed solution for Marystown, when Friede Goldman threatened to remove assets. If the Premier cannot find another way to deal with crisis, then we must seriously question his judgement.

Mr. Speaker, if the Premier is prepared to entice these individuals to break the law, and offer to shield them from prosecution because he supports their cause, what other group is he prepared to turn a blind eye to while they break the law? Now that he has set a precedent, how far will this go if the people can use their Premier as their defence to breaking the law?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is good to see which side of the argument the great fighting Newfoundlander is coming down onside of today. I guess he must have lost the fire that he had in his speech during the weekend, when he talked about fighting harder than anybody ever fought for Newfoundland and Labrador. We will see how hard he is willing to fight today, and his members opposite are so proud of him.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this: These people who are impacted, who are members of the Fisheries, Food and Allied Workers, have been given legal advice about the consequences as to whether or not they should break the law. Some of the actions they have already taken, as a matter of fact, with respect to occupying offices, which, under normal circumstances are considered to be a breach of the law. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would agree with that. I suppose they should all be dragged off and charged now for occupying the offices. Those in charge of the system have made their judgements about whether they arrest people, whether they charge people. We are trying to make sure, Mr. Speaker, and we are trying to make the point as loudly and as clearly as we can, that there is no need for us to even be talking about these legal issues. What there is a need for is the right and proper decision to be made, which I understood the Leader of the Opposition stood in this Legislature last Wednesday and gave a speech saying he did agree that the decision should be reversed. That was the first part of the motion, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: We are still trying to get the decision reversed and then all of this will go by the wayside, as it should, if we get the right and proper and just decision for Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier said he has not made the statements that I am attributing to him. In a news release today, I quote: Grimes says if fishermen are charged provincial justice officials will not help Ottawa with the prosecution.

My next question is for the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General for Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, that minister, as a lawyer, is an officer of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador and he, as I am, is sworn to uphold the law.

Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Justice and Attorney General support the Premier's actions wherein the Premier indicated his clear support for law-breaking? Does he believe that a sitting government and a Cabinet, of which he is a member, should encourage individuals to break the law?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that he should not confuse the role of Justice with the Premier's road to a just decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Two absolutely different things. The Attorney General in this Province has an obligation and is sworn to uphold the law, and I do not need anyone over there on that side of the House to tell me what those obligations are. As the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker, you take no directions from the Premier when it comes to the proper administration of law and justice in this Province. This Premier has not given any instructions to this individual and this Attorney General, in terms of the administration of justice, nor would I take any. It is my responsibility as the Attorney General of this Province, and no one else's, to ensure that the laws of this land are upheld.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the Minister of Justice, I say his Premier has said that provincial justice officials will not help Ottawa with the prosecution. His Premier has said that he will support breaking the law and he will not enforce it. In other words, he will interfere with the administration of justice. Then if the minister is independent and if his department is independent, does he or does he not agree with the Premier's position? Yes or no?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I am not a witness in any courtroom to be subjected to cross-examination.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: These questions are far too serious to be answered trivially. They are very serious questions indeed; very serious.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PARSONS: Again, the commentary of the Leader of the Opposition is not deserving of a comment from what I just heard.

In any case, Mr. Speaker, there has to be an understanding here, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition is capable of understanding that there are different hats and responsibilities that people have. There is Kelvin Parsons, the private citizen; there may be Kelvin Parsons the MHA; there is Kelvin Parsons the Minister of Justice and there is Kelvin Parsons as the Attorney General. When I accepted this office I swore to uphold the laws of this land as the Attorney General. That will be done. There are no ifs, there are no ands, and there are no buts. That is part of the job and the day that I cease to be prepared to do that I shall leave this job.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been over a year since the Department of Environment has announced the Provincial Waste Management Strategy. As part of that strategy government will finalize waste management standards and regulations within the next six to twelve months. I understand that the standards are almost ready to be released. To paraphrase the minister from Budget Estimates last week: the waste management committees throughout the Province are at various stages of organization. Some are very organized, some are not. There are no regulations put in place to implement this strategy. There are no regulations put in place. They should have been put in place within six to twelve months. I ask the minister when those regulations will be put in place and why they have not been according to the strategy?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the gentleman opposite was fully listening to the Budget estimate Debate he would have heard that yes, we have a waste management strategy and we have that published. It is out in the public domain. He would also know that I answered, in a direct question to him, about the various standards associated with the operation of a waste management facility, the types of materials and so on, and the decommissioning of facilities. Those regulations, or those proposed regulations, were in draft form and they are already out in the public at this point in time, being discussed, being circulated. We are now waiting for the commentary back. When that happens we can finalize most of the regulations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I spoke to two officials of the Department of Environment this week who told me that there are standards that are almost ready to be released but there are no regulations. They saw no need to put regulations in place because of the standards. The strategy clearly outlines that their standards and regulations will be put in place within six to twelve months. That has not happened.

Mr. Speaker, the Avalon Waste Management Committee was funded by government and operated in conjunction with several departments of government. Several of the waste management committees throughout the Province, according to the minister, are at various stages of organization. Have any of the other waste management committees throughout the Province been funded and organized by government to the same degree that the Avalon Waste Management Committee has been?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is really interesting to have this discussion on Budget Estimates all over again because the same questions that were asked at Budget Estimates are being asked again here today. The same information applies. The western waste management strategy or the Western Waste Management Group was funded by the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board. They have in place a committee which has prepared several reports. They are in the process now of submitting the last and final report from that particular committee. Once that is received we will review it and decide which actions have to be taken and where do we go from there.

A similar committee in Central Newfoundland has also received funding from the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board and is doing a considerable amount of work in that part of the Province. The group in the St. Anthony, Northern Peninsula area, has a committee in place. We have, in fact, funded an individual up there. They have come to us and recommended that out of the thirteen waste disposal sites in that area we reduce them to three. They are also recommending that they close out the teepee sites sooner rather than later.

So, yes, Mr. Speaker, these committees have been funded by the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board throughout the Province. We are doing the work and things are developing as they should.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, to fund an individual on the Northern Peninsula is a far cry from funding and organizing the Avalon Waste Management Committee. The incinerator at St. Anthony is not being shut down by government sooner than later. It gave out. It was torn down because it gave out.

I am asking the minister what he is going to do in areas such as St. Anthony and other areas of the Province, where they have not received the same attention as the Avalon Waste Management Committee, to put in place and implement strategies as opposed to opening new and temporary landfill sites because the incinerators simply gave out and are no longer operable?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once again, we are hearing the overpass syndrome in high gear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MERCER: The group in St. Anthony, apart from being a single individual - and if he is, I guess the mayor of St. Anthony had no reason to accompany him here in St. John's - fully supportive of the work which is being done in that particular area and fully supportive of the strategy which is being developed. What they are talking about doing in the St. Anthony region - for the benefit of the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, if he would care to listen; it is his district after all. It would be worthy to note that what they are doing is not opening new landfill sites, what they are trying to do is to collapse thirteen sites into three consolidated sites and to maintain the revets at those areas and reduce emissions from the teepee sites. That is what is happening in the St. John's area. What is happening in the Avalon region - a report has been prepared. It has been submitted to government and they are proposing to develop a site at Dog Hill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

While it touches on the issue that is at hand with the fishery, I also want to say to the Premier, given the fact that the decision by the federal government about the weather office in Gander, about the port in Stephenville, and now it looks like the federal Minister of Fisheries is looking to reconsider a decision regarding the crab industry in New Brunswick that he has not done for the cod industry in this Province. I want to ask the Premier, can he relate to the people of the Province how his actions and his public display of fighting with our federal minister impacts in other areas, that we may be able to achieve things for the Province that may be barred by this public display that is taking place lately?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I spoke with our representative in the federal cabinet again this morning, indicating that, as always, we are fully willing and prepared to meet anywhere, anytime, to deal with issues jointly and collectively, to help him get the right and proper decisions made in Ottawa for Newfoundland and Labrador.

At this point in time, as I have indicated before, we will have to move on and try to do what we can to get the decisions reversed, because the fundamental difficulty is that what this House of Assembly voted on last Wednesday, unanimously again, which is that the decision to close should be reversed, that particular decision, in this case the seeking of the reversal, is not supported by the federal minister. It is supported by every other federal MP, Liberal and Conservative, it is supported by our senators in Ottawa of all stripes, it is supported by everybody here, it is supported by everybody involved. The unfortunate part is that he is the one person who has a voice inside the federal cabinet system and is still not willing to say that the decision should be reversed. I indicated to him again that I think that is a mistake, that we should focus on getting the decision reversed, that there is an example now in New Brunswick where there is an opportunity to have a negotiation. We would gladly enter into a negotiation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: We will continue to work with him anytime we can and hope that he will be supportive of everybody else who is speaking for Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader. Time for one quick question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, last week we saw the appointment of the former Public Relations Director of the Premier's office to the Bull Arm Corporation. While the Public Service Commission is not necessarily involved in the competition for such political appointments, it is normal procedure, I would think and I would assume that it is, that in appointing somebody to such an important position that some sort of search would have occurred to ensure that the skills set that you wanted, to ensure that the corporation achieved its objectives and goals in terms of attracting business to that site, were achieved.

I would like to ask the Premier this question today: What sort of search did you undertake, as Premier of the Province, to ensure that the skills set that you required to keep the Bull Arm site up and running and going and attracting more business is the one that you got?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Quite an extensive search actually, for over two years since Mr. Gordon Gosse left the position. Sometimes you realize that the solution is right under your nose, and I am glad it was this time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I could raise a point of privilege, but I am not going to raise a point of privilege. I am just going to raise a point of order and it comes out of Question Period when the Leader of the Opposition was questioning the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.

During the response, the Attorney General said something to the effect that he was not a witness in a court of law, to which the Leader of the Opposition uttered: Not yet. Quite audible, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say that one of the basic freedoms, one of the basic privileges, one of the basic rights of each member of this House, is the privilege and the right to speak. The freedom of speech, Mr. Speaker, that is basic. That is fundamental. That is probably the primary privilege of all members of the House, to have the freedom to speak without fear of threat, without intimidation, and I suggest that these remarks, "not yet", suggested a threat. These remarks suggested intimidation. I would suggest that these remarks were not appropriate and totally unacceptable to this House, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should be asked to withdraw them.

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

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

First of all let me say, Mr. Speaker, that this is more, in my view, a point of frustration by the Government House Leader as opposed to a point of order. It is completely in line with the comments made yesterday by the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, questioning the member's character. It is completely in line yesterday with the Member of Gander questioning and casting aspersions on the member's character. What, in fact, was said - and the leader just said - yes, he was pointing out that if the Premier continued to advocate civil unrest, and if the Minister of Justice was true in what he said today, and I have no reason to believe that he was not, that he does not take any direction from the Premier, then his comments today, if a court action were to ensue, he could be called as a witness. It was not a threat. It is a statement of fact.

Finally, let me say this. When the water rights reversion act was introduced in this House of Assembly, one of the reasons used by a judge by the name of Boris Lansky of why that act was ruled unconstitutional and that we could not do it was because of statements made by members in this House. So, there was no threat of intimidation. There was no threat whatsoever given to the Minister of Justice.

The Premier would also know, in a former capacity as the Minister of Tourism, that statements that he made in this House that he, himself, ended up in court and had to explain the statements he made in this House. So, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that intimidation or fear is being used by the Leader of the Opposition is unwarranted, it is unjustified, and frankly it is a bit upsetting.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will take the point raised by the hon. the Government House Leader under advisement.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Social Services Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have approved, without amendment, the Estimates of Expenditure of the following departments: Education; Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education; Human Resources and Employment; Labour; Health and Community Services; and Justice.

Thank you.

On motion, Report of Social Services Estimates Committee, carried.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the Resource Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have approved, without amendment, the Estimates of Expenditure of the following departments: Fisheries and Aquaculture; Forest Resources and Agrifoods; Mines and Energy; Tourism, Culture and Recreation; Industry, Trade and Rural Development; and Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

Thank you.

On motion, Report of Resource Estimates Committee, carried.

Notices of Motion

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I would like to put forth the following private member's resolution:

WHEREAS the School Lunch Association makes available nutritious lunches on a daily basis to 3,000 school children from twelve schools in the St. John's area, and an average of 1,600 children avail of this service each day; and

WHEREAS it is known that more than 26 per cent of children in this Province live in poverty and go to school hungry each day; and

WHEREAS it has been demonstrated in several reports, including the report of the all-party committee of this House, that hungry children do not have the same capacity to learn which often results in them dropping out of school and, thereby, perpetuating the cycle of poverty; and

WHEREAS the School Lunch Association, unless it receives $30,000 funding immediately, will have to shut down at the end of May, thus depriving these children from receiving nutritious lunches during the month of June;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador provide the necessary funding to allow the School Lunch Association to carry on for the month of June, the end of the school year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I once again stand and present a petition to the House.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador ask the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer:

We, the undersigned citizens of St. Mary's Bay Center area hereby draw your attention to the unsatisfactorily and unsafe conditions as they now exist on Route 90 in St. Mary's Bay.

WHEREAS it is the duty of government, through the enactment and enforcement of the Highways Safety Act to protect its citizens not only from commuters but also from unsafe highways;

WHEREAS the safety of the travelling public must be the number one priority of any government;

THEREFORE your petitioners ask that government provide the necessary funding to carry out the much-needed repairs to Route 90.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I am being presented with a petition from residents of St. Vincent's, Peter's River, St. Stephens, Gaskiers, Point La Haye, St. Mary's, Riverhead, Mall Bay, and other communities in St. Mary's Bay. These people have brought forward this petition because of what they believe to be the unsafe conditions of Route 90, which basically runs from St. Catherine's down into St. Vincent's area. They are very, very concerned about the safety conditions.

Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity on Sunday past to be in that area, and spend most of the day there, and certainly the roads are in desperate shape. When you see school buses travelling over these roads every morning and evening, ambulances, emergency vehicles and the general public, it is certainly a major concern of safety in that area.

I say to the minister who is here in the House today, this is one of, I think, seven now, petitions that I have presented here in the House on behalf of the people of this part of my constituency. The problems with the roads in that area have been front and centre in letters that have gone to the minister, I am sure - I have received copies of those - and from telephone calls to my office, and petitions and letters to my office also.

The concern is very genuine for the simple reason, Mr. Speaker, that much of this road is climbing up on thirty years of age, and there are some major concerns and some major safety issues there. I think it is time, as we try to develop a major tourism industry in that area and create the Irish Loop, it is important that the necessary funding be found to resurface and to repair some of this road in the St. Mary's Bay area.

Mr. Speaker, over the past number of years, many, many people have decided to travel into that area, visit the area, and any funding that would be required is something that we certainly look forward to.

Mr. Speaker, we realize that there is only $23 million in the provincial roads program this year. I guess that begs the question of why we do not have -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, it begs the question of a federal-provincial agreement, certainly understanding fully that the cost of maintaining the roads in this Province is immense, that there should be all efforts put into making sure that we have a federal-provincial agreement to address some of the concerns, not only in St. Mary's Bay and through other parts of the District of Placentia & St. Mary's but throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I think it is important and it is certainly lax on government's part not to have this proposal put forward to the federal government at the present time, because I think without that money we are going to have deterioration of the roads throughout the Province and certainly unsafe conditions for the travelling public.

I urge the minister to do what he can, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people who have presented this petition to me. I, on their behalf, have presented it here in the House and certainly hope that funding will be forthcoming to address some of the concerns that are raised through the presentation of this petition in the House today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in this hon. House to present a petition from a very special group of individuals, a class of students at the Queen Elizabeth Regional High School in Foxtrap. The petition, basically, is presenting a prayer to this House asking the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to reinstate the Labrador Cultural Exchange Program that was previously in existence. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that would have been back in the mid-1980s that this Labrador Cultural Exchange Program was into effect.

This particular group of students, Mr. Speaker, are high school students at Queen Elizabeth High. They are involved in a literature class, and were spurred on by their dealing with the novel Whiteout, which deals with the Labrador peoples. This novel spurred them on to give them a desire to not only read about the particular culture but also to experience it first-hand. They did arrange an exchange program with a group of similar high school students in Labrador. Everything was set, Mr. Speaker, for them to exchange: for that one group from Labrador to come down, spend some time in the Foxtrap, Queen Elizabeth area, and, of course for this group to travel to Labrador as well.

I can say to you, Mr. Speaker, obviously the cost of this endeavor was a substantial cost, but the students were willing to fund raise and had hoped that they could get some support, not only from corporate sponsors but also from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. The discovered, of course, that there was no funding directly given to this sort of Labrador cultural exchange.

Myself and my colleague from Conception Bay South did visit with the class at Queen Elizabeth, and they certainly were a very enthusiastic group of young people who clearly articulated their disappointment that the government, and in particular the Department of Education, had cancelled this particular program and had nothing in place to encourage such a cultural exchange. Again, their argument was that there seemed to be a fair bit of funding for special groups, be it sports groups, drama groups, different specific groups, but not for the average high school student, the average class who were looking at increasing their knowledge and understanding of Labrador culture.

They are calling upon the government, and in particular the Minister of Education, to review this whole situation and to make provision, Mr. Speaker, for the reinstatement -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: - of the Labrador Cultural Exchange Program.

With those words, Mr. Speaker, I certainly would congratulate these young people for bringing this petition forward and I take great pleasure in presenting it to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a large number of residents from the Burin Peninsula, that reflects concern from other areas of the Province as well concerning the lack of funding for drugs required to treat MS.

I have presented these petitions, Mr. Speaker, many, many times in this House of Assembly, calling upon this government to take action to treat residents of this Province who are affected with MS the same as people in every other province of this country are treated, and that is by introducing a co-op drug prescription program that will help alleviate the high cost purchase of these drugs.

Mr. Speaker, this government to date has failed to recognize the need that people in our communities have, who are affected with MS. Mr. Speaker, every other jurisdiction in this country has a program in place that offers their residents some kind of financial help.

Mr. Speaker, this government, after years and years of neglect, have still failed to recognize the need for this to happen in our Province. We have people, Mr. Speaker, in our Province today who unfortunately are faced with a situation where they have to make a choice to provide drugs to treat their illness or to provide things that their family need. Nobody, Mr. Speaker, nobody in this Province today, should have to make choices like that.

Mr. Speaker, people who are getting up each morning and going to work are working, basically, to pay for a drug that they need to treat their disease.

Mr. Speaker, I know of people, personally, who are contemplating leaving this Province. People with good-paying jobs are thinking of leaving this Province and relocating simply and solely on the basis of having some protection for them and their families, and help in the purchase of these drugs. I do not think for a minute, if this government followed through on a study that looked at the cost of providing these drugs up front, that would help people through their illness, compared with what happens down the road if people are not treated and end up institutionalized, where the cost is certainly much greater than the treatment - so the treatment, Mr. Speaker, should be looked at and viewed by this government as a cost-saving method in the long run.

It is incumbent upon this government to come forward, to do what is right for the people of this Province, to introduce a plan that not only covers people who are seniors and people who are on income support, which we fully agree with, but there are a whole lot of other people who are caught in the middle, people who are going to work each day and having to use their paycheques to purchase a drug to treat their illness -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: - or else, Mr. Speaker, to make the choice of providing a drug for themselves or to look after their family's immediate needs.

It is unheard of, in our society today, where a person would have to cash in all of their RRSPs, spend any money they may have been able to put aside for their children's education, reduce themselves to income support level before this government will step in and provide any assistance. That day should be long gone, Mr. Speaker, and I call upon this government to do the right thing now. It is never too late to do what is right, and they should bring forward changes to the drug prescription plan in this Province to cover people who find themselves in this position.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to present a petition to the House on behalf of parents in Parsons Pond. First of all, I will read the prayer to the House:

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

WHEREAS the closure of St. Francis Elementary, Parsons Pond, will adversely minimize educational opportunities for students; and

WHEREAS keeping St. Francis Elementary, Parsons Pond, operational will provide the best possible education for all students;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure that St. Francis Elementary School remains open in order to provide the best possible education for all students.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Today, Mr. Speaker, parents in Parsons Pond are out seeking legal help because the school board had seen fit to close down this school just after two years ago coming in and looking at the school, and at that time they made a commitment to those parents that they would not revisit closing down St. Francis unless there was a drop in enrolment, and from that day until now the enrollment has stayed consistent. There was no drop, but just two years later we are out here looking - and the reasoning the school board is putting out is that there was a drop from 1996, and that was certainly not what was understood by the parents in Parsons Pond. They felt they did have some time, they had some stability, and that they could bring their families home. That is what happened, in many cases, in Parsons Pond. It was that they came home and had settled in Parsons Pond, and one of the main reasons was because of the education offered in St. Francis, K-6.

St. Francis is what I would consider a high-end education that is offered there, and it is all because of the involvement of the parents in that school. There is a great, intense involvement from parents. Even parents whose children have gone on to high school have maintained and kept in the program with the school there. Actually, even the president today, her children have gone on to high school but yet she has maintained an association with that school.

The point that I went out and made when I made a presentation to the school board - I felt this was a high-end education we were getting in St. Francis - was the fact that they offer a swimming course. One of the results of that swimming course was, there was a child who fell over a wharf but had the knowledge to know what it was to stay afloat until help came, instead of panicking and drowning. What a contribution that is to a community, when a child is with us today because of training they had from the program that was offered with volunteers in that high school.

Quality, daily, physical education. There are only a handful of schools in this country, not in this Province but in this country, that can go out there and claim what this school has. They have achieved this in eight of the past years. Every year they have made that achievement by meeting and surpassing certain thresholds for daily education. As we know and talk about in our schools today (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. YOUNG: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Preschool, 100 per cent by volunteers offered, very good. Special poetry program: With those students, poetry has been published in a book that has gone throughout the country. Can you imagine growing up and having that as your achievement?

Fertilized fish eggs: To go out there and understand the ecosystem the way they have, I challenge many people to stand and say the schools in their district have such things. This is the education that those children are getting. I think it is a first-class education. I am sorry to lose this for just $52,000. That is the price tag that was on this kind of education. Those volunteers were able to make this school from an average school to a very high-end education for their children.

Thank you.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, before calling Orders of the Day, I would like to move that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House do not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. All those in favor, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker, the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government - the Budget Speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1.

The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, it is a pleasure to get up and have a few words to say about the Budget, and have a good debate on some of the issues we feel are important to us as members in this House, and bring out some of the things in our districts that people expect us to do.

Some of the issues that I like to speak about, Mr. Speaker, have to deal with funding and financing, and to keep the government accountable as to how they spend the taxpayers' dollars in this Province and make sure that things are done in a fair way: that considers all the MHAs, that gives us all an opportunity to have input into the way the government spends money in this Province, and to make sure that we are listened to when we approach government to give advice on where we think dollars should be spent.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to refer back to one issue last fall that was very important to rural Newfoundland. That was with respect to the job creation program, when many of the districts in the Province availed of funds available to get people into the workforce so that they can have insurable hours of work. Most of us, over the years, had input into what projects we felt were important for our districts. Last fall, I think not only myself but other members were denied the opportunity to have input into the department on where dollars should be spent.

I will give you one example in my district. I asked the minister to look into having funding approved during the job creation period, to do some work on a very needed project, which was relocating a T'Railway bed in the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor, and that was the Lingard Trail, the old CNR rail bed. The minister kept putting me off. When crunch time came, to see if we could get this project done, the Premier's office interfered. The Premier's office came out into the district, talking to different communities and wanted to know what the communities would like to see done with job creation, totally ignoring what I suggested and recommended to the minister. The minister was just trying to put me off for a period of months.

In the meantime, while he was putting me off, and while I was trying to get some worthwhile projects done, the Premier and his officials, or his staff in the building in Grand Falls-Windsor, was out trying to undermine what the people wanted and undermine what the MHA heard - what I heard - were important projects to be done. The Premier himself got involved in that process.

I do not think that is very fair to all the MHAs in this Province and the people of this Province. We had a project that was a very worthwhile project and needed to be done. Over the last four years, we have been lobbying government, and tourism many times, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs many times - and Lands. We have been trying to get this project done, but the Premier's office interfered and came out and took that money away from the area in which it should have been spent. Madam Speaker, they took the money and used it on roadside cutting.

I said to the minister: This project should be funded. He said: What do you want to do, increase the deficit of the Province? I said: No, it won't cost you anything. Just take the money that you are going to use - a very small portion of the money that you are going to use - for job creation, and invest in this very worthwhile project to help probably fifty families on that street to alleviate a problem of dust and noise. I was totally ignored.

I think that is unbelievable, in this day and age, when we are elected to represent our people and to be listened to by ministers and to be listened to by the Premier, not ignored, turned away and do a project that this government has done that was totally useless in some areas. When workers were out working in four and five feet of snow, cutting roadside, where there were no moose problems. They could have taken the same amount of money that was used in some of these areas and done some very, very good worthwhile projects; some projects that people would have been happy with. Fixed problems that could have been fixed; did not do it. The Premier decided that he wanted to have the say himself.

I would like to say to the Minister of Environment - he is wondering why it did not happen - could he tell me why it did not happen?

MR. HEDDERSON: He just said it. It is because you are in Opposition.

MR. HUNTER: Oh, because I am in Opposition it did not happen. So you are going to say to everybody in this Province, if you are not in government then we are not going to help you. Is that what you are saying?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HUNTER: Oh, boy. That is unbelievable.

Then we have ministers on that side who cannot give us good reasons why they do things and do not do things. I will give you another example, Madam Speaker. I have been working on the issue, with a person in my district, involving oil tank replacements. Nobody can tell me why Newfoundland and Labrador Housing is not funding the replacement of oil tanks in the Province again, except that it is not done through the department now. It is done through the Department of Finance. We will give up to a $300 grant towards your oil tank replacements but the policy is that they will replace a furnace under emergency repair. They will repair a furnace, or replace it because it is an emergency. You cannot get heat if a furnace is not working, but when it comes to the oil tank: oh, we cannot replace that. We cannot do anything about that. That is not an emergency.

If you do not have oil than the furnace does not work. Doesn't it make sense that if there is a program in place for emergency repair, then wouldn't they do anything which involves getting the heat back on? I do not understanding why the government works in that way. I do not understand why the ministers do not come out and say: you know, take our advice. We give good advice. We may be in Opposition, I say to the minister, but don't we give good advice to you sometimes? Just because we are in Opposition, you do not want to take our advice? It is what the people of the Province want. People are looking to you to do the things that are necessary. They need things done and they are looking to you, as a government, to help them. I have to say to these people today who need help, that I am sorry, the government does not have its act together when it comes to doing what needs to be done. They believe that one thing is an emergency but the other part of this scenario is not an emergency. So, it is unbelievable why we do things like that.

I say to the Minister of Environment, even in your own department you spend thousands of dollars putting together programs and doing investigations on doing regionalization on landfill sites, and you only half do the job. We have communities out there which are involved in a regional landfill site that is probably going to work pretty good when it is up and running. The concept is good, I agree, but when you go out there you must put a plan in place where the existing sites are totally cleaned up, not half done. We have to find funds in a program like that, that if you are going to do the job, do the job; don't half do it. Don't be giving lip service to the people you are trying to mislead because they understood, in the beginning, that when you started this program it was going to be done. I am referring to the landfill site in Green Bay, when it first was discussed, then it was believed that the department would finish the job of cleaning up the sites. This was supposed to be a model site for the rest of the Province. That did not happen. It is not finished. The departments are going around in circles.

With the Department of Tourism, today there is hardly anybody in there now who is in control of decisions and issues dealing with the T'Railway. When I first started this three years ago, investigating this section - one kilometre section of the T'Railway in this Province - I dealt with a gentleman in the department. A year after that gentleman has gone, all the files were gone. What happened to the files? Because of the relocation program in the Province - which the government spent thousand and millions of dollars to relocate different departments - somewhere along the way the files disappeared. I do not know if they fell off the truck between here and the west coast, they may have, but there is a lot of money invested in this relocation. Last year I called looking for the same gentleman -

MR. TAYLOR: I would say they are in Beaton's desk.

MR. HUNTER: They are probably in the furniture that the former Minister of Industry and Trade has in his desk somewhere. If they can find the desk they might find the files.

I say to the minister, you have to have a long-term plan for issues in this Province, like the T'Railway, to tell the people where you want to go and what should be done.

Last year I phoned again and dealt with a different fellow on this matter. I phoned again last week and he is gone. I phoned again this week and nobody knows who is in charge anymore. The cutbacks and cutbacks and cutbacks and the important issues are put on the back-burner.

MR. E. BYRNE: I thought they said they wouldn't be.

MR. HUNTER: That is right. Exactly, I say to the Opposition House Leader. The government said they would not have cutbacks. They have not done cutbacks, but try to find the right people to talk to when you want to discuss important issues in the Province and try to give advice to the government on what should be done. All you get from the government is interference by the Premier. The Premier interferes with us, as MHAs, keeps us out of public buildings -

MR. MERCER: What?

MR. HUNTER: Absolutely, I say to the Minister of Environment - kept me out of a public building where I was invited to discuss a very important issue with the people of Exploits.

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened?

MR. HUNTER: When I arrived for the meeting I was asked by the Premier's office worker there to come outside the building. They would not let me in the building.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HUNTER: This is a public office that I was kept out of. The Premier showed up -

AN HON. MEMBER: You were invited just like he was.

MR. HUNTER: Absolutely, I was invited to the meeting to listen to their concerns about the bridge that was going to be - taken over a river in Exploits. The Premier showed up and asked me what I am doing there. I did not know what he was getting around to, so I said I was there to attend the meeting like he was in the town office. He said: no, the meeting is in my office but you are not getting in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HUNTER: Not getting in a public office, paid for by the taxpayers of this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who invited you?

MR. HUNTER: The cabin owners group. They had a chairperson and a spokesperson who called me, herself, invited me to the meeting. All I did, out of courtesy, because I am the critic for forestry and this involved a bridge over a river in the wilderness involving cabin owners. Of course, the Premier jumped out of his car and came up savage with me because I was there in his district. Unbelievable! I could not believe the calibre of a person in this Province, running this Province, to treat a colleague of his, a fellow House of Assembly representative for the people of this Province, to treat me the way he treated me. He even had his driver ask me to leave the parking lot. He told his driver to remove me from a public parking lot. Unbelievable! The way he treated my colleague in Placentia; the way he treats all of us as MHAs. It is unbelievable. We are colleagues in this House fighting for the one cause -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: - fighting to help our constituents - to make life in this Province better for the people of this Province and to work together. What did we get? Now, I am only speaking from my experience. I do not know if my colleagues here have other experiences. I do not appreciate any colleague in this House who tries to stop me from doing my job; interfering.

The Premier keeps doing this all the time, showing up and not respecting the wishes of the people. He keeps interfering with job creation programs when there are people in my district and other districts depending on these programs to see some worthwhile, really good projects done. You can go out in some of the districts - I have seen it for myself - driving along the side of the road and you see sticks sticking up four and five feet high. Why can't we prevent that? Why can't we do these type of projects with government with taxpayers' money? Why can't we plan ahead to make sure that when we spend dollars we spend them wisely, we get the best bang for the buck? It is not hard to do. You do not have to increase the deficit by doing a job right. You probably could save money by doing a job right, but you do not take the advice of people who know what is good for their districts.

I say to the ministers over there: You have bold initiatives all right. You have had times when it was good to make noise on certain issues. For your own benefit you could do it, but when it comes to making the right decision at the right time for the people of this Province you hide away. You hide away behind -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HUNTER: Sure you do. You hide away behind your boards. You hide away behind different things that you should not be hiding away on. You should deal directly.

When I first came into this House I could go on that side and talk to any minister about any issue in my district and be given the courtesy of my opinion. It is hard to do that today. You do not treat all colleagues in this House alike and you should, because I am representing, and we are representing people in this Province who depend on us to get the message to you, as government. I would suspect that is the way it would work in reverse. If we were there and you had to come to us with issues in your district then we should have the courtesy to sit down and talk to you and find a solution to the problem; not play politics. Playing politics with peoples lives. Playing politics on issues that are important.

Then we talk about small business, Mr. Speaker. We have the leader of our party here who is a businessman. I have a lot of respect for a man who has a good business sense. I have been in business twenty-five years. I know what it is like to start in business and I know what it is like to come up in business. When you go into business in the Province you start down here and work your way up. Our leader, Danny Williams, is a man that anybody could admire for where he went in life. If you do not admire him it is because you do not understand. The man did well, and I respect him for that. I am sure there are a good many people in this Province who respect Danny Williams for being a good businessperson. You cannot find employees of his former business who do not agree that he was a good employer and a good boss.

I say to you, Madam Speaker, if we are going to encourage small businesses in this Province today we have to find ways of helping small businesses, not putting stumbling blocks in the way and not charging businesses exorbitant costs in fees. Only last week we saw an increase in a small logging company that cuts firewood, increased their royalties by over 300 per cent. Now, I cannot believe that. If you are going to increase fees, you do it at a modest increase at different times. When you start increasing fees, licensing fees and royalty fees and all kinds of other fees, that double, triple and quadruple, some now with a 300 and 400 per cent increase over last year - unbelievable! If that is the way you are going to balance the budget in this Province, on the backs of the small businesses, and not only on the backs of the small businesses but the small businesses have to pass on that cost, and then the consumers in this Province - and a lot of consumers in this Province are low income, fixed income people who need a fair price on the goods they get in this Province.

This government decides that they want to get more money out of the back pockets of the residents of our Province, tax, levy, increased fees to small businesses that they know have to pass the cost on to the consumer. By doing that, you are putting small businesses out of business, you are making it very difficult for small businesses. I don't mind fighting for small businesses in this Province, because I was a small business person for twenty-five years and I know what these small businesses have to put up with. I know how hard it is to try to make ends meet, balance their books and everything else, and make a profit at the end of the year.

We certainly don't need governments who are going to find ways to penalize small businesses for wanting to come from here to here. It takes time to grow a business and to nurture a business. We should be politicians who are responsible enough and sensitive enough to see the concerns of the small businesses, see the problems that they are facing, and make sure that we don't try to take money out of the back pockets of the people in this Province through small businesses. That is not fair, and I think government should take a second look at any issue involving increasing taxes or license fees or anything involving small businesses.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER (M. Hodder): Order, please!

MR. HUNTER: Madam Speaker, if we don't take it seriously enough to make sure that rural Newfoundland gets a fair share of dollars in job creation, in good, solid, sensible projects, to make sure that people in rural Newfoundland get a chance at sustaining their living in rural Newfoundland - that is what it is all about. It is all about us finding a way to help people live in this Province, not finding a way to hurt them or take money out of their pockets or making situations hard, where they cannot stay in this Province and have to leave. I see it every day. I see U-Hauls on the Trans-Canada Highway all the time when I am driving.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. HUNTER: By leave, Madam Speaker?

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. HUNTER: Just one minute to clue up.

MADAM SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HUNTER: There are a lot of issues, I know, that we are all concerned about, but we are, on this side of the House - I am, I can't speak for everybody - to make sure that you treat me and my people and my district fairly and as equally as anybody on your side. I won't stop fighting for my constituents, I will say to the ministers over there. We have to continue fighting for our constituents in our districts, and I hope that you will see to treat us fairly in the future.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

I, today, feel honoured to stand in this Budget Debate and use up my time and make a few comments, and also touch on some of the issues that I have heard back and forth in this hon. House over the last couple of days.

I am very proud to stand and say that I support the Speech from the Throne and also the Budget Speech.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Madam Speaker, in that Budget, this government has a vision, and a vision that will be carried out. Just to touch on a few, we state very clearly that this government is accessible and accountable to the people. We have a strong social agenda, a strong and secure economy based on Voisey's Bay and White Rose; and, then again, with the settlement in the courts of the boundary dispute between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. We also speak very highly on education and health care and regional economic development. We are also very strong on promoting our Province for tourism, and partnering with the Aboriginal people and all other people on the Labrador Coast to see that land is developed and taken care of.

All to often I hear from Opposition members that it is time for a change. Madam Speaker, I say, a change to what? I want to state very clearly - and I honestly believe this - unless they lay it on the table fairly soon, and I am not talking about their Blue Book, which will come down during the election, I am talking about their policies on issues that are ongoing today. I can speak freely and say this with a true heart, that the gentleman who is running against me in the Port de Grave district went and knocked on a door and the constituent said: I would love to sit down with you and discuss your policies. He said: I am sorry. At this point in time, I do not have any.

I think that says it all. If they do not have any policies, what are we going to change to? We are always holding up the Red Book and the Blue Book. I want to refer back to the Blue Book of 1988. I hate standing up -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BUTLER: I say to hon. members opposite, they are always referring to the Red Book back over the last twenty years. I just want to touch on this Blue Book, the Throne Speech of 1988. Is this the policies that we are going to change back to? Because I say, Madam Speaker, if you read this book, the words health or health care are not mentioned. Here we are, talking about the health care that we have today, and they are always complaining about it. They are always telling us that we are a tired, old government. I say to them: Yes, the Liberal Party has been in power for fourteen years, but this government is only two years old, this Administration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: This Administration is the same age as what I am, I say to the hon. Member for Conception Bay South.

Just to touch on the fishery, all too often you hear that we are not dealing with the fisheries issues, we are not in relationship with our cousins in Ottawa. Madam Speaker, if you go back to 1988, this is just three years, three to three-and-a-half years, prior to the major controversy in this Province with the moratorium, the closure of the fishery. In their Throne Speech, they were talking about revitalizing the offshore fishery, bringing in middle distance fleets, upgrading seventy-five to 100 fish plants. Is that listening to the people? Is that what we are changing back to? They did not listen to the fishermen back at that time. Is this what we are changing back to, I say?

Then, they go into talking about businesses that were ongoing, the money that was put into businesses. They are talking about reactivating the Baie Verte Mine. Then, they go into diversification, Madam Speaker, and they bring up this wonderful word, Sprung. These were the resources that they were referring to that was going to revitalize this Province. I am sad to say, Madam Speaker, according to the Auditor General's report, this government, over the period of time from 1992 to the year 2002, had to write off some funds because of those two companies. Baie Verte Mines, $47.5 million, and they were bragging in 1988 about revitalization of the mine. I am not saying the mine should not have been revitalized, because it meant dollars and bread and butter for the people of that area.

Then we talked about Sprung, diversification. We diversified to the tune of $15.2 million being written off. Then we go into education. I cannot help but read the article that appeared in The Compass a little while ago, this past week, April 29, when my hon. friend from Harbour Main-Whitbourne said, and I quote, "the Liberals are clearly not proud of what they have done..." with regard to education, "... but they can't hide the fact they are the ones responsible for hurting students in Newfoundland and Labrador...". I say shame, Madam Speaker, shame!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: When he stands in his place and talks about the failure of our students today in the subject of mathematics, back when this Budget Speech came down in 1988, you were in power then for sixteen years, and in this Budget Speech they referred to bringing in a task force to see what was happening in this Province with a failure rate that they had on the go for seventeen years. Then, again, now it is a big issue.

Then we go to one thing that I thought to be fairly upbeat, and that was their conflict of interest policy - conflict of interest - where it stated very clearly that the basis of a conflict of interest legislation is disclosure of a member's interests that poses real or potential conflict of interest.

I know, Madam Speaker, where we stand on this issue, but I have to say that I have questions about the other side.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BUTLER: Madam Speaker, what I am referencing, number one - and I know where the leader of their party stands in Ottawa, because he stated very clearly when he called upon Paul Martin to come clean, to leave out any possibilities of a conflict of interest.

Madam Speaker, we heard the Leader of the Opposition today saying that the law is the law. Well, I agree with him. The law is the law. But, then again, when I read this here the Election Act was violated.

MR. REID: By whom?

MR. BUTLER: By whom? By the Leader of the Opposition. I would not mind, Madam Speaker, if somebody did something wrong over a period of a week or two. This happened in early 2002 with regards to the $25,000 loan to the party, and I think that is wonderful. I would love to be able to loan our party $25,000, but if I had it, they would not be able to take it. I cannot believe that the Leader of the Opposition did not know the Election Act. Then he goes on to say: it is a minor issue. Madam Speaker, any issue that has a $1,000 fine and/or a three-month jail sentence is not a minor issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Madam Speaker, then we go into the issues pertaining to business and professional interests. I mean, where do you draw the line? The gentleman - and we all know. We saw it in the papers - how he is still advertising, still keeping businesses ongoing. I am just wondering, is there a conflict of interest? I am not saying that there is but there may be.

Madam Speaker, the other issue comes down to a Statement of Disclosure. Both the Member for Humber West and myself were elected on the same day, back on June 19, 2001. Each and everyone of us in this hon. House had to file a Statement of Disclosure. However, there were months gone by when you could not get any information pertaining to the Leader of the Opposition. Still, Madam Speaker, that was in June, and November of that same year the hon. the Opposition House Leader stood in his place and asked questions with regard to Freedom of Information, when full well the information about him was not available to whomever was looking for it.

Madam Speaker, the final issue I would like to touch on is with regard to business ventures. Hon. members on both sides agree, and I agree, he was a successful businessman. According to the disclosure he was involved in a lot of businesses. I admire him for that. The man is going to honoured, I do not know if it is this week or next week, and I applaud him for that. When you look over the list I am wondering, and I think he has to come clean and let us know what he is involved in while he is in political life. There are all kinds of companies listed and they are all listed by the names of 10835 Newfoundland Limited, 10718 Newfoundland Limited, 10981 Newfoundland Limited. So, I believe that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has to come forward and state the case. I am not saying there is a conflict of interest but it should be made clear if there is or if there isn't. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to clarify those issues. Tell us how his situation is any different from that of Paul Martin.

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader on a point of order.

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

It is important today, after just listening to the Member for Port de Grave raising questions, asking the Leader of the Opposition to clarify issues that - I am not saying he said it was a conflict of interest but I ask him to clarify issues. Whether he is doing or attempting to do, he should know this or ought to know, that he is speaking about Conflict of Interest legislation that governs every member in this House, Madam Speaker. That legislation is carried out by an independent office called the Office of the Chief Electoral Commissioner and the Office of Commissioner of Members' Interests. That member and that person who was appointed by government has made a judgement on all of us in this House, including the Member for Port de Grave, including myself as the Member for Kilbride, including the Member for Humber East, including the Member for Twillingate, including the Member for Waterford Valley, including the Member for Trinity North.

Madam Speaker, the point is this: that the Member for Commissioner's Interest has determined that all members in this Legislature, all forty-eight of us, which includes the Member for Port de Grave and the Member for Humber West, are not in conflict of interest at all. I ask the member - because what he has said is very serious. It is casting aspersions on a particular member's character in this House. It is leaving the impression and the outright suggestion that the Leader of the Opposition is some how in conflict. I ask the member to withdraw, Madam Speaker, because he has done that. I will give him the opportunity to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Speaker, the Opposition House Leader is up on a specious and spurious point of order, to say the least.

I got up on a point of order a little earlier today, Madam Speaker, saying that probably the greatest privilege that we have in this House is freedom of speech. To listen to the hon. Opposition House Leader he would remove that freedom of speech simply because one has to list our interests with the Chief Electoral Officer. It does not mean that members cannot comment upon these kinds of things in this House. I think the hon. gentleman was only commenting upon what he thought might be some extensive holdings, some extensive involvement. I do not think he was talking about conflict of interest, or that there was conflict of interest or there was not conflict of interest. He was talking about all of the business involvements of the Leader of the Opposition and making some pertinent comments about that. For the hon. Opposition House Leader to suggest that the member was impugning motives is certainly a large stretch, Madam Speaker. I would say all the hon. Opposition House Leader was doing was to try and cut into the time of my hon. friend who was making a good speech, Madam Speaker, and he should be permitted to continue without the interruptions of the Opposition House Leader.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

The fact of the matter is, whether the Government House Leader wishes to acknowledge it or not or I wish to acknowledge it or not, or any other member in this House wishes to acknowledge it or not, the record of Hansard will clearly show and acknowledge what I am saying is true. Right now, in terms of - the Government House Leader has talked about freedom of speech and we are guaranteed that right in this House of Assembly, with some limits, Madam Speaker, as prescribed in our own Standing Orders and as prescribed in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, as prescribed in Marleau, the 6th edition that governs the precedents of our House, as prescribed in the journals of the House of Commons, and as prescribed, if we need to go there, in the ultimate House of Commons, the Parliament of Britain.

The fact of the matter is, when it comes to conflict of interest legislation that is in place right now, which members operated under, we put in place an independent officer and independent commissioner to make those judgements according to the legislation. It is not for a particular member in this House, whether that is me or the Member for Port de Grave or anybody else, to stand up and cast aspersions and impute motives on a member in this House, in this case the Leader of the Opposition, when the Commissioner of Members' Interests has already stated that nobody was in conflict.

Madam Speaker, if that is the way this place is going to operate, then we have a more serious situation on our hands than we care to remember. I would like to have a ruling on this point of order, because the Member for Port de Grave is absolutely out of order on this issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Speaker, I am not going to take up any more of the valuable time of the House, other than to say the only one out of order is the Opposition House Leader. He is clearly out of order.

Because there are declarations made to our independent officer of the House does not mean that they can ever be raised in this House, does not mean that somebody is not allowed to raise some matter in a moderate form or in an interrogatory form.

I do not think that the member was questioning either the integrity of the Leader of the Opposition or the independent officer. The hon. member was making some comments about extensive holdings. That is quite allowed, that is quite permissible in this House, to refer to holdings or business involvement. I do not think we can say, because we have an independent officer, that someone is not allowed to make some reference to what a person's business involvement might be without being harangued by the Opposition House Leader.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Madam Speaker, if that is what happened, if, as the situation described by the Government House Leader happened, then we would have no cause for a point of order, but that is not what happened.

The Member for Port de Grave - and Hansard will clearly show - suggested that the Leader of the Opposition and Member for Humber West come clean. About what? It was casing aspersions, and he did.

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Environment said, and so he should, the fact of the matter is, we all must; it is a demand of the act. The independent commissioner, called the Commissioner of Members' Interests, demands it of us. If we don't, we get reported. If we don't report it and we don't lay out everything for everybody, the will of this House could put any action on any of us, including: disbarment from this House; dismissible from this House; charges before the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador; taking away benefits, financial and otherwise.

Now, when the Member for Port de Grave stands up in his place and suggests that another member, in this case the Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Humber West, come clean, in my book and in the world that I live in, he is imputing a motive that somehow he did not.

Madam Speaker, I ask you to ask the Member for Port de Grave to withdraw his comment, that scurrilous attack that he has just made on the Leader of the Opposition. It is absolutely unwarranted and disgusting, to be honest with you. It is scandalous!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The Chair will take the point of order under advisement and report back to the House.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to make it very clear that what I said - and, yes, probably I did say the words, "come clean", but what I did say prior to that was: It is important, not only that there be no conflict of interest, it is important that there be no appearance of conflict of interest.

I never said the hon. Leader of the Opposition, or the Member for Humber West, was in a conflict of interest, Madam Speaker.

I do not mind standing here. I am a gentleman enough to withdraw those words, come clean, if that is what satisfies the hon. members opposite.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. BUTLER: Just to close, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: No leave granted.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Madam Speaker, the budget policy of this government was contained in the Speech from the Throne, and yesterday in the House the Government House Leader referred to the Speech from the Throne and was quite proud of the fact - in his words - that his government had a plan. As a matter of fact, he quoted from the Speech from the Throne, and he quoted from the Budget document as well.

Yesterday, the Government House Leader said, among other things: I am indicating that the plans of this government are clear. They show clearly the vision of this government and many documents - and pointed out how two major documents showed the plans of this government were the Economic Strategic Plan and the Social Strategic Plan.

Madam Speaker, when it comes to planning, this government has a very poor track record. As a matter of fact, I have an accumulated document that is twenty-two pages long which indicates the faulty planning that this government has placed before the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That document was completed just last year.

I have also done up some notes here, which I compiled in the last day or so, sitting here in the House, and it speaks to the point of the lack of planning by this government. Before I get to that, I want to refer to a letter which is on my desk from the MP for Labrador, Lawrence O'Brien. The MP for Labrador, Lawrence O'Brien, wrote the Premier on the first day of May, just five or six days ago. The letter talks about, and is in response to the call by the Premier for Lawrence O'Brien to resign from the federal Liberal caucus.

Madam Speaker, I want to just read to this House Lawrence O'Brien's assessment of the Premier, and Lawrence O'Brien's assessment of what this government has done to this Province. I will read a paragraph from page 2. "In all honesty, I have to say that in the past seven years I have encountered no end of frustration from a provincial government which is, as far as anyone can tell, completely inept at dealing constructively with other governments, whether municipal, other provinces, or federal."

That is what Lawrence O'Brien says. Lawrence O'Brien, your Liberal federal colleague in the federal House, says in his "...seven years I have encountered no end of frustration from a provincial government which is, as far as anyone call tell, completely inept at dealing constructively with other governments, whether municipal, other provinces, or federal." What an indictment after what the House Leader said yesterday about all the good planning.

Madam Speaker, let me read on to another paragraph. He says, "Rather than work to influence federal decisions in advance..." - that is what planning is about - "...your government..." - meaning this Liberal government, words of Lawrence O'Brien - "...prefers to wait out bad news announcements which you can condemn, after the fact."

In other words, Lawrence O'Brien is saying this government has no plan. He says, talking to the Premier, "...your government prefers to wait out bad news announcements which you can condemn, after the fact." What an indictment and lack of planning by this particular Administration.

Let me read another paragraph. Lawrence O'Brien writes as follows, "Rather than put concrete proposals forward to the federal government - for instance on the Trans-Labrador Highway - you rail against the federal government for rejecting so-called ‘proposals' which have never been made, and for not putting enough money into a project which it has funded to the tune of nearly 90 cents on the dollar."

Now, Madam Speaker, Lawrence O'Brien, the federal Liberal colleague of these people on the other side of this House, the federal Liberal colleague who you should be working with -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: - who this government here should be working with, should be putting forward plans, and what does Lawrence O'Brien say about planning and putting things forward?

For example, he is talking here about the Labrador Highway. Lawrence O'Brien is saying that this government had no plan for the Trans-Labrador Highway. He is saying that this government waited and waited and waited, and then they rejected the so-called proposals, and he criticized the federal government even after they had put 90 per cent of the money into the project.

Madam Speaker, let me read on again. In another paragraph, he says,"Rather than attempt to engage elected federal representatives on federal or federal-provincial issues, your government prefers to shut us out of communications, meetings, exchanges of correspondence, and any other efforts to advance the interests of our ridings and our province."

In other words, Lawrence O'Brien is telling you that this government has consistently shut out the federal Liberal members from this Province, in terms of shutting us out of communications, he says, shutting us out of meetings, shutting us out of exchanges of correspondence and any other efforts to advance the interests of our ridings and of our Province. In other words, Lawrence O'Brien is saying this government, if it has a plan it is a plan to completely ignore their federal-Liberal colleagues in the House of Commons. It is a plan that says we do not want your help. We do not want to work with our federal colleagues in the House of Commons. In other words, Lawrence O'Brien is telling you that you do not have any plan at all.

MR. ANDERSEN: A point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs, on a point of order.

MR. ANDERSEN: Madam Speaker, what the hon. member is saying is not true. The original plan that this government submitted to the federal government was for almost $900 million to complete the Trans-Labrador Highway and to pave it. That proposal was there from day one, and it was people from this government who went there and negotiated the deal. When the federal government wanted to give us as low as $180 million, we got $360 million. There is one member here who is willing to work with Mr. O'Brien any day, any hour to find money to build our roads in Labrador. For you to say that the members from this government are not willing to work with Lawrence O'Brien, you are wrong. You are lying to this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Madam Speaker.

The Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs knows exactly well that he cannot accuse another member of lying. The Member for Waterford Valley is reading a piece of correspondence on federal-provincial relations. If it upsets the minister I suggest he take it up with the author of the letter, who is the MP for Labrador.

The fact of the matter remains that the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs cannot accuse another member in this House of lying and I ask him to withdraw.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: I respect the ability of the Speaker to call the rules in this House and I am sure the hon. Speaker is going to do what is supposed to be done.

MADAM SPEAKER: We have two points of order on the floor at this particular time. The first point being raised by the hon. Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs, on that point of order I will rule, there is no point of order.

On the second point of order, I will ask the hon. member if he would withdraw his remark.

MR. ANDERSEN: Madam Speaker, I guess it is frustrating when you hear members say what we are not doing. That we have not done our jobs. Saying that the MP is saying we are not doing our jobs. Madam Speaker, for calling him a liar, I apologize and withdraw that statement.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

Madam Speaker, the words I am using are not mine. The words I am using are contained in a letter dated May 1, 2003, addressed to Roger Grimes, MHA, Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is written by Lawrence O'Brien, MP, Labrador.

Madam Speaker, the words that I have used consistently are from Lawrence O'Brien. I have quoted one, two, three - I have quoted five paragraphs and there are still several more that I will quote yet.

What I was saying is that Lawrence O'Brien says, and I quote again: "Rather than attempt to engage elected federal representatives on federal or federal-provincial issues, your government..." - talking to the Premier of this Province.

MR. LUSH: A point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. LUSH: The hon. member ought to know that you are not to read speeches in this House, whether they are his own or whether they are speeches prepared by somebody else. The hon. member has been up speaking now for somewhere close to ten minutes and all he has done is read the speech of another person. I would ask the hon. gentleman to do what he is supposed to do in this House and that is to speak spontaneously and not to be reading from another member's speech, which he has been doing, Madam Speaker, for the past ten minutes.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, there is a well-known rule, it is permitted that members can have what are called copious notes. I remember when the House Leader was -

AN HON. MEMBER: Harvey, but you don't have any notes.

MR. H. HODDER: I do not have any notes.

Madam Speaker, when the current Government House Leader was the Speaker of the House I remember there was a time when a member was reading - like all of the people have been reading in the last few days on the other side. Someone may draw attention to it, and he said the member is quite legitimately using very copious notes.

In fact, I do not have any notes at all. So I cannot be reading from copious notes. I am quoting from correspondence. I know it is hard for people on the other side to listen to what a fellow Liberal is saying about their performance. I know that is difficult. I know that is hard. I know that is challenging. I know the truth might hurt, but I certainly can tell you that I do not need any extensive amount of notes to fill up my twenty minutes that I have been allocated in this House.

Madam Speaker, I want to read again what has been said. It says here, this is Lawrence O'Brien: Rather than engage people into dialogue your government has shut us out of communications. Shut us out of meetings. You shut us out of exchanges of correspondence and any other efforts to advance the interest of our ridings and our Province. This is a judgement, this is an evaluation, this is the litmus test that says: How are we doing? How is this government doing? How does this government look in the eyes of their federal colleagues? How do they look in the eyes of other parts of Canada?

As a matter of fact, this correspondence says that you are not doing very well. Yet, in your Red Book, the little book you have here called your Throne Speech and in your Budget Speech you talk about how proud you are of your planning. I tell you what, if that is the kind of planning you are doing maybe you should start to reinvent some part of your process.

In fact, Lawrence O'Brien says: "Rather than take constructive advice on how to approach such issues, and strengthen the provincial government's hand, you would rather play the Blame Canada game in the House of Assembly, in the news media, and through the Royal Commission."

The last paragraph I will quote here, he says: "Honestly, I have lost track of the number of times I have tried to alert provincial interests to issues that are still as they say "below the radar", only to meet with no response until it is too late."

Madam Speaker, Lawrence O'Brien is a duly elected official of this Province. He has been in Ottawa now for seven years. He is a Liberal. He is a champion of Newfoundland and Labrador. He has tremendous respect in his district. He has been consistently elected and this is what he is saying about this government's planning. This is what he is saying about you people who are his cousins.

When you have your family members criticizing you like this letter criticizes you - it is not an old letter. This letter was dated May 1, 2003. This is not an old letter. This is not ancient history. This is a new letter, right from the last few days, and this is the indictment, this is what he is saying about you people and your Liberal performance.

Madam Speaker, I do have some notes prepared. I have some nine pages of notes and I hope to use them today. If not, they will be used in some other part of this whole budgetary process.

Madam Speaker, if we were to go back -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) give leave.

MR. H. HODDER: - and maybe, as my colleague said, the other members let me have leave to continue on until I get my whole nine pages of notes, my whole nine pages of notes deal with planning, and what this government has done with planning.

For example, going back over the years, it was this Liberal government that brought in the payroll tax many, many years ago. They brought it in to get extra money. Of course, what it does, it penalizes employers for hiring more employees.

This government we are listening to, on the other side, they brought in the payroll tax, which has had a significant detriment to the encouragement of business in this Province. It was this government, this Administration, this Liberal group, some years ago, that decided they would go and do away with the Ombudsman Office. They did away with it. There was a lot of protest about that, and a few years later they said: Oh, we made a mistake. We will bring it back.

That is called planning. So much for standing up for your principles when the Premier now, at that time I think he was the parliamentary assistant to the Premier of the day, stood in his place and voted for it. He voted to do away with the Ombudsman Office. As a matter of fact, I do remember the debate here in the House and the Premier of today stood up and said: Oh, no, we do not need that. Rely on the Open Lines. Rely on members.

Yet, of course, we said it was the wrong decision. Certainly, I say to the members opposite, we agree with re-establishing it, but it was your people and your planning that took it out and destroyed it, and then afterwards realized what a big mistake you had made and then brought it back.

It was this Liberal government's planning that withheld information on questions being asked by the critic for the Department of Environment on the THMs. You will remember that they withheld that. They said: No, you cannot have that information. In fact, it was held for days and weeks and months. At one point, we were charged $10,000. We were asked to pay $10,000 to get information on water quality in this Province.

I say to members opposite, when it comes to the planning, when you say to the Opposition: We will give you the answers to your questions on water quality if you will pay $10,000 - that is what they said - you can have the information if you will pay us $10,000 to get it.

This issue wasn't over some insignificant thing. This was over a life issue. They should have made the decisions on it anyway, but they said no, we will charge you $10,000. That is Liberal planning. Liberal planning says: We will give you the information but we will only give it to you if you pay for it, and pay out $10,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Five years, I am told, we have withheld information that they should have communicated to all citizens, in particular to municipalities.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't say one thing and mean another (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. H. HODDER: I say to my colleague across the way, keep your temper down and all that kind of thing. Certainly, you will have your chance. The Minister of Municipal Affairs will get a chance to explain why they sat on the information for four or five years, did not distribute it, and, of course, we can then move from that to what they did with the quality of air in the schools.

I remember asking questions here in the House to the now Premier about air quality, and he denied there was any trouble at all. Of course, after many, many weeks of questioning and denial after denial after denial, suddenly it became a problem, and suddenly there was going to be some releasing of information. Only when they were pushed by the Opposition, pushed by CBC and others -

MR. SPEAKER (Butler):Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I say if that is what planning is, then thank goodness in another few weeks we will have a new plan, a new approach, and the people of Newfoundland will have an alternative.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a great pleasure today to rise and have some comments upon the Budget Speech.

Mr. Speaker, as I was preparing my copious notes for these particular few comments, I think back to a meeting which we had last night in the City of Corner Brook, which I attended, a workshop or a town hall meeting hosted by the Canadian Union of Public Employees to provide information on the whole notion of the P3 concept, public-private sector partnering in the building of a long-term health care facility for that city.

I was greatly pleased to be there last evening because there was a lot of information provided and it is always good to get both sides of the story and to make a clear evaluation of all the information presented.

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to be there because this government, in its Budget Speech, has made a commitment, a commitment to the building of a long-term health care facility in or around the City of Corner Brook to meet the needs of Corner Brook and surrounding area. A facility that we will, in the next, I believe it is about twenty days left on the clock, be calling for Expressions of Interest from the public-private sector concerning the building of this facility.

Mr. Speaker, I was quite interested, quite curious, because there were also a number of other members from other political parties in attendance at that meeting. There were members who got up and beat their chest about how they favoured a different option from the P3. It happened to be in a union meeting. I guess it was not the right time to talk about your philosophy and your approach, so it is better to take the stance that they were being provided. These individuals got up and talked about the absolute need for the public sector, for government to fund and build that kind of a facility for the City of Corner Brook and the surrounding area.

As I listened I reflected back somewhat upon how times do change and how opinions do evolve. The position of this side has been - I would not say from the very beginning, but certainly early in the process, back October last - that we would be looking at a public-private sector partnership. That was our stated position. That is what we took to the people of Corner Brook in response to their request that we look into the building of a long-term care facility to replace the old Interfaith Home for Senior Citizens; the renovated O'Connell Centre, which was formerly a hospital; the fifth and sixth floors at Western Memorial, and so forth. So having looked at the options that were available to us, this government took the decision early in the game last October that we would be looking at the P3 concept in terms of providing the much needed, long overdue facilities for the residents of the area; to provide long-term care facilities much in need.

Mr. Speaker, there was no one there who was really surprised by the government position. We have been articulating it for some considerable time. It was announced in our Budget. In fact, I would be so bold as to say that the main reason why the town hall meeting was being sponsored by CUPE was in response to the government's proposition that we call for expressions of interest to build a long-term care facility using a P3 approach.

As I said, I somewhat reflect back upon the decision-making process of members opposite and their comments that were made post-Budget. I am looking back to editorial comments in The Western Star back in October, shortly after we made our comments about the P3. The Member for Humber West at the time was looking at it and saying that things like - and I quote from The Western Star of October 18, "...the problems in health care should be looked at in a priority sequence and it may become evident that a long-term care facility in the city is not the most pressing need at the moment." "...I cannot go out and say ‘yes I am going to do it.' I need the information and need to get a complete plan. I have to get all of the information and when I do everything needs to be done on a priority basis." Not a very ringing endorsement for a long-term care facility in Western Newfoundland to meet the needs of our aged and our infirm. That was back in October.

The very next day - well not the very next day, October 22 - the editorial in The Western Star was captioned, "Why confuse a simple matter?" It related and referred back to the comments made by our Premier that he was looking at the P3 concept and start looking at the whole issue of the need for a long-term care facility.

The editorialist went on to say: As a successful lawyer the Member for Humber West should know, we just want a yes or no answer - is it at or near the top of his to-do list?

Again, Mr. Speaker, even as of that late date in October, after making the announcement on our side that we would build that kind of a facility through a P3 process, there was nothing clear whatsoever from the Member for Humber West. I will not refer to him as the Leader of the Opposition, per se.

Again, on October 25, in a letter signed personally by that member. "I do not know how much money a new government will have to work with, and therefore would not want to make a promise to the people of my district that I cannot meet. That's not a price I am prepared to pay to form a government. I have no desire to mislead the people I was elected to represent..." So, these were the comments that were in the public domain and those were the topics of interest and discussion in the Corner Brook area at that point in time.

April 8, shortly after our Budget presentation on March 27. Again, The Western Star, the Member for Humber West "...said in the House a Tory government would build a facility with public funds and without private involvement."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: "The facility would be built by the end of a four-year Tory mandate with a proposal call in the first year." What changed between October and April? Was there, as someone said the other day, an epiphany? Were the books laid out? Did the Member for Humber West see the books? Did he see where the monies could be made available through the public sector to build a facility? Did he have, as I believe the Member for Cape St. Francis said, an epiphany and therefore it was now - it became very clear that in the priority sequence of health care for Newfoundland a long-term health care facility became, all of a sudden, a number one priority.

Just a curious comment about the decision-making process, as the Member for Humber West then proceeded to launch into - and I presume taking some sustenance from the concept put forward by this side for a P3 - several days of discussion on the privatization of health care. The P3 proposal for a long-term care facility in Corner Brook, all of a sudden, became privatization of health care. How much of this, I wonder, Mr. Speaker, was related to the fact that the unions at that time - who are philosophically opposed to the whole concept of P3 - were making noises against the concept? Was it a fortuitous set of comments from the Member for Humber West to start referring to the P3 concept as being privatization of health care?

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, a great deal of information was being presented that the facility was going to cost $50 million to $70 million and that he had been told, the Member for Humber West had been told, by the Western Health Care Corporation, it was going to cost $50 million. That was $20 million that was going to go into the back pockets of our buddies on this side of the House. That was the speech, Mr. Speaker. That was the speech.

The same document that was presented to this government by the Western Health Care Corporation states that the cost of the facility - and I am sure members opposite, or the critic opposite, has this document - will cost $56.5 million plus HST, which puts my calculations up to $65 million, plus the cost of land. Where is this, quote, $20 million, through a P3 process that is all of a sudden going to disappear into the back pockets of our buddies on this side? The facility had a cost, as I said, of close on $70 million, taxes in, as we say, to build a 268 bed facility.

Mr. Speaker, this evolution of a thought process seems to be contagious. On April 8, on CBC Radio in Corner Brook, in a panel discussion between three contenders for the PC Party nomination for the District of Humber East, the announcer said - and he said it in general to the three people, "Your leader, yesterday..." - the leader being the Member for Humber West - "...said that he wasn't interested in anything that had a private financing aspect to it."

The successful candidate, who is now my opponent in the next provincial election, says, "Look, I have no problem getting the public sector involved in many of these issues, as long as the government does what it does best and that's regulate it." A direct quote, verbatim, CBC transcript.

What did he say last night? What did he say last night, when he was in the presence of CUPE and the membership of the union? He denounced the whole concept of P3. He did not think it was worth the paper it was written on. The only way you could proceed was through a public investment into long-term health care.

This whole thing, Mr. Speaker, seems to be somewhat contagious. Then again, we say - and again, looking at April 9, both reported in The Western Star in Western Newfoundland as part of an editorial and also the day before on the Open Line show, the Member for Humber West says he has no problem with public-private partnerships but is against it being used where health care is concerned. I am for it but I am against it.

As the editorial writer in The Western Star quite correctly said, "Most of the people of Corner Brook could care less how the long-term care shortcomings in this region are addressed...", they only need them to be addressed. End of sentence. Period.

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to ask, given that the Member for Humber West, the Leader of the Opposition, his continuing changing commitment to long-term health care in the City of Corner Brook, will he clarify his commitment to build a publicly funded facility? Will he tell us where the money is going to come from - because clearly he has looked at the books, he has seen the priorities, where all of this is going to happen - and will he extend this commitment to meet the similar needs in Conception Bay North and St. John's? After all, by resolution at the convention this weekend, they agreed to do it in Clarenville. So, what happens to Conception Bay North and St. John's?

Mr. Speaker, these are the questions that I want to just lay out there, but in the continuing story of what I would call changing positions, or standing on shifting sands: late last week or early this week, it was my privilege to present before this House a petition signed by 21,000 residents of Western Newfoundland, from Port aux Basques to St. Anthony, to Happy Valley-Goose Bay, to St. John's, Grand Falls, calling for a permanent MRI for Western Memorial Regional Hospital, and we asked the member opposite, the Member for Humber West, to state his position.

Well, Mr. Speaker, he has stated his position, as per, again, The Western Star of May 5. "I am the Member for Humber West and there is no doubt where I would prefer the MRI to be located..... The whole decision has to be whether it will be a mobile or stationary MRI."

Hello. That is why 21,000 people put their signatures to a piece of paper and said: We want it to be a permanent in-place, in-situ, facility in Corner Brook.

"The whole decision has to be whether it will be a mobile or stationary MRI. That has to be decided." Yes, Sir, it really does, and where does the Member for Humber West stand on that?

"Once that decision is made..." - and these are direct quotes - "...then we can go to the next step. If it is a mobile MRI then everyone's problems are taken care of.... If the recommendations are that it is a stationary MRI, then I want it to be in Corner Brook."

Mr. Speaker, that is the fundamental question: Where does the Member for Humber West stand? Is he in favour of a mobile or a fixed MRI? He certainly has not said it here today. What he has said very simply, Mr. Speaker, is when that decision is made, if it is a mobile, everything will be fine. Everyone's problems will be solved. Mr. Speaker, that is not the issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible) on wheels for (inaudible).

MR. MERCER: The Member for Bonavista South, I believe it is, is talking about smelters on wheels. Mr. Speaker, I think the smelter decision, where that is, was made by Inco. Inco has decided it is going to be in Placentia, end of sentence, period. I don't believe anyone on this side put any wheels under that particular facility.

We do wish to know, and I will ask one final question: Where does the Member for Humber West stand on a mobile MRI versus a fixed in place MRI? This position is not tenable to the people of Corner Brook, it is not acceptable to the 21,000 people who put their names on a piece of paper, and we ask him today to tell us where it is he stands on this issue. We ask him, as well: Where does he stand on the issue of long term health care, and the position that we have heard here dealing with long term health care for the City of Corner Brook, will this also be extended to Conception Bay North and to St. John's, and will it also be done through the public sector?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the hon. member, the Minister of Environment, I will answer some of the questions he raised, because I, too, was at that forum last night. What I heard last night was a very crystal clear message. You couldn't mistake it at all. With the exception of the minister, every other person in the building - and there were many from around this Province, not just the Corner Brook area but from the entire Province. It was a CUPE convention that was being hosted there. If the minister recalls, there were two people who walked up to the microphone and said: I don't have anything to do with CUPE. I am not a member of CUPE. In fact, I don't even live here on the West Coast, but I have an opinion on this issue.

I think, as did everybody else who stood, with the exception of the minister - they said, and the message was clear: The private sector has no place in delivering health services in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: That is the message that we all got last night. I am not sure where the Minister of Environment was. We were in the same room because I saw him, but obviously we were not listening in the same fashion. I was paying attention to what was being said, while he was preoccupied in trying to come up with the words to defend the statement that the Premier has already made, which is that we are going to bring the private sector into health care, we are going to get the private sector involved in the delivery of health services in this Province. That is clearly what the minister was there last night to defend.

AN HON. MEMBER: Publicly funded health services.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Publicly funded, the minister says, but what we are talking about here is inviting into our health system private enterprise to operate our health system for a profit. For a profit, Mr. Speaker. That is what the minister was there defending last night.

Now, he did ask a very specific question, and I won't ever propose to speak for the leader of our party, but I will speak today and repeat what he said just for the benefit of the member, and for the members of this House. Our leader has said, our party has said, and, in fact, I said it last night in Corner Brook to the people of Corner Brook: Our leader has made a commitment to build a long-term care facility in Corner Brook and he is going to do it in the conventional fashion, which is, government will fund the construction and government will operate it and it will be operated through the board that currently exists in Western Newfoundland.

That is the commitment, I say to the minister. I am not sure if I can make it much clearer than that, nor can the party make it much clearer than that, but I am certain that the message was clear last night to the people in that audience, that they fully understood that our party has made a commitment to building that long-term care facility in Corner Brook. So, Minister, hopefully that clarifies the question that you raise, and there was lots of clarity, I think, around the issue last night in Corner Brook.

On the other issue with respect to the MRI, I have an interesting question for the minister, because his colleague, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health and Community Services, has said to the people of this Province: We want to - in fact, not only has he said it but the Premier has said it. Both of them have said that this government wants to depoliticize the decision about where to locate an MRI.

I am assuming that, as a minister of this government, as a minister of the Crown, a part of the government opposite, that he, in fact, agrees with that decision, and he is a part of that government and supports the position. Yet, I hear him in the media, I hear him in the public domain, talking about where he wants to put it. He wants to put it in Corner Brook. He wants to put it as a stationary unit in Corner Brook.

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. MERCER: The Member for Humber East certainly does support the petitioners of Western Newfoundland for an MRI in Corner Brook. The Member for Humber East took no position on this until after the PC candidate, the Bay of Islands PC candidate, Humber East, went public before the experts came to St. John's to make their decision. This member had the clarity, had the fortitude, to allow that group to meet before any public commentary was made. I cannot say the same for the members opposite.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: You are absolutely right, Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order. There is no point to the comment at all. The reality of it is, the two individuals he is talking about on the West Coast are two candidates for the PC Party in the upcoming general election. They are not a member of a Cabinet. They are not a member of a government. If he is going to sit as a member of this Cabinet, or a member of that Cabinet in the government opposite, he needs to speak on behalf of government.

My question was clear. His government has said: We are not getting involved. We are not going to politicize it. We are going to let the experts make up their mind. He is a member of that government and he is out taking a position. That is radically different than someone who is not even elected to this House on any side. They are a citizen today. They are a candidate for our party in the next general election, so they can express any opinion they want. That is their role. That is their position.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Minister, you are either in the Cabinet supporting government or you should be out - one or the other. If you are going to be making decisions in Cabinet, that this is what you are going to do, then clearly you need to stick by that. You wanted to be in Cabinet, you stayed there long enough to get in Cabinet, and now that you are there, play by the rules - plain and simple. Mr. Speaker, hopefully now we have clarified those questions that the minister has raised and clarified them for the people on the West Coast.

There are a couple of points that I would like to raise myself in this issue of the debate. One of them, too, deals with health care. One of them deals with commitment. One of them deals with making a promise and sticking with it. This government, two years ago, made a promise to the people of Trinity North, made a promise to the people of Bellevue, made a promise to the people of Terra Nova and to the District of Bonavista South, that they would in fact build a long-term care facility in Clarenville. Do you know what? Here we are today, in 2003, and they are reneging on their commitment. They made the commitment two years ago. Two years ago, they announced $500,000 to do some design work. The next year they re-announced the same thing. This year, they are still proceeding with no announcement. A betrayal of the people in those four districts. A betrayal on the commitment that was made.

To further compound it, the Minister of Health and Community Services went to Clarenville and made a commitment to the Town of Clarenville and to the Chamber of Commerce that a forty-four bed long-term care facility would be built and we would start it immediately. This government has betrayed the people of that area. They betrayed the people of that region of the Province by not following through. Do you know something, Mr. Speaker? I think there is a pattern emerging with this government. I was curious about how it proceeded with other long-term care facilities.

I look across the House and I see the Member for Grand Bank district, who must have been terribly frustrated, must have been terribly disappointed when, in fact, I look at four successive budget documents. In four successive budget documents this government - dating back to 1998, 1999, the year 2000 and the year 2001 - made the same announcement to build a long-term care facility in Grand Bank. As of today, they still do not have the tenders called for the footings. It took five years of announcements and re-announcements of a long-term care facility in Grand Bank before they finally got around to starting construction. I guess when you look at a three-year commitment to Clarenville, that is not bad. Does that mean, Mr. Speaker, that we have to wait two more years before they actually start construction? If, in fact, the pattern in Grand Bank holds true then we will be another two years.

I was driving back from Corner Brook this past weekend, and drove by the Gander Hospital. Now, six or seven years ago I drove by Gander -

AN HON. MEMBER: In 1994.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: In 1994 my colleague says; 1994. I remember driving by Gander and seeing steel erected, wide open, exposed to the elements. Several years past and that is all we saw, the erection of steel. Finally, someone realized, this stuff is going to rust if we do not close it in. So, eventually, they started to close it in. Now, in fact, we find that the new part is closed in and the money is still not there to do the complete job. From 1994 to 2003, nine years to do a job that ordinarily should take about two to three years, at the most. Nine years, and it is still not completed. That is what this government has, a dismal track record of making commitments, making promises and reneging on it. Not following through with the commitments, not following through with the promises, and what do we end up with? That is the kind of government that we have in this Province today. That is where we have come as a Province and that is the level of trust the people of this Province have for this government.

Mr. Speaker, there is another issue that stands out in this budget for me and that is the area around road construction. During the Easter break I had an opportunity - I was down in parts of my district and I drove particularly down in a part of my district that neighbours on my colleague's district of Bonavista South. Down in that area from Princeton, down to Port Rexton, Trinity, Bonaventure, that area, Route 230, it goes around a loop and comes up to Route 235, in the Bonavista South District. There are some 260 kilometres of road, Mr. Speaker. Do you know what happens in the summertime? For 260 kilometres of road there is one maintenance crew, Mr. Speaker, to take care of that entire section of road. That would not be too bad if it was the Trans-Canada, if it was a superior highway network, if it was something that has been well maintained for years and years and there wasn't much work to do with it, but it is a part of the Province where the road is in a terrible, deplorable condition. Much of the pavement that is there has been there for thirty-plus years. Much of it is not even paved at all.

The maintenance crew in that kind of a region has a significant amount of summer work to do. So to leave just one single crew there results in very little maintenance being done during the course of the summer. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I will just share this story with you. The day that I was there in the depot in Port Rexton, the maintenance crew had one dump truck load of asphalt fill left for the season to do the repairs on the road. The foreman that day said: Fellas, take a truck load of this, go around and only fill up the deepest potholes. Take out the deepest ones and fill them, because we haven't got much of this stuff left. In fact, what you see out in the yard now is all we are going to get until July or August, so just spread it out. Don't do the repairs that are needed. Only do the deepest potholes. So you had a maintenance crew going around picking out the deepest potholes so they could fill them, and leaving the rest. The deepest in that section of the road could run anywhere from twelve inches to eight inches. So, basically, if you are only a six or seven inch deep pothole, you do not get filled. Now that could only do damage to a strut or something like that. You will not do a whole lot of damage to your car, I assume, if it is only six or seven inches deep. But that is the height of ridiculousness that we have reached in highway maintenance in this Province.

When I see a government bringing in a budget and asking this House to give it an endorsement, to endorse what it is doing, I cannot help but say: Where are our priorities? What has happened? I understand when the minister stands and says: I only have so much money, and the Budget is only allowing me to spend this much money. But, I have to ask: What has caused us to reach the point where we are today? We are now into our fifteenth year of this Administration. Decisions that have been made in the past are now coming back to haunt this Province.

In this Budget, we talk about this Budget as being an education budget. We boast about such things as a major reduction in tuition fees for university. Why do we need to reduce them? Why are they so high? Because, in the last fifteen years, they have been increased. If you take ten years of increasing fees and you then spend the next three or four years reducing them, and then turn around and try to convince people you are doing a wonderful job because we are reducing the same tuition fees that we spend ten years increasing, and now you are going to take credit for being prudent managers, thinking solely of the students, I beg to differ, Mr. Speaker.

What I suggest, we are more preoccupied with a pending election and wanting to look good in front of the electorate and wanting to paint a picture that we are the almighty saviors of the Province and we, in fact, want to be re-elected. That is what that is telling me.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other things that stand out for me when I look at this particular Budget and I look at other documents that accompany it, particularly when I look at an annual report from the Department of Health and Community Services when it talks about its achievements over the last couple of years. It talks about - and I was really amused when I opened the first page and the heading read: Shared Commitments. It talks about: the Department of Health and Community Services is only but one player in the delivery of health services in this Province. It goes on to talk about health boards and other government departments.

When I read into this, fundamentally I agree with the minister. There are many people involved with the delivery of health services in this Province, but there is only one body that is accountable and that is the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and on behalf of the government is the minister, who is accountable for the health services in this Province.

So any issues we want to raise, any questions about the quality, any issues about where we are going with health care, it is the minister who has to be able to stand in this House and account for what is happening in our health system.

When I ask that question about accounting for it, I look at what government has bitten off this year as its agenda. It says its commitment and priority this year in the Budget is to areas of mental health, wellness, and long-term care. That is its priority. That is what government is doing.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, I should be able today, if government is listing out in their documents: That our commitment, our strategy for this coming year, is to wellness, mental health, long-term care and supportive services, the minister should be able to stand in this House and, in addition to this Budget document, table for us his strategy for those areas.

Keep it in mind that he said that this is my priority for the next fiscal year. It is only twelve months, I say, Mr. Speaker. One month is already gone. The minister, if he does not have by today strategies to respond to these initiatives, and if he does not have those developed, if he does not have those ready, if he cannot show them to the people of the Province, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that he will have not had enough time to achieve those objectives in the next fiscal year.

So, when my colleague earlier talked about lack of planning, lack of direction, it is evident. We are talking here about a new focus. We are talking about mental health. Let me just take that one in particular. We are talking about mental health services.

Last year, in September, 2002, the minister stood in this House and tabled a Strategic Plan, and he said in that plan, mental health services in this Province need to be developed. We need a strategy. Now, what an eye-opening. The lights came on, we have been enlightened. As if we did not know that we needed to have a strategy for mental health services in this Province.

Then we come down, I say, Mr. Speaker, we come out with an evaluation of what we are doing. What is in there? Nothing for mental health services. I asked the minister the other day in the Budget Estimates discussion about the current state of mental health services in this Province, where we were going. The response I got, Mr. Speaker, was that it was being worked on. It was being developed, but here we are today, in May of 2003, one month into this fiscal year, where he said that this is the year that we are going to focus on mental health, but yet today he does not have a strategy to move forward on mental health services in this Province.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that government should be embarrassed, government should feel ashamed, that they have let the people of this Province down; those particularly who suffer from mental disabilities. I say, Mr. Speaker, that unless we are able to clearly establish a vision for mental health services in this Province, we are going to having this same debate twelve months from now.

The minister will recognize that in his strategic planning document that was released last year in September there were some key areas. Mental health was one of them, long-term care services was another, and again the government's priorities for this year. I say, again -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak in this debate today. I think it is a very important debate that we are engaged in here in this hon. House. It provides each of the members of this House an opportunity to state his or her position with regard to the document that is before the House, the budgetary document. We have all, for a number of days, sat here and endured the Member for Ferryland. I guess he must have been so exhausted from his long bout - I haven't seen him here for a couple of days, I guess he is resting up for the next go around.

I think what it does point to, though, in terms of that whole process is that probably we need to revisit. I have no difficulty with hon. members having the opportunity - and everyone should have the opportunity - to raise the concerns that are there. I think it is time to revisit the fact of unlimited time, because I really believe that it is not a good use of the amount of time that is available for all of us to debate in this hon. House. I would just offer that by way of suggestion. I am sure the hon. Member for Ferryland himself would agree, upon reflection. I was told a long time ago, if you can't say it in twenty minutes it is probably not important anyway. For certain, if you have to take days and days, then I think there is something seriously wrong.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard the commentary and we have heard the criticism from hon. members opposite, condemning this government for its lack of performance, its lack of policies, its lack of vision, and yet, day after day, when we have debated issues in this House and in the public, when members opposite have been asked for their perspective on certain issues, they have declared openly a total inability or an unwillingness to expound what their party's views are on any of these issues. Some of the things have been rather revealing.

The hon. Member for St. John's South was reported in the media as saying that he couldn't state a position on a certain issue because he had to clear it with their communications officer first. I won't know what that says about where the thinking is opposite, but I certainly think before they start criticizing this side of the House they should try and get their own house in order.

Mr. Speaker, anyone who, certainly, has followed for the last number of years the performance of this government will know where this government's commitment is, especially as it relates to health care.

I said in this House, as a number of hon. members have mentioned, there were a number of us who observed an anniversary a short time ago, ten years in this Legislature. There were a number of us who came in that time. I sat on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, when we went through a series of budgets that saw decreases in a number of program areas. The crucial thing in all those years, never once was the health care budget cut. Every year the health care budget did see an increase. Albeit, in some years it was fairly modest, but every year there was an increase. When we were seeing cuts in Works, Services and Transportation, we were seeing cuts in Tourism, we were seeing cuts in other areas, we never once saw a decrease in the health care budgets. In fact, Mr. Speaker, year over year our health care budgets grew and, upon reflection, I think it is significant because it speaks to the commitment of this government to health care in this Province and the priority that we give it. We understand, we accord it that priority because this is where the people of our Province are, this is where the people of our Province want us to be, and they have repeatedly, as have other citizens throughout this country, indicated that health care is the number one priority. The reality is, Mr. Speaker, that, in fact, during those number of years, especially during the time when the federal government was going in the opposite direction, that they were pulling out and decreasing their commitment to health care, our government was, in fact, stepping in and filling the void.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to suggest to anyone here, and to the people of this Province, that this did not come about with a great deal of pain. We hear hon. members opposite talk about the condition of the roads, and it is true, even in my own district. I certainly would love today to have - hon. members, every day, rise and present petitions in this House, but you are not unique in that sense. I am not suggesting that you think you are, but we do have some problems in those areas right throughout the Province. It has partly been compounded, Mr. Speaker, by the fact that during that time when were ensuring that health care had the number one priority, we were not able to allocate those funds to roads, to municipal infrastructure, to other areas as important as the citizens of the Province might have thought they were.

The reality is, Mr. Speaker, that from 1995 to 1996 this government's commitment to health care in this Province increased by some $500 million. That speaks to commitment, and that speaks to the commitment that this government has given to health care in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I have sat in this House and listened to hon. members opposite present criticism in a number of areas. One of the things, about a year ago we were being criticized regularly in this House, and I have heard the health critic, the hon. Member for Trinity North, repeatedly stand up and question government using funds to hire consultants, to go in and to review the operations of our boards.

Not that long ago, the Hay report, we heard the hon. members opposite day after day get up and rant and rave about the Hay report. Why are paying consultants from outside the Province? Why can't we do it ourselves? Mr. Speaker, it is strange. I haven't heard one sound from the hon. Member for Trinity North, or any of the others who are being so critical of these consultants, referencing the fact that, because we brought in an outside consultant, we now have a situation with the Health Care Corporation for St. John's where not only have they eliminated their deficit, but they are, in fact, now reporting a surplus, money that can be used to pay down their long-term debt.

That, Mr. Speaker, is what it is all about. We are not afraid to admit that we do not have all of the answers, and that is why we are not afraid to go elsewhere and look for answers, unlike the hon. Member for Trinity North who likes to bury his head in the sand and watch the world evolve around him. We go out and try to find the best expertise and advice that we can find, and we sometimes acknowledge that we have to go outside the Province to find that, but I do not think we should be afraid to challenge ourselves and to challenge those people who partner with us and work with us to try and find ways that we can improve the system. I think everyone recognizes that, because it is incumbent upon us to make sure that we make maximum use of the money that is available to us to provide programs to the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, we hear the hon. members opposite, the present Health critic and his predecessor, get up and talk about the long lists in certain areas. One of the areas that has been pretty popular has been cardiac surgery. We have acknowledged that we have long lists, and we have tried to move to deal with these. The reality is that government, over the past three years, has committed some $7.2 million to address these long wait lists. In fact, we have decreased, during that three-year period, from 361 persons, which was the wait list three years ago, in March, 2000, to 268 now, for a 26 per cent decrease over these years. In actual numbers, in 2000 it was at 618, in 2001 it came right down to - 618 is the figure where it is today down from some 702.

Mr. Speaker, while we recognize that the wait list is not - no one wants wait lists. We would love to be in a situation for every person who presents themself today requiring a procedure, we would love to be able to acknowledge and provide for them right away. That is our objective, and so it should be the objective of every government in this country. The reality is we have to accept and recognize that controlled wait lists are something that we are going to have to live with unless you find yourself in a circumstance where you have unlimited resources. That is not the reality where we find ourselves today.

Mr. Speaker, the actual numbers again, just with the cardiac surgery - the last figures we had we have increased the surgeries from 618 to 702. So you have to recognize that there is a significant effort. As I said, that has been realized because we have made a significant contribution.

The hon. Member for Trinity North referenced in his remarks the Strategic Health Plan. I was surprised to hear him even reference the Strategic Health Plan because when it was first released, and every opportunity I have heard him speak since, he certainly has not been very complimentary towards the plan. In fact, every opportunity he has condemned the plan, saying: It is a useless document. It does not contain anything. That surprises me because, quite frankly, this document has been very well received by all health care providers in this Province. Everywhere I have gone all of the health care providers, with whom I have been associating with since that document was released, speak very highly of it. These are the people who are closest to it.

Mr. Speaker, I guess the most interesting thing for me was a recent telephone conservation I had with a Newfoundland doctor who is now living and working in the U.S.A., who had called me on another matter and we got talking. This doctor said to me and spoke about how proud she was when she had an opportunity to see our Strategic Health Plan and to see how visionary it was. It made her feel good as a Newfoundlander to see something like this coming out of Newfoundland. So that speaks to what this government is doing, to this government's commitment to health care, this government's vision for health care and vision to provide important services to the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the Prescription Drug Program. We repeatedly hear hon. members opposite stand up and present petitions, as they should, on behalf of their residents looking for increased coverage in various areas, and drugs being one of them. Mr. Speaker, there is no question that, even today as I speak here in this House, we know we have challenges in terms of trying to meet all of the needs that are out there in terms of prescription drugs. We have a lot of people who have been actively lobbying me and hon. members on both sides of the House looking to have this, that or the other medication added to the formulary. Many of these are worthy of consideration, and indeed, we are trying to do what we can to address that. The reality is, in this budget year this government has committed $100 million to go towards the Newfoundland Prescription Drug Program. That is a significant amount of money, Mr. Speaker. That certainly speaks to the importance that we see in this program and it also speaks volumes to the commitment this government makes to health care and makes on behalf of the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, renal dialysis is another area which a lot of hon. members have become involved in because it is an area of growing concern right throughout this Province. Unfortunately, the situation in this Province is such that this is a service which is increasingly in demand. Mr. Speaker, we have been moving to try to develop a timely response to this. In fact, we have set up satellite services in Clarenville, in Stephenville. We do have services in St. John's, Corner Brook and Grand Falls. We presently have a provincial committee looking at all of the requests that are out there, reviewing and analyzing and making recommendations to government. That report will be received by government shortly. Once that information is in our hands, Mr. Speaker, we will move forward to try and address and respond to these needs as they are put forward by the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, long- term care. We have heard hon. members speak here in the House today and repeatedly in terms of the long-term care needs. The hon. Member for Trinity North - and indeed, he is right. I have visited his area. I can attest to the needs in that area. I have visited the present facility there. I have been out in Carbonear. I have seen the facilities there. I have been to Corner Brook and I have seen the facilities there. I do not need to be educated or convinced as to what the needs are. I think all of us in this House do understand what the needs are but, Mr. Speaker, knowing the needs and knowing the challenges does not automatically present us with a resolution. The reality today is, to deal with all the needs that have been identified we have estimated would require an expenditure of some $200 million. The reality is, Mr. Speaker, that we, as a government, today, do not have that money to invest, as much as I would like, as minister, to be able to announce today that we are going to move right away to address all of these concerns.

Mr. Speaker, rather than sit by and do nothing and say we will wait until such time as our financial circumstances change so that we are able to deal with it, we are moving forward and exploring the possibility of P3 to see if, in fact, Private-Public Partnerships do provide us with an opportunity, with an avenue, to move forward and address this real concern.

Mr. Speaker, again I say to hon. members, surely we are not going to go through life with our heads buried in the sand and be afraid to think outside the box and to look at new ideas. If there is a possible resolution here, why shouldn't be explore it? Mr. Speaker, all we are saying is we want to look at it because our concern is to try to provide these services and facilities as quickly as we can for the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite - and we heard it again today with the hon. Member for Trinity North, and I read in the paper the comments he made out in Corner Brook at the get together they had there last night. Mr. Speaker, the reality is that we understand the nature of the need and we are moving to try to address it. I can assure the people of Corner Brook that, certainly, through the members they have in this House, on our side of the House, their concerns are being put forward on a regular basis. They haven't got to worry, their concerns are daily in the eyes of this government.

Mr. Speaker, just let me speak for a minute, when you talk about leadership. The hon. members opposite talk about leadership and providing leadership. Mr. Speaker, lets reflect back on the physicians' strike which we had in this Province. It seems like a long time ago now, but it really wasn't that long ago. For seventeen days the physicians in this Province were on strike. During that whole period, the Leader of the Opposition and the health critic, the hon. Member for Trinity North - I couldn't believe it, I thought they had run into a paper shortage, because prior to the strike every day there was a release coming out of his office condemning me on something. All of the sudden there was a doctors' strike on that affected everyone in the Province and he disappears. They disappeared, both of them. He and his leader both disappeared, frightened to death, Mr. Speaker, that they might be asked to make a comment, that they might put their foot into it. They just stayed away from it, no ideas as to how to help us. I certainly had no calls from the Member for Trinity North as to what he thought we might be able to do to solve the situation. I also had no calls from the Leader of the Opposition. I also has no suggestions, even in the media. They could have used the media, if they did not want to call me. They could have used the media to try to get their message out, but really they had no ideas.

Mr. Speaker, let's look for a minute at the MRI, the MRI debate that is ensuing right now and especially has been heating up in the last couple of days. It is interesting that right now - almost a year ago, May 12, a private member's resolution debated in this House, brought forward by the hon. Member for Trinity North, was calling for a mobile MRI. A mobile MRI a year ago. In fact, we had hon. members opposite standing up and speaking to it. The hon. Member for Springdale rose to speak to it, and he says: The people of Central and Western Newfoundland need a mobile unit, not a fixed unit, a stationary unit, in one particular location.

Well, I would suggest to the hon. member, he might want to talk to the people in Western today. They might have a difference of opinion as to what you were stating in that debate.

The interesting thing was that I amended that resolution to allow for a discussion and debate in this House. Mr. Speaker, the reality is, the resolution was passed because this side of the House supported the resolution. The Opposition voted against it. They did not want it discussed further. No, we have the answer. We have been told by our people, this is what we need. Yet, Mr. Speaker, this week in the paper, I read, coming out of the convention on the weekend, quoting the Leader of the Opposition, the location of the new magnetic resonance imaging machine that the provincial government plans to fund was also discussed, and Williams was asked to clarify his position. The Member for Humber West said, "...and there is no doubt where I would prefer the MRI to be located. I want the MRI to be in Corner Brook.... The whole decision has to be whether it will be a mobile or stationary MRI."

A year ago, he and all the members opposite voted against that exact thing. You were prepared to shut it down a year ago, to shut the debate down, and have no discussion on it.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify a point.

If the minister is going to get up and say what the hon. members on this side of the House did or did not do last year, at least get it correct. What we did last year - you proposed, as a private member, as anyone in this House can introduce a motion at any time, which is what I did. I introduced a motion that we would have a mobile MRI because the three boards asked for it. The three boards were collectively - collectively, the three boards came together last year and said: Will you represent us? Will you act on our behalf, because there is going to be -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) minutes ago.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Just to clue up my point of order, Mr. Speaker.

What I am saying to you, Mr. Speaker, is that last year the minister stood and made an amendment to my motion. We did not vote against the motion that I proposed. I proposed a motion that this side of the House would have endorsed. The minister proposed an amendment. It was that amendment that we voted against.

I say, Mr. Speaker, it is that amendment that your government endorsed, and now one of your ministers is coming out against the very amendment that you made as a government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: If there is any confusion, it is on your side; because you have a minister who is not in sync with the rest of you over there. That is the point, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I just want to very quickly say this is twice this afternoon we have seen from the Opposition an abuse of the rules of this House on spurious and speechless points of order, taking time away from hon. members.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members refrain from doing this.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services, his time has expired.

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take some of my time to talk about some things in the District of St. Barbe.

Today I got up to present a petition on a very serious matter in Parsons Pond, actually, with the closing of the school there, the school board passing a motion to close the school. I just thought of how that community is out there and so involved in its school that it has gone ahead and sought legal advice and hired a lawyer to try to move ahead with saving their school.

The thing I tried to point out today is that I feel the people in Parsons Pond are so much involved in their school that they have what I would call a high-end education for their children. I think of an education that children of only the wealthy would receive, because from there they have the staff to go out and do what needs to be done; but in Parsons Pond, a volunteer base has certainly gone out and filled the void, and gone into a higher education for Grades 6-12. I had gone out earlier today - as I said in my petition. I went out there to point out some points on why I feel this was the case. Because of that volunteer base there, they have gone out and offered a swimming safety course. This swimming safety course proved to be very valuable to the community. You take a small community like Parsons Pond, I go out there and offer a course which actually saves one of his children. It is an incredible thing, an incredible achievement. I am sure the volunteers on that particular day, week and month and year were quite happy with what they had given to their community to know that the life of a child was saved from - why they have contributed to their school, and how they have made that school the centre of their community and the things which have revolved around it.

One of the other achievements they have had is quality, daily physical education. They have won an award, a national award, eight years in a row. It is an award that is only handed out to a handful of schools across the country. It is the amount of time that they put into physical education on a daily basis which has made them meet this criteria. Many a time you will hear the Minister of Education or the Minister of Health talk about how our kids are not getting the exercise they need and that a higher percentage of our kids are obese today and that they are not getting the education they deserve because their minds are not as active if their bodies are not as active.

Now this is a community which goes out there and recognizes this to be true, without a doubt, and they have done something about it. The community had taken on and became a part of the education system and said: Well, our children don't have to fall into that category because we are willing to do something about it. They have gone out and done that. They have prepared their kids from the beginning, a preschool program; 100 per cent volunteers who have gone out there and had a quality preschool program. I would suggest that we are second to none within this community.

They had a special poetry program, where the kids in Parsons Pond had their poetry published in a book that was circulated throughout North America; all through the United States and Canada. For those kids to grow up and know that more than one of them has had their poetry - it certainly gives an interest to other children. It sets a mark and achievement that is higher than if we were not involved in such programs, and an interest in education.

One of the other things that I found amazing, coming from rural Newfoundland and living with many salmon rivers around me, is that they had gone out and brought fish eggs into a tank. They had gone out - and over the year they seen those eggs turn into fry. They go back into a river and release them again. I do not see how you could possibly go out there and have a better understanding of your environment, an appreciation of how it works, than being in a K-6 school where you go out there and see this evolve in front of your eyes. To have that kind of understanding, that kind of hands on, that kind of appreciation for the environment. We are an area, a community that exists off the land and the ocean and for us to be involved to that extent is incredible. I think if we were to go out and see the troubles we are in today - and to think that maybe in twenty years time one of those children would have a very good chance of being the right person to go out there and help us get through some of the troubles. If the future continues on as it is today, we certainly will need leadership that can go out there and understand and be able to get some of the right things to happen when it comes to preserving. I think first of all you have to understand - I think maybe too many people in this world do not have an understanding of how the ecosystems work, whether it is salmon or cod. Today we know the devastating effect on our communities that the cod fishery is having with (inaudible).

One of the other things that went out were hooked rug murals, where kids went out and hooked their own rugs. They had gone out there and through their own local geography, their own local opportunities, they had between the landscape and their history - their traditional jobs. They had gone out there and hooked mats and put it together to unveil for the community. As this was happening, I happened to be going through Parsons Pond, and to see the parents there and how enthused they were with the kids, and how proud they were to display - and the achievements those children had in having made those hooked rugs. The instructor who was brought in to just do this program with them, he said it is exceptional to have kids at that age to be able to have an understanding and an appreciation. It brings children into the community right away.

Of the stories that I have there, the one that struck home to me most of all - because as a volunteer in a community for many years, was that we always get derailed. We always start things with good intentions. One of the things that this community's parents offered was a Ranger course. That Ranger course had gone out there and taken a young seven or eight-year-old child - his grandmother with Alzheimer's had fallen out of a chair and broken her arm. He had taken that elderly lady and put her back in the chair and made a sling around her arm. The doctor just could not believe that such a young person would know what to do in the first place, and then be able to go and do such a job with putting the sling on. It was an incredible job. The amazing part of this story was when they had to leave and fight for the school, that was one of the first programs they did not do. It goes to show that what we have, and how good the intentions are, and everything we see with all the possibilities, sooner or later it seems like it gets derailed. What we are actually doing is - whoever goes out to volunteer for the ideas we have, that it comes back. It is the fighting for the money. It is the fighting for the survival is what we do.

I guess the last comment I would like to make on the presentation is that I thought the school board as being in the region, and being in the area, that it would have an understanding and an appreciation for what is going on; that it would be much more effective in providing the needs to the communities than a bureaucracy far away in St. John's. Yet, it seems like at the end of the day, it was the bureaucracy far away in St. John's. For $52,000 I know that it is not a good reason to close that school. They had gone out of there - for $52,000 and that was not including - it was brought up at the meeting. That did not include the extra busing which was required at lunchtime to return home.

So they go out there and take a community like Parsons Pond, with all the turmoil of the cod closures and the devastation that we have - is that to go out there and have one more big knock against one of those communities, a community like Parsons Pond, just does not seem to be the thing to do at this particular time. You sit in amazement - as communities, and people in rural Newfoundland, we go out there and when we are attacked from outside we think in terms of the family unit and the community unit. That is what keeps up together. That is what we fight for. That is what we are about. We are not individuals in a big city. We are small communities with small families that know each other and we all depend on each other for survival. It is very unfortunate for this to happen.

One of the other things that I have been - and I see as very unusual and I think it is extremely in poor judgement, is Daniel's Harbour -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

MR. YOUNG: Daniel's Harbour was blessed with having spring water very close to its community. It had an excellent supply of water, but the system that was put in over the years and put in a different time - I think a different quality of work had gone in there. It has leaked so much that they cannot keep their supply of water because they run out. They use four times as much as they would for a community of that size. It is all due to the leaks. If that was not the case they would have enough water supply to last the entire year. Because of those leaks, they ended up then having to turn to a brook water, which is a drinkable water when you chlorinate it, but it is certainly not a quality of water that they have in the spring water. As that dries up, they have to go to a pond in the town that is so polluted that it is only good for waste disposal.

To go out there and have a community on the Northern Peninsula with an opportunity to have a water supply as good as they have, to go out there and have to resort to this when we have had so many close calls and we have so many boil orders on the go. Yet, we have this opportunity for this town to be blessed with a water supply and it is of no good to them, only for very short periods of time.

I was talking to the mayor a little while ago, and the big rain storm we had on the West Coast where we had all the roads washed out and whatnot, it put water back into the spring. As I was talking to the mayor, he was kind of pleased that he had water, that he never had to take water out of this very polluted pond.

This mayor was promised money to fix his leaking problem. Actually, that mayor went out there and had taken so much of his budget to go out there and address the problem immediately, because he was trying to move on - that is how important it is - but when the mayor went out and got the money for his chlorination, got an offer to upgrade his chlorination, they said that the money for the leaking problem would not be there because there was money owed to municipal affairs, to the corporation, and was denied this money. Now the mayor was in a position, after having paid so much into this and not being able to finish the job, not being able to get any benefits back from the money he had invested. He had to let that money slide on through and have no benefits from this.

The reason this situation had come up, because he could not pay all the money at that time, was that the roads had to be cleared. If you go into a small municipality like Daniel's Harbour, Daniel's Harbour has lost more than half its population. Daniel's Harbour used to be a prosperous mining town. It lost over half its population when the mine closed down. Many of the people there are seniors and they do not have the money to go out there just to raise taxes. The economy is in very poor shape. They have gone through debt reduction. With the amount of money they had left to go into a budget there was a choice between fixing the leaks that were in the lines, or snow clearing the roads, or keeping them passable in the summer. It is very unfortunate for those towns to have to make those very difficult decisions, you know, when you go out there and have a safe supply of water, or roads that are passable. If you do not provide the basic services as a council, then how are you going to be able to collect any of your taxes? That is the position they are left in.

As volunteers, many of them are at wit's end on how to go out there and keep their towns going and keep them working. Many have lost confidence. Our young and educated are gone. So many times, you are just wondering how to keep this going.

I would like to move on to roads. Our roads are in desperate need of repairs on the Northern Peninsula. There has not been any money spent on Northern Peninsula, the same as almost anywhere else other than the Trans-Canada, because there has not been an agreement, and the amount of money needed out there is certainly significant. It is certainly to the point, as many people have said here, that what is really needed is a federal-provincial agreement to come out to have a significant amount of money to address their problem.

I think just in the southern part of my district I heard it quoted that it would take about twice this year's budget to go out and fix the problem that they have in just that section alone. This $23 million or $18 million budget is just not significant at all. There is just no means of dealing with it. It can do what it was designed to do, I suppose: to do a few side roads here and there. It was not designed to go out and fix major routes. It was designed just to fix small problems, and roads leading to small communities out of the way. That is what it was designed for, and that is all it is ever going to be enough for.

Now, to go out and have the roads in the condition that they have been on the Northern Peninsula - the change has come so that the traffic from Labrador comes up through the District of St. Barbe, all up through the Northern Peninsula highway, up as far as St. Barbe. So the roads up here now are going to see that deterioration increase. It is going to be the same as when we had the shrimp trucks coming by. At that time we saw our highways deteriorate at a very accelerated rate. We had all those heavy trucks that were travelling in the spring, and all the water was in the ground and the roads were heaving after the freezing in the winter. At the same time, we had the heavy traffic coming over it. It was much more than the roads could handle on twenty-five year old plus pavement.

One of the places that I always have to mention is the Sally's Cove enclave. An extreme example of pavement being needed, I suppose, would be in Sally's Cove, for a couple of reasons. One is that it is an enclave within Gros Morne Park, and to go off a well-paved road on either side and to come to this paved road that is worse than a gravel road - at least when you are heading north and you come off it, you would be much safer, I think, landing on a gravel road than you are landing on the pavement that you have in front of you coming out of the park. It kind of bounces you and throws you towards the shoulder of the road. As often as I have traveled, if it is not completely on my mind where I am, I still get a fright. So I can imagine, if you are traveling down a very good highway which is well paved, to end up here would be quite an eye-opener for sure.

Sally's Cove: The importance of that particular place for a need for pavement is that we have invested so much in tourism on the Northern Peninsula. For people to go out there and see the condition of the road in that particular area would certainly send a message of what is to come. I think, even matters that arose earlier are not as bad as the enclave in Sally's Cove. There is just too much of a difference. I really encourage the minister to go out there and repair at least that four kilometers of road. There are many stretches out there that do need upgrading, but I would have to identify that particular area as being the very worst, indeed.

Mentioning tourism, Mr. Speaker: I mean, you go out there and invest in an industry that is relying on a good transportation system or good government services. You know, having towns that are in very scenic places that don't have basic water and sewer, having the ditches with water and sewage in them, is just not acceptable. Those people want to come to a very beautiful place with a culture that is second to none and scenery that is second to none. They want to see an economy that works. They just can't go into a place that is devastating, that they can't be a part of that, that they are scared of what is around the corner. If they walk into a place, they want to make sure the water they are drinking and the food they are eating is safe. Some of the tourists along the way would have to question how safe (inaudible) and what can possibly happen here.

We have gone out there, and I must say our tourism industry has certainly developed over the years, with the challenges that we have had. I guess, the road conditions and whatnot were not as bad fifteen years ago when tourism started to be an industry that was of concern. Today, instead of reinvesting in everything that it takes to keep this industry going, we are going out on the one hand and we are moving along without the other hand knowing the fact that the basic infrastructure has to be in place. I mean, a bus tour company coming up the Peninsula, if you are going to enjoy that scenery you cannot be bouncing all over the place, you have to have a decent road to go on.

One of the other things with the opportunities that are offered there, is that summer tourism is only about a three-month season. It is just not enough to go out there and make ends meet, to make this industry viable for reinvestment. It is only long enough to go out and to survive, I suppose. Winter tourism has certainly been one of the things we have talked about as having a need for, as in pushing the shoulder season out and developing the winter season. One of the things I found with the talk of the development of the shoulder season is that, yes, the industry is there. I have gone to many meetings where we are all up for it. We realize this is how it has to work and then you turn around and you find out that, you know, visitor information centres are closed down, attractions that government owns are all closed down.

The individual, who needs this ever so much, is all willing to go for it. Government seems to be pushing it on the one hand, but then on the other hand, they cannot follow through with the commitment to do so. The winter tourism, having snowmobile trails -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. YOUNG: Just to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. YOUNG: Thank you.

One of the things is getting involved. Many of the things that happen out there happen on a volunteer basis, and the volunteer basis is that we go out there, we go off with good intentions and we have an interest in our communities. It is to go out and have a volunteer base. We go after it with certain goals and certain things we see that we can give our communities. On the other hand we seem to go out there and get distracted and always have to fight red tape and not get an opportunity to develop what we see as being important in our communities.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise today and take part in the debate that is taking place in the House concerning the budget and talk about some things that apply to my district and my area of Labrador West that are of concern to the people that I represent and other issues involving areas of concern around the Province.

Mr. Speaker, in last year's budget government said that the next decade belongs to Labrador. Well, I am certainly glad that the next decade belongs to Labrador, Mr. Speaker, because if they had not said that, how bad off would things be? Mr. Speaker, that was for last year's budget, and I guess the message was very clear there because the next decade belongs to Labrador was followed with, by the way we are taking $100 million that is earmarked for you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. COLLINS: In actual fact, it was not taken this year. I am speaking about the past and what government said last year and what their intentions were. Their intent was to take. As it happened, Mr. Speaker, the $100 million was not taken because in order to do that government would have had to come to this House and change the legislation protecting that money and they would have had a very rough time in trying to achieve that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about some other issues as well. One of the things that I would like to discuss is the area of education. Mr. Speaker, this government, in this budget, reduced education costs somewhat by lowering tuition fees. That is a step, Mr. Speaker, in the right direction. That is a step in the right direction, but it is not what students of this Province or parents of students in this Province need. There are many other costs connected to education that government should be able to address, costs such as the price of text books where one paragraph on a page is changed, and all of a sudden the book is no longer any good and students have to purchase a new book rather than use the old one, with an insert that, most times, would more than cover off the changes that are in the text.

The other cost, Mr. Speaker, that applies directly to people I represent and other parts of the Province, as well, is the high cost of student travel to get to St. John's or Corner Brook, and the cost of living or the amount of money it takes to rent an apartment or to stay in residence and to buy groceries and sustain yourself while you are going to a post-secondary institution.

Mr. Speaker, there is no reason whatsoever why this government could not give a tax break to people who have to spend a lot of money in order for their kids to attend post-secondary institutions that are great distances from their home towns; no reason whatsoever, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, if I recall correctly, a couple of years ago at the Liberal convention in Corner Brook they talked about the idea of a tax credit, what most people would seem to want, Mr. Speaker, but they have not discussed that any further and we have not heard anything connected with that in recent months or during the last couple of years.

Mr. Speaker, in this House yesterday and several times in the past you have heard me stand and address the issue of transportation in Labrador. Air transportation or road transportation are two areas in Labrador that create a lot of concern for a lot of people. Just yesterday, I questioned the Minister of Transportation on doing something to alleviate the terrible situation that people find themselves in when they are confronted with a tragedy in their family and go to the airport only to find out that they cannot obtain a seat on an aircraft.

I say to the government and I say to everyone in this Province, you would not want to find yourself in that position at that particular time in your life. That is a situation that is not tolerable any longer. It is not a situation that anyone should be exposed to, and something has to be done. The minister, yesterday, indicated that he is certainly willing. I would like to say, at this point in time, Mr. Speaker, that we did have that meeting that the minister promised yesterday. We had that this afternoon, and hopefully the airlines will send back a couple of different options that they will be putting together to the minister, to the minister responsible for transportation, the Minister for Labrador Affairs, and myself to look at.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that Labrador is vast, but that does not mean to say that the people who live there should not have things that other people in this country take for granted. When I talk about the highway and the road system, a lot of people can attest to the fact that many people have risked their lives to driving over that highway. There are many challenges that face drivers, a lot of damage inflicted on vehicles that drive over that road.

I am glad, Mr. Speaker, after two years of bringing up to government how unsafe that road is, what impact no communication on that highway leaves people in, the terrible situations and near tragic situations I might add, Mr. Speaker, that people have experienced on that highway, with no method of communication, I am glad to say that after months and months of asking government to intervene, to do something, to take a responsibility so that people who are stranded on that highway will have a means of communication to be able to call an emergency number and let people know where they are.

I am glad to say, Mr. Speaker, that now, soon, within the next week, people will have a satellite phone that they will be able to carry with them as they travel that highway from Labrador West to Happy Valley-Goose Bay return, and if they get into difficulty they will be able to use that to call for assistance, but that is not the solution to the problem. That, in itself, is not the solution. We want and we need across that highway cell phone coverage, because a lot of people who use that highway use it for various lengths. The do not drive the entire duration. They probably will not take a phone because if they do it will probably be taken by someone who is driving the entire length of the highway from Labrador West to Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Mr. Speaker, we need cell phone coverage for people who use that road for different reasons other than to travel from Labrador West to the Happy Valley-Goose Bay area.

The road itself, Mr. Speaker, leaves a lot to be desired - the condition of that highway. There is continuous upgrading required. Talk to any tourist who travelled that road and many of them will tell you that they would not recommend it to their friends because they have done considerable damage to their vehicle in trying to drive across the highway. There is absolutely no need for that to happen.

I ask the minister and I say to this government: What is wrong with the concept of asphalt in Labrador? There is something that this government does not understand. There is something drastically wrong when we look around the St. John's area, and the Avalon Peninsula area, and not trying to take anything away from them, but when we look at all of the construction, all of the new highways that are taking place, and then we look at Labrador and the tax dollars that come out of there, there is absolutely no pavement to drive on whatsoever other than what is contained on the streets in the individual communities.

There is a little portion from the Quebec border to Labrador West. That, Mr. Speaker, is rutted so badly that you can almost let go of your steering wheel and the car will take you wherever you want to go. That section of highway is used by heavy traffic that brings in supplies for the mining industry - a lot of weight on that highway - which caused it to deteriorate.

Mr. Speaker, there are many other issues in Labrador that people in other parts of the Province may not experience. One of these that really irritates the people I represent, and I am sure in other parts of Labrador, is the difficulty and the high cost associated with health care when you have to be referred to a health facility outside of Labrador. You come mostly to the Health Sciences Centre here in St. John's - a great hospital with great workers - if you can get there. Many times the delay is not acceptable. There are long lineups and waiting lists to get in to see a doctor, and when you do, many people find out that they see a doctor and the doctor will say to them: Come back and see me in three weeks, or two weeks, or I will make an appointment with this other doctor for you in ten days time, or a months time. It is not as simple, Mr. Speaker, as being able to get aboard your vehicle and drive down the highway and go into a doctor's office. It is thousands of dollars each time that you leave Labrador to come to St. John's to avail of medical services which are not available in your own area.

Mr. Speaker, we heard about the new MRI machine that the Province is going to purchase, and we heard yesterday about the new hospital in Goose Bay. What would be wrong with having a mobile MRI that could travel throughout Labrador, that could go to the new hospital in Goose Bay, that could go to the Captain William Jackman Memorial Hospital in Labrador West and to other areas in the Province, like St. Anthony, like Gander and Grand Falls, so that people around the Province can avail of this service in their own community without having to incur the high expense that goes with having to travel to another region. So, I strongly support and encourage the mobile unit for that MRI which will be able to be of benefit to a lot of people in the Province without causing them undo financial hardship.

The other thing that this Budget did not address is an issue which I have raised in this House on literary dozens of occasions, and that is an expanded prescription drug plan coverage. I spoke on a petition today, Mr. Speaker, talking about the impact these high cost drugs have on an individual and their family. Many people are going without these drugs because they cannot afford to take a drug that they need and be able to provide for their families at the same time. That is a choice that a lot of people are forced to make in this Province. People with MS, people with Alzheimer's, people who need hormone replacement drugs. These are the types of drugs that are quite expensive, but the government should realize that the money upfront to help people through this period in their lives can be saved, because if nothing is done, and if these people do not receive these drugs, Mr. Speaker, then down the road it is going to be a much higher cost on our health care system than the upfront cost it would be in helping people with a co-payment program which would assist them with their drugs.

That is not rocket science, Mr. Speaker. That would not be breaking new ground like banning cellphone use in vehicles was. That is available in every other province in this country. We are the only province where people do not have any coverage whatsoever if they are working for a living. The only province, Mr. Speaker, and that is a sad reflection on this government, that for the past number of years have not seen the light to proceed with a co-payment program which would help people in that situation.

Mr. Speaker, I notice the clock and I have some time left. If it is the wish of the House, I can adjourn debate here and go back on when the House reconvenes.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, the agreement is that we recess at 5:30 p.m. until 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The House is recessed until 7:00 p.m.


May 6, 2003 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 17A


The House resumed sitting at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West adjourned the debate.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as we were recessing for supper, I was in the process of talking about the number of times people in Labrador travel outside for medical appointments only to be told to come back two or three weeks later, or eight or ten days later, for an appointment with another doctor. I was also talking about the need - as I pointed out to the Minister of Transportation yesterday - to have some provision that allows people to travel for compassionate reasons. Lo and behold, when I went back to my office following the recess there were two messages there. A message dealing with each one of the topics I had just finished speaking about. Again, I think it illustrates the need for things to be taken into consideration when you live in remote areas of this Province.

I was also watching the news during the supper break, Mr. Speaker, and there was a lot of discussion there about the MRI and where it should go; the second MRI machine. I noticed that there seems to be a lot of support for it going to the Corner Brook area. Again, I want to emphasis and state categorically that I strongly feel this MRI machine should be a mobile unit that would travel to Corner Brook, yes, but also into Labrador, Grand Falls, Gander and other areas of the Province where people have to travel now to access that kind of testing.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other issues I would like to touch on in the little bit of time that I have left allocated to me. Some of these things - I want to talk about this budget and the lack of consideration, again, it gave for health care workers when it comes to them being covered by workers' compensation. These health care workers have, for many years, been performing a very valuable service to the people in our Province. In 1996, or 1997, money was put aside in that budget to provide for wage increases and coverage under workers' compensation. The wage increases, little as they were, did take place but unfortunately for these workers in that occupation, they are still without workers' compensation coverage in the event they get hurt performing the jobs that they do.

I also want to talk about our natural resources, Mr. Speaker, and talk about how things could have been different in this budget if we only were able to get the benefits that we should be getting from our resources. When we look at the offshore oil, which is really one of the things that is driving this Island portion of our Province, and we look at what we receive from that. If we look at Alberta, if we look at Norway, if we look at Alaska and see the amount of revenues that they derive from their offshore oil reserves and compare that to the pittance we receive in this Province. Mr. Speaker, I think it is regretful that deals which were signed in the past were not of the nature that would provide us with the resources and the money that we need today to offer a higher quality of service than currently exists in many areas of this Province.

Look at Voisey's Bay, Mr. Speaker - again, it is an issue I have raised repeatedly in the public domain. It is an issue I have raised here in this House and it is an issue we will continue to stay on top of to make sure that people in Labrador receive the benefits and the employment opportunities that they were promised by this government and by Voisey's Bay Nickel. It is important, Mr. Speaker, that we not let happen at Voisey's Bay this summer what took place last summer. This government are the ones who promised that to the people in Labrador and we will be holding them accountable for what happens this year. I have called for the establishment of a monitor to provide the people in Labrador with a detailed description of the type of work that is taking place, the number of people who are working onsite and how many, in fact, are from Labrador to ensure - and people will know that they are getting their fair share of work from that project.

At the Combined Council's meeting in Happy Valley-Goose Bay a couple of weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, the Combined Council's readily adopted a proposal that I have been calling for for the past year. They also adopted another suggestion I made, and that is establishing a job bank; a job bank where the only resumes would be from people from Labrador. If there is a job required in Voisey's Bay the first place any employer would look would be in that resume bank from Labrador. If there were a person there qualified then they would fill that position and the employer need look no further. Mr. Speaker, these are the types of things that we need to be on top of to make sure that the people in Labrador get their fair share and get what they have been promised by this government and by Voisey's Bay Nickel.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of young people in Labrador who are unemployed. When I say a lot of young people unemployed, I am talking about of the young people who remain, because there is one thing that is noticeably absent in Labrador and that is the presence of young people. Most of them have had to move away, not only for educational reasons but to pursue employment opportunities. That may be okay, Mr. Speaker. That may be the way it is in places where it can be no different, but in Labrador it should not be that way because we have had, over the years, enough opportunities presented to us that if we took advantage of them and insisted on receiving our fair share, we would have to be continually importing workers into Labrador, not watching our young people having to leave. All of these things are things that could be happening with the right policies in place which would govern what is happening in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, it is sad when we look at the royalty regimes in this Province in our natural resource industries and we look at what we receive from them, and then we look on the other side and see what we receive from lotteries and video lottery machines that are -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: Just leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: And we look at what is derived as revenues from these machines. I think it is shameful on our part to have to look at these figures and see where a lot of our resources are coming from, and very little going back, by the way, to help people who have problems with addiction with gambling.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clue up. I realize my time is up. I just want to touch briefly on tourism.

In Labrador, the tourism industry is one that can be thriving. There is a lot of potential. We are world known for fishing. We are world known for skiing facilities, for outdoor activities. These activities have to be developed. They have to be developed to the potential that will attract people into the area and create a thriving business for many entrepreneurs who are already into the business and other community-operated groups who are doing the best they can with the resources that they have.

I raised also, a couple of weeks ago, with the minister responsible for Labrador, talking about the huge mess that is on the Trans-Labrador Highway with caribou remains. The minister agreed, something needs to be done about that. We have a tourism season coming up where we do not want this unsightly mess being viewed by people who, hopefully, will encourage their friends and neighbours and acquaintances to come to Labrador. We do not want that to be there. I understood from the minister and from the Minister of Transportation that, indeed, this will be taken care of in pretty short order.

We talked about the wildlife, and I raised again, with the Minister for Labrador, some of the concerns that outfitters have. I read in recent days about a hunter from the United States who is actually taking court action against something that happened in Labrador involving hunters who came into the region. That is not good publicity. That does not serve us well in public opinion. It certainly does nothing for our image and it certainly detracts from other people coming into the area and spending their money and creating jobs.

I would just like to say in closing, Mr. Speaker, that there are a lot of concerns in this Province as a whole, but in Labrador we have concerns over and above that. Some which are the same as the concerns of the people on the Island portion of the Province but others that are unique to Labrador, and they are particularly in the areas that I have highlighted here this evening.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. LUSH: I am calling, Mr. Speaker, a new order, and then the Member for Lake Melville can get recognized.

Order 3, Concurrence Motion of Government Services Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 3.

The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to rise and speak in the Concurrence Debate. The committee which I served on, the Government Services Committee, heard from a number of departments: Municipal and Provincial Affairs; Environment; Works, Services and Transportation; Finance; Government Services and Lands; and three of the, I guess, agencies: Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation; the Public Service Commission. I had an opportunity, also, to serve on a number of other committees as fill-ins. So, it was a very interesting session.

I will begin my twenty minutes, Mr. Speaker, talking about the budget that we have put in place this year. There are so many positive things that we could talk about in terms of health care, education, jobs and growth, transportation, infrastructure and a whole host of things that we could be certainly talking about. I am going to premise most of my discussion today on the Labrador transportation. I will take a little different slant than the Member for Labrador West and have a look at that aspect of our budgetary process from a positive perspective.

Before I do that, Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to some of the remarks from the Member for Waterford Valley today when he was talking a fair bit from a press release, or a letter, or something from the MP for Labrador. I would just suggest to the Member for Waterford Valley that I do not need to take any lead from the MP for Labrador in dealing with provincial issues for which I was elected to do. There are lots of federal issues that the MP certainly could be dealing with instead of standing up in front of every parade that you have going. It is very easy to criticize everything under the sun, but when we have to make decisions we stand up and work on those decisions, take those decisions and then we talk about them after. That is why this government, Mr. Speaker, has been so successful in dealing with the transportation needs in Labrador.

The whole transportation initiative, when we got elected in 1996 one of the major, major initiatives was for us to take a serious look at what was happening in the transportation areas of Labrador. We all know that for a number of years there was not a whole lot happening. There was a little bit of work going on here and there, but since 1996, when this government took over, we started to do a major, major project and a major initiative on the transportation needs of Labrador. I could stand here for two hours and tell you the kinds of things that we have seen happen since then, not talk about but happen. We made those things happen.

Mr. Speaker, in 1997 there was a major initiative and it caused a lot of concern. I guess, there are still a lot of misconceptions about what that agreement was. Mr. Speaker, that agreement was between us and the federal government. We agreed to take over all the marine services in Labrador for perpetuity. For that, we got $340 million and we got two boats to go with it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion about that, a lot of misconceptions about that, because it had nothing to do with the federal government after that, what we did with that money, because that was money transferred to the Province. It was our plan, our initiative, our policy, that dealt with that money afterwards. We could have used that money, Mr. Speaker, to continue the shipping as it was. We could have done that, we could have done that for years, and not see any initiatives taken in any other mode of transportation in Labrador. That is not what the people in Labrador asked for and that is not what they wanted. What the people in Labrador wanted was a normal transportation method whereby they could travel year ‘round, not only six months of the year, because shipping can only happen on the Labrador coast for six months of the year and the other six, you have to do something else.

Mr. Speaker, that whole initiative of the $340 million, we are still spending from that. What we have done with that - I challenge the Member for Labrador West. In 1996 it took you twelve hours to drive 300 kilometres from Churchill Falls to Goose Bay. Do you know what? In 1999 we could do it in three hours. If you tell me that is not improving the transportation system, then there is something wrong with somebody.

Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of thing we need to understand. We need to go back and realize some of those things. We changed the transportation system on the South Coast. You know, for years and years and years you could only drive up to Red Bay and then you had to get an airplane or a boat, or a snowmobile in the winter. Mr. Speaker, that is not what the people wanted. The people wanted government to provide for them, as they provide for everybody else in this Province, a means of transportation where they didn't have to wait for a schedule, wait for weather or be delayed. They wanted to have an opportunity to get into their vehicles and drive like everybody else to their destinations. That is not asking for anything special, that is just asking for what everybody else has. That is the premise we have been working on. That is the plan we have been working on to ensure that kind of thing happens.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, this government, since 1996, has gone a long way and seen progress made. People now can drive from here right to Cartwright. Three years ago, you could not even think about it. Mr. Speaker, that is all done because we put the initiative in place. We have had the plans in place to do this, and we have done this with the funding that we could have taken, sat back, run the ships, (inaudible) it out for six months a year for the next twenty years. We decided not to do that. We decided to downsize the need for ferry services because that is only six months of the year. The North Coast still has to depend on that, but you never know, very soon we could be talking about a highway on the North Coast. That is not in the realm of impossibility. We have done a lot of things, Mr. Speaker. We talked about them for a very short while, but then we took the initiative and did those things.

We are also going to see pavement on these roads, that people are asking for, over a period of time, but all of this takes time. Mr. Speaker, you do not see this happen overnight. They will see improvements in other forms of transportation in Labrador, as well, because what the transportation link through the highway has been doing is not only providing a better service for people, but it is also providing a huge opportunity for the local people to take, in their own hands, initiatives that we will get them involved in tourism, in the resource industries and all other aspects of ways of making their communities whole and making their communities sustainable. So, it has a huge impact, Mr. Speaker, on a lot of areas.

We call it the changing face of Labrador, what this government is doing with the budgets that we have put in place, Mr. Speaker. We are seeing the changing face of Labrador because what it is doing is providing opportunity for the people up there that they have never had before, to see and do the kinds of things that they always dreamed about doing. When Phase III is finished, we will see a greater opportunity for the people up there because we will have a full link through all of Labrador.

I just want to say that all of this was done because we had to put those plans in place to do that. I have not heard a whole lot about what the Opposition would do if they were there. I still have not heard a lot and I have been here since 1996. I have heard a lot about: We stole $97 million. They are always arguing about the Apollo contract that is not right. You know, we have all those kind of things we keep hearing, but we do not hear any plans as to what they would do with Phase III.

There is one big item that I keep hearing about and that is the tunnel. It is all well and good to have a tunnel, but you have to have something to connect to it. That is why we have taken the initiative to build the highways first. Along with the construction of the highways, we are also taking the huge initiative in changing the air services that are offered to the people in Labrador. In another couple of years, we are going to have air services on the Coast of Labrador that are similar to the air services out of Goose Bay, and that is going to be a big advantage for the people on the coast. Mr. Speaker, if we think that does not make very much difference, you just go up there and talk to the people about all the kinds of things they have an opportunity to do now.

Mr. Speaker, as we move through the whole plan and the work that we have been doing and the budgets that we have been putting through, you will see a better ferry service as well. As we reduce the need for ferry service and we connect in more communities by road, we will see a better service because it will be a faster service; people will not have to wait for a month to get equipment and those kinds of things.

Mr. Speaker, what we have been doing with budgeting over the last number of years, one thing for sure is that this government has put Labrador in a very important role, both economically and socially, and we have put the money in to ensure that all of the infrastructure, that we can assist and manage and do, is in place. We have had to do a lot of this without the federal government, because what the federal government has done, in recent times, is to clue up all their agreements that they have so we have to do this with provincial money.

I say to the Member for Waterford Valley, if he likes reading press releases from our MP, he should go and ask the MP to start looking at some of his own issues, like Goose Bay, what is happening in Goose Bay, what is happening with the fishery. There is a whole host of things that is not working with the federal government. The federal-provincial agreements, he should be working on those. He does not have to tell me what I need to do, or what I have to do, in Labrador, I know quite well what I need to do.

Mr. Speaker, the whole point of planning what you are going to do with transportation money makes a difference to everybody who is impacted in those areas. There are many, many issues that I could talk about, Mr. Speaker, but I will stick to the ones that we have at hand. Take the initiatives that we have already done on the Trans-Labrador highway. We have done a lot of work, Mr. Speaker, on the environmental process for Phase III. I do not know what the other side has planned. Maybe they will shut it all down. Maybe they think we do not need a road. I have not heard what they plan to do. I have been here since 1996 and I will soon be leaving and I still have not heard anything as to what they plan for the transportation networks in Labrador, because if you are going to do one you have to look at the other two methods of transportation.

We have improved the snowmobiling in Labrador for the North Coast. They do not have roads but we have groomed trails up to the North Coast. From Postville or Makkovik to Goose Bay now, those people are coming into those areas for the weekend, coming in shopping one day and going home the next because it is not tearing the hell out of their machines. They can travel in a quarter of the time they did prior to us being able to groom the trails. All of those are improvements.

We knew it was a lot of work to do, there is always a lot of work to do and there is still a lot to be done, but, Mr. Speaker, what we have done - and I will take a backseat to nobody in assessing what we have done - is an improvement to what we had prior to that. One has to remember that prior to 1996, there were governments for thirty years or forty years before that, that did not pay an awful lot of attention to the needs that we had. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that after 1996 we have done an awful lot to ensure that the people in Labrador are starting to see some of the services that they certainly should have had long, long prior to that.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, in case I do not get another opportunity because this is my last session, I want to thank all members of this House for the cooperation that I have had in the years that I have been here.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words on the Concurrence debate with respect to various government departments. The Government Services Committee had five hearings in this House of Assembly in the past few weeks in the evenings, to question the various ministers of the departments and their staff on the Budget this year and the Budget Estimates. We have had some very interesting conversations here those evenings. Some of the meetings went for an hour and a half and other meetings went for as much as three hours.

Of course, in the Estimates, as part of the Budget, we have what was budgeted to be spent last year, what was actually spent, Mr. Speaker, and what is budgeted for the upcoming year. We make the comparisons and, more times than not, we find that the government has spent more money than was actually budgeted for. We get into the details of that, Mr. Speaker.

Just for the information of the people, I was Vice-Chair and the Member for St. John's North was the Chair. The departments we covered were Municipal and Provincial Affairs and with Municipal and Provincial Affairs, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, Environment, Works, Services and Transportation, Finance, the Public Service Commission and Government Services and Lands. We had some detailed questioning in this House of Assembly to the ministers and to their staff.

Mr. Speaker, I will say that some of the ministers, a couple, seem to know their departments very well. Other ministers, of course, Mr. Speaker, had an onslaught of civil servants and their staff, Deputy Ministers, ADMs and financial people, to answer questions. So be it! That is the system.

MR. REID: Never be afraid to admit that you do not know something.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education said you should never be afraid to admit that you do not know something. Mr. Speaker, that applied on very many occasions when we were asking questions in the House of Assembly to the various ministers, that they admitted they knew nothing, so they went to their staff. Just for the Minister of Education's purposes, I want to thank him for reminding me of that.

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the points that we want to make with respect to - and the Government House Leader asked the other day why should the people decide out there to make a switch. Well, that is one of the answers there, Mr. Speaker. That is one of the answers why people in the Province would decide or should decide to change the government in this Province, that we, on this side of the House, will try to put forward a plan which they do not have, and the ministers who will ultimately end up in the positions will, I am sure, know their departments. There are ministers over there who do know their departments and know them very well. I do not usually give out too many compliments here so I will just name one now on that side of the House. I have to say the Minister of Municipal Affairs did a good job up until now, and, hopefully, he will continue for another few weeks, and then we may see a change.

Mr. Speaker, why don't we, on this side of the House - I will speak for myself. Why do I not support this Budget? Well, there are many reasons. One of the main reasons, of course, in my mind, is the mismanagement of the funds of this Province for the past fourteen to fifteen years. Of course, members on that side of the House will shake their heads no, it is not the case, but we saw it year after year after year in the Auditor General's reports when she at that point in time - we have a new Auditor General now and he did it this year in his most recent report - pointed out the mismanagement and the circumventing of the Public Tender Act, and the circumventing of the Financial Administration Act, and it went on and on and on in every department.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The new Minister of Labour over there is asking us to talk about some act that he seems to have a problem with. I would encourage the Minister of Labour to get on his feet, if he has a problem with one of the acts, get up and talk about it and correct the act, the legislation.

Why am I opposed to the Budget this year, the Budget that has been put forward by this Administration? Well, Mr. Speaker, last year, the year before last and the year before that, as far back as I can remember - and I have been here for ten years, by the way. The most recent Minister of Finance, in particular, her biggest problem was the deficit. We should not have a deficit. It started with Clyde Wells, actually. It started with Clyde Wells, Mr. Speaker. He came in here and he cut 2,000 jobs out of the civil service. He did not like deficits or anything like that, and we saw it cut, slashed, burned for fourteen years of this Administration, and all of a sudden, the cash deficit this year is okay to go up to $286 million. Now, if it was bad last year and the year before, why, all of a sudden, is it a good thing this year? I will give you the answer why, from their perspective. It is because, of course, it is an election year and they are going to try and buy the election. That is what is going on this year.

The Government House Leader yesterday, Mr. Speaker, talked about a plan. The Opposition House Leader stood in his place and certainly pointed out to the minister that it was only last week he was talking about not having a plan. Is that correct?

Mr. Speaker, why else do I not support this budget? Because, they are contradicting themselves. In the Throne Speech they talked about having a plan. It says right here, quite clearly, "Our plan is compelling and focused. It is not grandiose and unrealistic. My Government strives for..." and it goes on. Motherhood issues, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Big words, aren't they, Jack?.

MR. J. BYRNE: They might be big words, I say to the hon. Minister of Labour, for him. They may be big words for him, but certainly not for me.

Then when we come to the Budget it says, "We believe revenue growth could account for all of the fiscal improvements needed to eliminate the deficit, and more." It goes on to say, "Mr. Speaker, if the consolidated deficit were substantially higher and our outlook not as favourable, a much more detailed plan for deficit reduction could be needed."

They are saying they have a plan here in the Throne Speech and then in the Budget it says: Well, we could have a more detailed plan. Which is it, Mr. Speaker? Do they have a plan or do they not have a plan? I think they do not have a plan and it is obvious when you look at the ballooning deficit.

We saw the finance critic point out, of course, Mr. Speaker, that the deficit, the total amount of money owed by the Province, was $7.8 billion from 1949 to up to three years ago. Within three years this administration has increased that by $1 billion; in three years. Now, all of a sudden, it is okay to have a major, major deficit this year again of $286 million.

Why am I opposed and will not vote for this budget? Let's look at wastage, Mr. Speaker. The Hull 100 - let's look at the Ahelaid. Let's look at the schemozzle - is the right word for that -the Hull 100 they refer to it now. From the Ahelaid to the Hull 100. Why did they change the name on it, I wonder? Is it to try and hide the amount of money that is being spent on it, to try and hoodwink the people of the Province into thinking it is two different vessels we are talking about? It started with a couple of million of dollars. That is what it was going to cost us.

This Administration went over to Estonia and bought a rustbucket. It has been confirmed by Transport Canada that we have a rustbucket in the system now. It was only recently in questioning at the Estimates Committee meetings, questioning to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, that they are admitting now it is up to $8 million. This is a vessel that was supposed to be in the system two years ago. It is still out in Clarenville now, at the docks out there, having metal put in the side of it; all kinds of work being done to bring it up to the Canadian standards. It is still not done, we are told.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation said to me in the Estimates meetings: Jack, you will be the first one to have a ride on that vessel. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to it. Hopefully it will happen, or hopefully it is put in the system and we don't see $8 million down the drain. We could have built one for a few more million.

MR. LANGDON: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs - I think I am going to say it - I am going to have to lose a lot of weight to get a ride in a bucket. Well, I am going to say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I am talking about a huge, huge rustbucket, not a regular pail for carrying water in, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, members on the other side of the House, for some reason or other, find this to be very amusing. When I get up and start to point out the reality of the financial situation of this Province, try to point out the serious situation that this Administration is in, they find it funny. Yesterday the Minister of Education found something awfully funny. Again, I had to point out to him the correct situation here.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, and this is something that is really disturbing me, that I have to address right now. That is this: On May 3, which was Saturday gone, I was in this House of Assembly, and some colleagues in this House, came in ten years ago in 1993; ten year anniversary in the House of Assembly. There are some on that side who came in at the same time. Mr. Speaker -

MR. REID: You've been here that long. It is time for you to leave, boy.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education says it is time for me to leave. Well, that is a decision for the constituents in my district, and God knows, Mr. Speaker, they tried hard enough in the last three elections to get rid of me but it did not happen. So bring it on, I say to the Minister of Education.

On May 3, ten years in this House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, and I have to say this: I have never, ever in those past ten years with the previous Premier Clyde Wells, Premier Brian Tobin, Beaton Tulk - I almost forgot Beaton Tulk, but that issue has been dealt with - the present Premier Grimes - in ten years I have never seen the like of what is happening in this House of Assembly, this sitting of the House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous. It is disgraceful. It is shameful what those members on that side of the House are up to. It is an orchestrated plan and you can see it every time - a desperate plan - every time they are on their feet to do anything to discredit the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, it is shameful. We saw yesterday -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) following orders.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, obviously they must be following orders because I can tell you, I know some of those individuals on that side of the House of Assembly and I am shocked to hear what some of them are saying. I am totally disgusted with it. As I said, I know some of them and they are decent people but they seem to be following instructions or orders or something from somebody, Mr. Speaker. To me, it is like you see the lemmings - the Discovery Channel (inaudible) the shows and you see the lemmings falling over the cliffs following their leader. It is what is happening here, and it is shameful.

They will get up - the Member for Gander was on her feet yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and she was criticizing the Leader of the Opposition for publicly supporting women to get involved in politics, saying: I prefer this candidate as my choice to represent the party in the upcoming election. Criticized for that -

AN HON. MEMBER: And they criticized for saying (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am getting to that. Then, Mr. Speaker, we have the Leader of the Opposition, who is a businessman in this Province for some time now, who has created hundreds of jobs, paid all kind of taxes. He decided, Mr. Speaker, to put himself forward to represent this Province across this country, if he is elected Premier of this Province, and, Mr. Speaker -

MR. WALSH: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Now, here we go again. I will not even repeat what was just said on that side of the House of Assembly by the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. He should be ashamed of himself for getting on with the low gutter politics that he is talking about.

But, back to the point, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition put himself forward - do not have to, do not need to, but he wants to put something back into the Province. Mr. Speaker, do you know what he did? He has been going around this Province for the past two years, every nook and cranny pretty well, all over the Island - north, south, east and west - in Labrador, and do you know what the Member for Gander had to get up and say? She criticized him for getting around to know the Province. Now, to put himself forward, to take the time to do this so he will know the Province in detail, and being criticized for it. That is the kind of stuff.

Mr. Speaker, today in this House of Assembly we had the Member for Port de Grave on his feet criticizing and impugning motives on the Leader of the Opposition. You can see a concentrated effort - when everyone of them gets up they have something different to attack the Leader of the Opposition on. It is shameful. Personal attacks! They feel, I suppose, that if they can do the job on him, they will do the job on all of us. There are people on that side of the House, I thought, had more principles than that, Mr. Speaker. I thought they were more principled. I did not think they would go to the gutter of that. If this continues, Mr. Speaker, God help us when an election is called. What are they going to say? What are they going to do to members on this side of the House to win an election?

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I made the point and spoke about the situation in this Province today and why we are in this situation in the Province today. Why we owe $8 billion today in this Province, Mr. Speaker, and I went back as far as the 1400s, talking about the -

MR. WALSH: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is trying to throw me off and getting on talking about certain individuals. It is shameful.

MR. WALSH: (Inaudible) on stress leave while seeking the nomination for his party.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is pathetic. I cannot even repeat what that man is getting on with. Here is another one that I thought - I gave him some credit but obviously he is toeing the line also. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island obviously is toeing the gutter line and put into the gutter. It is shameful, Mr. Speaker.

I was making the point yesterday on the reason why this Province is in the situation it is in, and the country before it became a Province. It is because - it goes back to politicians. A lot of politicians. We have good and bad in every profession, Mr. Speaker. We have good and bad doctors. We have good and bad lawyers. We have good and bad engineers. You know, we all have certain -

AN HON. MEMBER: Even bad ministers.

MR. J. BYRNE: - and government. We have good and bad politicians. Over the years we have seen what is going on, Mr. Speaker, is that politicians will say, will do anything when they are in power to stay in power. They will sell their souls. We have seen it happen before. We saw it with the Lower Churchill. We saw it with the iron ore. We saw it with forestry. We saw it with the railway. We see it now with the offshore. All these things, Mr. Speaker, it goes on.

We have the present Premier - Voisey's Bay, the result of that is yet to be seen. Also, we had the Lower Churchill. The present Premier was this far away from signing a deal on the Lower Churchill that was worse than the Upper Churchill. Now we see this concentrated effort by members on the other side of the House of Assembly, the government members, to discredit an individual who is putting himself forward in this Province at any cost, and we will continue to see it. The sad part is that it will continue. It is too bad!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education is making comments over there now, and, again, he is at it all the time. It seems for some reason or other he is a very sour person in this House of Assembly. When you talk to him outside the House of Assembly he seems like a half-decent guy but in here, he has to get this streak out of him. He is toeing the line again. The gutter line put forward. There are members on that side of the House, I have heard one or two up who did not go that route. Thank God for that, Mr. Speaker. There is some decency there.

I will tell you now, when the election is called, I am just forewarning the people of the Province here tonight, to be ready for anything, any comments, anything at all about this side of the House and, in particular, certain individuals on this side of House because, of course, they feel that if they can do the job on one individual, they are going to do the job on everybody. I am sure they are not going to do the job on anyone on this side of the House because there is nothing there to do other than fabrication. If there is anything to be it will be fabrication, and you can see it now. Again, I would encourage members on this side of the House to stick to the issues.

The Budget, I want so much to talk about, Mr. Speaker. I want to talk about Works, Services and Transportation and the limited funding that we have for roads in this Province. In my district, we have been trying for years now to get the Torbay bypass. Torbay Road down there has some 12,000 to 15,000 cars travel over that road per day. It is getting to be a safety issue and we do not have a roads agreement yet. The Roads for Rail Agreement is gone at the end of this year. The money is spent. The money that we got from John Crosbie when he was minister in the federal government up there -

AN HON. MEMBER: For what?

MR. J. BYRNE: Roads for Rail, Mr. Speaker. Roads, we haven't got -

MR. SPEAKER (Butler): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: I shall continue when I get a chance, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Good evening, Mr. Speaker.

I rise here today to - I was listening all day very attentively, Mr. Speaker, and the Member for Cape St. Francis said: Stick to the issues. I will. I will stick to the issues the best that I know and the facts that I know.

I watched the PC speech by the leader this weekend in Corner Brook and he used the words: desperate politics, about ten times. I will tell you what was desperate in Corner Brook this weekend - and Corner Brook is a small place. Do you know what was desperate? When the organization for the PC Party on the west coast on Saturday were phoning around trying to give away tickets to go out to the dinner Saturday night. That is what I call desperation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I can name four people who got the call, who said: come up, we have free tickets for you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. JOYCE: And I know the Member for Humber East could name some people too. I talk about desperate politics, Mr. Speaker, and the members opposite were talking about it. I look at the flooding in Cox's Cove. I told the people in Cox's Cove, I told the council, I told the residents, I told the fire department that I would not speak about it until after most of the things were back to normal and people were back in their own homes, or to the best of our ability trying to get them back to their own homes. Now is the time, Mr. Speaker. I know the Leader of the Opposition jumped in his car, flew to the airport and said: I had to take Mike Monaghan down to Cox's Cove, I have to go down here, I have to get to the west coast. I say that was a great, admirable thing for him to do, but he did one thing wrong. When he got to Cox's Cove he had to bring Mike Monaghan with him as if Mike Monaghan, who is the candidate running in the Bay of Islands, does not even know where Cox's Cove is at and had to wait for Danny Williams to bring him down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: The second thing he did, Mr. Speaker, and I attended the fireman's ball last Saturday night and the Member for Baie Verte - I was playing basketball in Baie Verte but I had to go back to Cox's Cove to the fire department. When the cameras were rolling down in Cox's Cove, all the media were watching Cox's Cove, and the poor people in Cox's Cove were going through a desperate need, the Leader of the Opposition goes into the fire department and says: What do you need? Well, he said, Mr. Williams we would like to have two submersible pumps because of the water that we could not get out of the basement. He said: I have $1,000 come April, you will have it. Mr. Speaker, they are still waiting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: They are still waiting for the commitment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, to get onto more about Cox's Cove. We were there on the night that it happened. I was speaking to the mayor, I was speaking to the fire department, I was speaking to the residents in Cox's Cove. The next night the Leader of the Opposition was in Cox's Cove. That night there was a person named Leonard - and everybody knows who he is in the Bay of Islands - who got on the radio and said: there was a minister out from the government. He got in the helicopter, he landed, he left again. Bas Jamieson said to him: Who was it? He said: I don't know. Well, where did he come from? We don't know. He came in a helicopter. He would not talk to anybody. He did not want to talk to anybody.

Mr. Speaker, that person who got on the Open Line and made false statements when the people in Cox's Cove and the people in Bay of Islands were at their utmost need, in need of someone to come through, was the same person who was bringing the Leader of the Opposition around house to house an hour before. That Thursday when the Leader of the Opposition took on the south shore of the Bay of Islands, drove down the south shore of the Bay of Islands - take a guess who drove him on the south shore of the Bay of Islands? The same Leonard who called in and made these false statements about a minister of this government in Cox's Cove, who aroused the people in Cox's Cove, who were at their lowest point in a long while, Mr. Speaker. So if you want to talk about dirty politics, or if you want to talk about desperate politics, I know firsthand all about it.

I listened today to the Member for Windsor-Springdale and I listened to the Opposition House Leader who were talking about: the Member for Port de Grave should not be making scurrilous statements about people, should not be making accusations, should not be standing up here making any type of accusations about any member in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I remember the wharf in Benoit's Cove in the Town of Humber Arm South, when I had to go to the commissioner to ensure that I was not in conflict of interest. Mr. Speaker, I released that letter from the commissioner to the media when all this broke. And who broke it? It was the President of the PC Party in the Bay of Islands. The candidate who ran against me the last time, who gave it to members in St. John's. Who? I do not know, but it is released by St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, when it hit the media, do you know whose name they gave to call to see if they were in a conflict of interest? My spouse. That is who was called. The Leader of the Opposition - and Hansard will show - after all of this went through, got up and said: It is nothing but a family wharf. It should have never been built. It was only built for his family. If you want to talk about imputing motives on individuals, I know firsthand.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: If you are going to criticize anybody here, start on your own.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you all about desperate politics. I can talk about it a lot because I have firsthand experience from the Bay of Islands, and myself personally.

You hear the Leader of the Opposition: I am going to run the government like a business. I am a businessman. I am a great businessman.

I remember a statement that was made back in 1990. It was by Clyde Wells. In 1990 Clyde Wells met with three businesspeople. I was at the meeting. The businesspeople said to Clyde Wells: Run it like a business. Why don't you run it like a business? You have to run it like a business. You can run it. The words that stuck with me, Mr. Speaker, Clyde Wells said: How many people do you have to educate this week? How many people in your business do you have to pay health care for? How many streets are you paving? So, he said: Don't ask me to run it like a business. I have a social conscience. That is what Clyde Wells said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of being in Corner Brook and I see a lot of flip-flops in St. John's, with the policy from the PCs in St. John's and the ones in Corner Brook.

I just want to go through a few of them, Mr. Speaker. One of them was Main River. I remember the Member for St. John's South standing up: We cannot have any cutting in Main River, we cannot have it. The whole environment, we cannot have it. All of a sudden the Leader of the Opposition is going to run out in Humber West: Oh, we can have cutting now. We should allow cutting now, because there are jobs in Corner Brook effected. We should have cutting now. Make no wonder, I say to the Member for St. John's South, they will not let you speak unless you are okayed by the PR person.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, we turn around and talk about the biodiversity centre that I give the Member for Humber East credit for the lead role on. Now, all of a sudden, Mr. Speaker, the big biodiversity centre - I saw the Leader of the Opposition stand up and say: We are glad that we got that out in Corner Brook, we are glad we pushed for it.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to read you a little quote from the Member for Cape St. Francis, that was in The Telegram, in St. John's. This was the big fighter of the Leader of the Opposition: Glad we got that out there and the Member for Humber East stuck with it. It is only because of him that it got there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Here is what the Member for Cape St. Francis said, Mr. Speaker, and I will read the quote from it. "Tory MHA Jack Byrne said it is time the Liberal Administration took a second look at the entire relocation scheme, under which the Tourism Department's wildlife division is being uprooted. It is not time to do things that do not need to be done. Byrne says the final bill may reach even higher, definitely...." He added it is time to reconsider not sending it to Corner Brook.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, that is what Jack Byrne said.

I look at the long term care facility and I want the people of Corner Brook-Bay of Islands to know it because who has the most to lose with the long term care facility, Mr. Speaker? Me. I will tell you why. I have seven family members from Corner Brook-Bay of Islands. Who is going to be using it? Me.

I say if we win the next election, the next time the people of Corner Brook are going to see the Leader of the Opposition is on one of his ski trips home for the weekend, Mr. Speaker, when he comes to Corner Brook for a ski trip because he has no roots in the District of Humber West or Corner Brook, only for political reasons right now, Mr. Speaker. I am the one-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: The Member for Humber East - we have pushed this long term care facility, Mr. Speaker.

I just go back to a quote and we are talking about the P3s, Mr. Speaker, how now all of a sudden CUPE is against it. Fundamentally, they are against it, that is fine. The Leader of the Opposition now is, we should not have the P3s, we should not do it. That is not what he said on Bill Rowe, Mr. Speaker, that is not what he said on Bill Rowe. So, she is definitely in a dilemma.

Now, an announcement comes on a long term care facility in Corner Brook. Now the solution is a public, private, partnership but, you know, Wayne Lucas is against it. That is what the Leader of the Opposition said is the answer to the long term care facility in Corner Brook with the P3s, Mr. Speaker. He also goes on to say -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. JOYCE: Exactly.

That is where the abuse has been in the system and that is why you would know that you have to look at public, private, partnership work with the long term costs before you make any decision. Before he even sees anything on paper he is coming out against it because CUPE is against it, Mr. Speaker. That is not what he said, Mr. Speaker, before CUPE came out and said they were against it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Here is another thing that he said, Mr. Speaker, that he has no money. He cannot approve a long-term care facility in Corner Brook, he has to be responsible, the Leader of the Opposition. The Tories have also decided to support the construction of a long-term care facility in Clarenville this past weekend; in Clarenville. Yet, when it came to the one in Corner Brook, he said: Oh, no, we cannot do it, we have no money. Because of the public pressure, the Member for Humber East, myself and the long-term care committee in Corner Brook, now all of a sudden there is money to put one in Clarenville also, Mr. Speaker. That is awfully nice to know.

I think the MRI issue, Mr. Speaker, in Corner Brook is another big issue. I know the Member for Humber East and myself made a commitment that we would not say a word about it until after the professionals met here in St. John's last Wednesday, I think it was. We made that commitment.

You hear Tom Marshall coming out and saying: Oh, it should be in Corner Brook.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Monaghan? What did he say?

MR. JOYCE: Mike Monaghan? Should be in Corner Brook. Mike Monaghan says it should be in Corner Brook.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell the people from Bay of Islands and the people from Corner Brook and the surrounding region, on May 15 last year, and it was the Member for Trinity North who said it, "...we acknowledge and recognize that this resolution that we are bringing forward today is a resolution that had the unanimous support of our party at our recent annual general meeting in Gander. I am extremely pleased today to be able to acknowledge Mr. Lorne Woolridge..."

Mr. Speaker, it was approved at the PC annual convention in Gander last May and it was also brought forth by the Opposition health care critic here in this House for a mobile MRI.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: The funny thing about it, Mr. Speaker, this past weekend when they were in Corner Brook, when the Leader of the Opposition was asked by the same Mr. Woolridge: Well, mobile would help solve our problem. I would like to see it in Corner Brook, but if it is mobile, we will recommend it, we will do all right with it. Mr. Speaker, I tell the people of Corner Brook, the Bay of Islands and the surrounding area, you did not see any resolution passed to make sure that there is going to be a mobile in Corner Brook, I can tell you that. Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? Because I had the luxury of being in St. John's, of hearing one thing and being in Corner Brook and hearing another thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: If you want to know the flip-flop - Mr. Speaker, if there is anybody out in Corner Brook or in the Bay of Islands who thinks that this here is anything but political propaganda, I say go to Hansard or call Mr. William's office personally, ask for Hansard on May 15, 2002 and see with your own two eyes the flip-flop attitude that myself and the Member for Humber East have to put up with on a regular basis out in Corner Brook. This is a prime example when you say: Don't play politics with such an important issue. I say, read May 15, 2002, and ask the Leader of the Opposition's own office to supply the Hansard to him, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: You will see how much politics is being played here.

Mr. Speaker, I just like to say, on the Budget itself, the MRI is a big issue for Corner Brook and I fully support it being in Corner Brook, as does the Member for Humber East. If it goes mobile, if the professionals find - myself and the Member for Humber East have supported it, we have worked with the professionals there, we have worked with everybody to ensure that it is a fixed for Corner Brook - if it goes mobile, that is all we can do, but we ensured that the best case possible was put forth.

The Member for Cape St. Francis was saying: What about the wharf? I can tell you, that is the third wharf done in the District of Bay of Islands this year. I can guarantee you it is because of the Liberal Government and the Budget, that they do not forget rural Newfoundland. If you do not believe me -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: I thought that was going to come up about the Member for the Bay of Islands, how the Budget is affecting the Bay of Islands. I know I only have twenty minutes, Mr. Speaker, so I only wrote down three or four pages of notes to help out.

A million dollars for a wharf facility in Newport, a federal wharf; $500,000 for a wharf in Frenchman's Cove, a federal wharf; $1 million for the wharf in the town of Humber Arm South, a provincial-federal wharf, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: One point three million dollars for marina in Curling, federal-provincial, Mr. Speaker, if you want to know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, if you want to talk about commitment from the Minister of Education and the former Minister of Education for rural Newfoundland, $2.46 million for the expansion of the rural school in Lark Harbour for Lark Harbour and York Harbour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Still going with education, the commitment to rural Newfoundland, in the District of Bay of Islands, pretty soon they are getting design work for a project for the replacement, a new school, on the north shore of the Bay of Islands for over $4 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, if you want talk about rural Newfoundland and the commitment this government has made, ask the town of Humber Arm South. I will only go back two years. I do not want to bore anybody by going back four or five years.

Look at the $2 million they received for water and sewer in the town of Humber Arm South to supply a (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: The town of Irishtown-Summerside on the north shore of the Bay of Islands, last year and this year almost $1 million for water and sewer, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: This government is committed. Oh, Mr. Speaker, I can keep going. A new fire hall for Meadows in rural Newfoundland -.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: - to help protect the schools. The town of Cox's Cove received funding for water and sewer for the last three or four years to help improve water and sewer in the District of the Bay of Islands and help improve the fish plants, so when the fish come in, they do not have to shut down because of the lack of water. Who did that? This government did that, Mr. Speaker, this government here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: The City of Corner Brook, the most money they ever got over the last three or four years for capital works. Who did that? This government, Mr. Speaker, myself and the Member for Humber East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: The Biodiversity Centre in Corner Brook, the Member for Cape St. Francis was against it. The Member for Humber East, and I have to give him credit for it, took the lead (inaudible) on this. I supported him as much as I could. Take a guess, Mr. Speaker, where the Biodiversity centre is right now, Mr. Speaker? Corner Brook.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, you are talking about school and you are talking about education. Look at the expansion of Grenfell College in the last four or five years. What is it, $7 million spent on Grenfell College in the last two or three years? Seven million dollars, Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I say to the people opposite: I do not complain very much, I am usually an easy going guy, but when you want to push, you want to see what this government does for rural Newfoundland and what it does for people who are in need, who are willing to move ahead, I say look at the examples in the District of Bay of Islands and you will see a government committed to rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, and I can say that with all honesty.

I say to the members opposite and to the Leader of the Opposition, that when he stands up and criticizes me about putting a wharf in the Town of -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. JOYCE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great honour to stand here today and comment on the government Concurrence debate, but before I get into it, Mr. Speaker, I have to speak on a couple of issues that the easy going member for the Bay of Islands got into.

I heard all members opposite clap, clap, clap, going crazy for the member opposite when he talked about the decentralization of government offices in St. John's. I was personally affected by that, I remind the member. Before I came to this House, long before I came to this House, my wife, actually, was part of that reclassification and had to move to Corner Brook. Mr. Speaker, I was employed outside of this House at time. She was employed with the provincial government. We had a little girl who was three years old at the time. Mr. Speaker, we did not know what to do. We had no idea what we were going to do. We had a mortgage, a car payment, like everybody else in this Province or a good many of them. We did not know what we were going to do. We could not afford, certainly, for her to quit her job. She had to stay to work. Mr. Speaker, we went on months discussing, discussing what were we going to do. Members opposite, and the Member for the Bay of Islands, think that is a wonderful thing. We spent months and months, every evening at supper hour, going through the same stress level: What are we going to do?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I say to the former Minister of Fisheries, the Minister of Education, he should be listening. That is fine. If he had to put his family through the stress that my family went through, Mr. Speaker, he would know the difference. He would know the difference.

This was a plan that was concocted - it was not a plan, it was something that was concocted and the former Premier of this Province, and the former Member for Bonavista North, the fellow who they were just looking for his office furniture, why isn't he here today? Everybody thought that was a great plan he came up with. The Member for Bonavista is here today and I congratulate him because the other guy did not have sense enough to bring in the plan properly. Fellows like me and my family had to go through the stress that was not called for, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, the other thing I would like to get onto is the way this crowd opposite has gone on with our Leader. It is unbelievable. Character assassination after character assassination.

I would like to read them something here something today, Mr. Speaker. I would like to quote a little press release I happened to get yesterday: Three outstanding business leaders will join the ranks of the Newfoundland and Labrador Business Hall of Fame. These three deserving individuals will join the thirty-nine current laureate inductees who have been honoured for their outstanding and enduring contribution to business development in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, that is from the Newfoundland and Labrador Business Hall of Fame. I have been involved with the Hall of Fame and I do not know anybody in a Hall of Fame who does not get their without their due course.

I am going to mention some of these laureates, if I could have a minute, Mr. Speaker, just to bring up a couple of names: Mel Woodward - does anybody know him over there? - a member of the Business Hall of Fame; Harry Steele, a member of the Business Hall of Fame; Chesley Pippy, a member of the Business Hall of Fame; Ches Penney - I say to the Member for Grand Falls, I salute her brother on being inducted into the Business Hall of Fame; Albert E. Hickman, a member of the Business Hall of Fame; Chester Dawe, a member of the Business Hall of Fame; and Robert C. Anthony, a member of the Business Hall of Fame.

One interesting point, Mr. Speaker, there is not one name from that bench over there in the Business Hall of Fame, not one, not even nominated for the Business Hall of Fame. Yet, they stand here, Mr. Speaker, day after day making personal slants on our Leader, a man who has contributed tens of thousands of man hours to this Province; tens of thousands of hours. It is absolutely ridiculous, Mr. Speaker, and it is time for this crowd to smarten up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, now to get into some of the issues that we talked about in our debates and in our questions during Estimates. There was one I had with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and we discussed it quite openly and quite easily, I might add. It was concerning the Citizens' Representative. I received the annual report from the Citizens' Representative and he talked about the issue that we talked about in Estimates.

Mr. Speaker, before January 21, 2003, the Citizens' Representative, our Ombudsman, could investigate municipal issues. He had no problem with going into municipal governments, going in, opening up. It was on three, four or five separate occasions, I spoke with him personally, that he had no issue at all. After January 21, 2003, he received a letter from the Department of Municipal Affairs and that letter stated, basically, that he could no longer do that kind of thing. He should stay away from municipal affairs issues, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are two issues here, as far as I am concerned; one political, certainly, and one legal. I believe, the political question, it should allow the Citizens' Representative to go in when they have a problem, and I am not suggesting that the Citizens' Representative be able to go in and complain to him because their road is not paved or that sort of thing. Even though there are lots of them who, certainly, would have that complaint. In my case, in Conception Bay South, we had a number of people where the municipality went into their bank accounts - went into their bank accounts and took money out of their bank accounts without their permission. Now, to me, there is obviously something radical wrong there, and it is a shame when the Citizens' Representative cannot go and investigate that type of an issue. That is why he is there and that is why he certainly should be allowed to do that.

Mr. Speaker, if I might add, from the legal aspect of it, just recently the City of Winnipeg had its own Ombudsman and that was replaced. The City of Winnipeg got rid of their Ombudsman and now the Ombudsman from Manitoba can go into municipal issues throughout their province. The precedent has been set, I believe, and they should be allowed to have free rein when it comes to municipal issues and go in and speak to it.

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of issues with transportation as well. The first thing I would probably like to talk about is Route 60. I never had a chance to mention this to the Minister of Transportation in our Estimates meeting but it is a very serious issue in Conception Bay South now. I know in Holyrood, for example, right across from the traditional squid-jigging grounds - which Holyrood, as most people in this House know, won the Tidy Towns competition this year. They have promoted tourism. They have a beautiful viewing area of the squid-jigging grounds and they like to promote it, but right across from the squid-jigging grounds there are no sides on the road. They have had a problem there for a number of years with culverts and so on, but some investment is needed there to continue that area as a beautiful place for people to stop and visit.

As well, Mr. Speaker, as you come down the road there is a place in Upper Gullies, on Route 60, that I would like to refer to as the Upper Gullies rapids. They are paved but, unfortunately, it is like a fast-running river and you would need a Gander River boat really to get in and out over it. That road is travelled daily by tourists, by residents, by school buses, and these bumps have been there for years. I think the only thing that have been replaced are the signs. Every year a new bump sign goes up on a tripod next to the holes, and that is sad to say. It is amazing that there are not more accidents. I encourage the Minister of Transportation to allot more money for my District of Conception Bay South, Mr. Speaker.

I guess the next thing I should talk about - and I guess if it was not so serious it would be a Newfoundland joke. In 1988, under the Roads for Rail Agreement, the CBS bypass was committed to - along with a lot of other roads in this Province. It was a commitment that should have been kept. It was initially planned to be a four-lane highway. It was reduced to a two-lane highway. That road currently ends in Kelligrews. The land is bought up for it to go to Seal Cove.

As recently as two weeks ago I met with the council in Holyrood. I believe the Minister of Municipal Affairs met with them there last November, if I am not mistaken, met with twenty-three people for supper. Now, there are only nine on the council. I am not sure who the other thirteen or fourteen were that he met with. However, I am sure he was told at that time the importance of that road to the people of Holyrood, because as that road develops so does housing starts. For example, in Kelligrews where that road currently ends land is only for sale for a matter of weeks. Houses are going up. It is good for our municipal government and good for the residents in total, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that road was certainly a priority. The former minister said it was a priority during the by-election. Surely, anything committed to in 1988, fifteen years later, should certainly be a priority of this government. At the time we heard a lot of talk about commitments made, commitments kept and record of achievements. I say, Mr. Speaker, this is a commitment that was made and they should certainly keep it.

Another topic I would like to get on, if I could, is the Province's management of the ferry fleet. The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis referred to that earlier. We have a boat that we bought called the Ahelaid, later called the Hull 100. The Member for Cape St. Francis refers to it as the rustbucket. There is no doubt about that. The Auditor General had concerns about this boat right off the bat. All kinds of concerns. That is not the Auditor General who is currently a PC running for us in the Topsail district. This is the new Auditor General. No doubt, give him a look at another couple of Liberal budgets and he will be a candidate for us as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, the purchase and refit of that boat is estimated at $2.9 million. It arrived in St. John's in May of 1999. In July, 2001, they had spent $3.9 million on that vessel. Another $2.6 million would be needed, for a total of $6.5 million, and that boat would have been ready in 2002-2003. In the March 17 edition of The Telegram, however, they said it was purchased for $500,000. The refurbishing would now cost $7 million. Recently in Estimates we heard that it was going to cost a total of $8 million.

MR. SULLIVAN: Eight point eight.

MR. FRENCH: I am told $8.8 million, by the Member for Ferryland.

Mr. Speaker, a government official at the time - and I will quote the official: We are going to have to hope and pray and keep our fingers crossed that everything works out. Can you imagine? An $8.8 million investment, and we are going to have to hope and pray and keep our fingers crossed that this works out. Absolutely ridiculous, Mr. Speaker. What a way to run the expenditures of this Province. Absolutely ridiculous. On that alone, Mr. Speaker, for $7 million we could finish the CBS bypass and we could make the necessary repairs to Route 60.

Mr. Speaker, before I go any further -

MR. WALSH: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: The Minister of Transportation, I hear him and I want to salute him, by the way. I want to salute him and thank him for announcing to me that the lights at the end of the Foxtrap Access Road will be now done. I salute him for that, and I appreciate that. The former minister announced it - no, he refused it. The minister from Topsail announced it a year-and-a-half or two years ago when the other minister was on holidays. I am delighted that this year, at last, the new minister is coming through with those lights and the people of Conception Bay South are certainly grateful, I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the yacht club?

MR. FRENCH: I do not have to worry about the yacht club.

Mr. Speaker, the last thing I would like to talk about before I sit down for the afternoon, and that was our Estimates meetings with the Minister of Environment. At that time we talked again in great length about a road in Foxtrap, on the Foxtrap Access Road, called Incinerator Road. There is a decision currently that has been delayed since April 3 on a scrap metal yard by St. John's Salvage for that area. It was previously where a biomedical waste site was going to be held, but that was quashed. Now St. John's Salvage has an application in there as well.

Mr. Speaker, St. John's Salvage, where it currently sits, there is no doubt that it has to move. It is too close to a residential area. I have aerial photographs of that current site and if you could see the soil contamination you would certainly agree that it has to be cleaned up and moved, but we do not think that it should be on Incinerator Road in Foxtrap. It is as much about what currently exists on Incinerator Road as that application in itself, Mr. Speaker. Just to let you know what is there. There is currently a salt shed, a salt depot operated by Works, Services and Transportation with the salt runoff running through the ditches. There are several pits in the area that wash sand. Mr. Speaker, these are not overly serious, one would think. They do not add to a prestine environment but they are certainly environmentally unfriendly areas.

We have the former landfill site. Currently, Mr. Speaker, the teepee incinerator still stands there. There are piles of garbage by the gate of the former landfill site. It is absolutely ridiculous! We have Rothsay rendering plant. The aroma of which you can smell throughout Kelligrews. I can challenge anyone, when the wind is the right way on a dusky evening, Mr. Speaker, if you can sit on your patio and barbecue and enjoy your steak, mister man, I will pay for it. I can assure you of that. Recently they have put a water treatment facility behind Rothsay rendering plant in order to get rid of some of the contamination there.

As well, we have Pardy's Waste Management, which I believe, from viewing the area, to be one of the worst polluters in that whole area. It is absolutely ridiculous to see the raw sewage on top of the ground, Mr. Speaker. To get out of your car and smell it. There are pools of oil in the wetlands right next to it, and the minister opposite has seen the pictures. I have seen the pictures. We have both been e-mailed the pictures. We have both been sent the pictures. We have both been sent letters - letters from everybody of all different political stripes.

Mr. Speaker, that, in itself, is bad enough, but what does this affect? What do all those environmental hazards affect in the area? First of all, we have a large residential area, a large residential development of some 200 to 300 homes, Mr. Speaker, just on Foxtrap Access Road. We have farms within one kilometre. Within one kilometre of the Incinerator Road we currently have livestock farms and produce farms. These farms are overrun with rodents, they have acid rain, all due to what currently exists on the Incinerator Road.

As well, Mr. Speaker, there is a river. The wetlands I just referred to joins into a river system and that river system runs out through Kelligrews, along houses, along people's property and right in the middle of the main recreation area of the Town of Conception Bay South. We have a rugby field, a soccer field, a soccer pitch and a playground. It is not uncommon, not uncommon at all, to see little kids, two, three or four years old, out wading in the little brook that runs right through this recreation facility. Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that throughout the summer it is one of the busiest places in our town. People go there to take advantage of all the facilities that we have. I salute these people for going there and enjoying it, but it is unfortunate when this government, the Department of Environment, does not enforce the regulations and people have to put up with that sort of thing, Mr. Speaker.

As well, Mr. Speaker, we have approximately 1,400 students and, as the crow flies, I would suggest, somewhere between two and three kilometres from that area. The farms, one kilometre away, experience the acid rain and two and one-half to three kilometres away they have to be subjected to the current conditions that exist. They have to be.

Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest tragedies in this whole story is that on Incinerator Road there is a world-class facility operated by the Marine Institute. They train people from all over the world who come to this facility, to go to work at Hibernia, to go to work at Terra Nova. One of the greatest things that we have in this Province today. The instructors and the people who work there are certainly to be commended. They give the BST course and the safety courses that are needed, Mr. Speaker. There are large amounts of money that are funneled into this for people to do their training and do it appropriately. Certain times of the year, Mr. Speaker, the people in there have to turn off the air conditioning units because the people in the school cannot breath from the smell. The smell in that area is ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker, it reminds me of a story I heard just recently. A friend of mine had told me that he had been taking somebody into that school who had been here from Norway, somebody he knew through friends of friends. He was driving in Incinerator Road and the first thing he ran into was this wet spot running across the road, with sewer in it and with oil in it. The next thing he ran into was the smell. It was the smell. He could not stand the smell. Where are you taking me? A little further up the road, he runs by four or five big piles of garbage by this gate. Then he drops him off at this world-class facility where the air conditioning cannot be turned on because of the smell. Mr. Speaker, I say it is absolutely ridiculous. It is shameful! I say to the Minister of Environment, as I said to him in Estimates, and I will keep saying, he has the hundreds of names, he has the letters, he has the pictures, and I suggest to him to clean up that site. If there is nothing else he does while he is Minister of Environment but clean up that site, he has been a successful minister.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure if you are going to hear it now or not but I will make a few comments and we can decide at the end of twenty minutes if it was worth listening to or not.

First of all, I would like to make a couple of comments from my own department and talk about planning and so on. When my predecessor, Joan Marie Aylward, the Minister of Finance, the Member for St. John's Centre, was a minister and being a member of Cabinet at the time, the argument was put forth that we should do something for many of the smaller municipalities in the rural part of the Province. One of the things that we should do, which had been advocated and asked for by the Newfoundland Federation of Municipalities for a number of years, was to put in a multi-year program so that the communities across the Province, when they were to have work done, they would know that, not only for one year but for two or three, they could plan accordingly and to do some work. We were able to do that and that has worked out very, very well.

One of the programs that has been very successful, Mr. Speaker, is the program that we refer to as the Canada-Newfoundland Infrastructure Program. Now, I just want to make a few comments where I think, and I know, that could be improved. Under the program it is one-third, one-third, one-third, one-third federal, one-third provincial and one-third municipality. People on this side recognize - and a lot of us have small communities in the Province, in the Island part of the Province and in the Labrador - we realize that if you were to do a water and sewer project of $1 million, a small community like Burlington, a small community like the community in the district belonging to the Minister of Labour, Sunnyside, and in many of the other communities, they could not afford this money. What did we do as a government? We put in a variable formula whereby the provincial government would pick up close to 60, 70, 80 and even 90 per cent of the cost of the municipality. That is the only way they could afford that particular program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: That has worked very, very well and continues to work because sometimes, Mr. Speaker, we realize or we say things like, people in the rural parts of the Province do not pay their fair share. I am telling you that is not the case. You probably cannot count on your two hands and on your toes the number of communities that pay more than $400 a year for water and sewer. We have a municipality in the rural part of the Province that pays more than $500 a year for water and sewer. They do pay their fair share. The only way that they can manage that is if we, as a provincial government, decide to help them out and that is what we are doing.

Where can it be improved? Again, if the federal government would do what the provincial government is doing. They should take their cap off the one-third. They should, for small provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and the Territories, do what we are doing. We cannot afford to do all the things that are being done in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. These are large provinces that have large reserves and resources to be able to do these things. The smaller provinces like us do not.

When we consider, for example, that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and its geography, how it is spread out and the number of communities that we have, it is monumental to be able to put services into many of the smaller communities. I think all of us here recognize that.

Some of the other projects that we have, some of the other programs, I should say, that we have are water quality. We spent about $14 million in water quality, improving that, in the communities, primarily in rural parts of the Province. For the larger towns we put in a 50-50 share, $100 million over three years. That is planning, Mr. Speaker, that is what you call planning and that is being done in the capital City like St. John's and even some of the larger towns like Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Carbonear, and others.

One of the other programs that I feel quite good about is a program of Debt Relief. It is only within the last couple of days that I was able to sign off a couple of those particular communities in the member's District of Harbour Main-Whitbourne. I use that as a particular example. It is right over the Province. In fact, we have, over the last number of years, since 1996, written off restructured debt for 150 communities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: This year we are doing the same thing. We are not doing $150 million but it will probably be another $5 million or $6 million to be able to help some of the other communities out there that need their debt restructured.

Mr. Speaker, these are all primarily small municipalities in rural parts of the Province. If we did not do that some of these smaller communities, even though they have a minimum tax of a dollar a day for water and sewer and $300 minimum property tax, they could never survive unless we were able to help them; and this is what this government has done. This is what planning is about. This is what rural Newfoundland is about. We recognize that they do not have the industry or the economic wherewithal to be able to do that. If we, as a Province, did not do it then these communities would never be able to have the services. I am very, very pleased that I had an opportunity to be able to do that, and we will continue to work with the communities.

Waste management is another one. Waste management in the Province, by the time it is all finished, you are looking at more than a $200 million project. That is a lot of money when you consider that. Many of the communities are not on the mainstream. You have the north coast of Labrador. You have the southern coast of Labrador. You have communities, many of them that I represent, that are isolated communities. You cannot bring the waste to Central Newfoundland or to the West, or to St. John's. We have to find ways to be able to do that.

My department also has to do with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. It has been really frustrating, in a sense, for some of the things that we wanted to do there. I remember two years ago in Quebec City, in 2001, when all of the ministers of housing across the country and in the Territories gathered in Quebec City. Mr. Gagliano was a minister at the time. We said to him very distinctly and clearly that you cannot bring in one program that fits all jurisdictions across the country. You cannot do it. We are all different. We have all different needs.

I remember the last meeting we had with him before we did the final session. I remember the minister from Nova Scotia, the minister from Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick and so on, we were all working together with him. He said: Okay, I recognize that you do need a program to fit and tailor individual needs. Anyway, just after we arrived home there was a Cabinet change and Mr. Gagliano was no longer the minister. Subsequent to that, there were two other ministers. Lo and behold, the minister who came in afterwards said to all of us - and I remember Jeremy Blimey from Prince Edward Island, we worked together with the Atlantic provinces so far, and took it as far as we could. He said: You had a clandestine meeting where you beat up on the minister and changed his mind.

I am telling you, it has been a battle. It is only now that we have been able to sign off on it, this summer, to be able to carry through on some of the projects that we want to do. It has been absolutely difficult to do, not only for Newfoundland and Labrador, but also from New Brunswick. In fact, New Brunswick signed their agreement only recently and put it in an envelope and sent it to Ottawa. It has been really frustrating. Now the larger provinces do not have the difficulty that we do because they have a lot of dollars. Our municipalities cannot invest in it and be partners in it like many of the cities - like Toronto, London, Calgary and Edmonton can.

One of the other things that really frustrated me when I was at the ministers' meetings only recently - and I mentioned it some time ago, I think the other day when I spoke - was the RAP program. Every rural member - the Member for Bonavista North, the Member for St. Barbe, the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, the Member for Ferryland and probably the Member for Cape St. Francis, all of us availed of the program. I think it is the best program that has been in for thirty years, the RAP program. We would like to have more money, but it is good.

One of the things that has been so good about it for us is the fact that it is tailored to individual homes because in Newfoundland and Labrador we have more home ownership than anywhere across the country. It has nothing to do with Oliver Langdon, or the fact that I could not get along with the minister of housing who has just been appointed, Steve Mahoney from Ontario.

The federal government unilaterally informed us at the ministers' meetings they were going to change the program without any consultation with anybody from British Columbia to Newfoundland and the three Territories. One of the things they are going to change, for example, is the insurance program. If a person has a RAP program and they default on their payments, the defaulting amount, the principal, is divided between the feds and us. They have decided they are not going to be in that anymore, unilaterally. No conversation with us. They decided they are not going to do it. I think we will be able to manage the program and be able to do the same as we were doing before, but that is not the point. The point is unilaterally doing things without even letting us know anything was happening.

I could go on and talk about other things too, Mr. Speaker, and talk about the federal-provincial relationship, the Gander office and so on, and Stephenville and many of the other things, but I just want to take a moment or two to think about - and I know I am like other people in the House, I banter back and forth and I say things. Probably when it is all said and done you just walk out and there is nothing else to it. I remember, for example, the Opposition House Leader some years ago when he had to withdraw on a point of order. He knows the situation, I will not go into it anymore than that. All of us, we do that. But today I was somewhat taken back when I heard, for example, the Member for Windsor-Springdale say something which I know was not true, and it hurts because we have to be hon. members. You know, there is one thing I can say about the Opposition House Leader, I have never found him anything but straightforward, just like the radar beam.

The Member for Windsor-Springdale says the Premier interfered in doing the make-work projects this year. That is not true. I will never, in this House, say anything that is not true. I am too much of an honourable person like anybody else here. If I were to say something that is not true I would be reprimanded and probably asked to leave the House. I can say categorically, without any fear of contradiction anywhere: he never ever, under any condition, ever spoke to me about one project in any district. We should not say those things if we do not know it. It is not fair to say these things.

I heard another comment that was made today. I am not sure who made it. It might have been the Member for Waterford Valley or it might have been the Member for St. John's South. I am not sure, but he said this - I remember a few years ago when I was the Environment Minister, I remember sitting I think it was where the Member for Lake Melville is sitting now, and we were talking about the water quality report. The water quality report was not published. It was a draft form, it was not sent out and it was kept for a number of years.

I can tell you one thing, though, without a shadow of a doubt again - and I proved it when I was a minister because I had my officials go back and check every piece of correspondence, every letter that went out - every municipality had the information. I remember quite distinctly because I said every municipality had the information. The Government House Leader at the time was Beaton Tulk and he said to me: How do you know that? He said: You have gotten yourself in trouble if you cannot prove it. I said: Why do I say it? Because the people who work for me, the civil servants, I trust them. They told me and I take them at their word. Sure enough, there were three or four people who challenged us and said: I did not get the letter. When we provided the proof to them, they recognized that the information had not been passed on by the Town Clerk, whomever it was, if the Town Clerk was there or had changed or whatever, but it was sent out.

To stand in the House and say that it was not sent out and the municipalities did not know it, that is not right. I will not say that. I will never, on this side of the House, say anything that I know is not true. I will not do that. It is not worth it. We have all been elected to this House. Our people have sent us here and they wanted us to make sure that we do those things.

One of the other things that annoyed me last week in the House - and I have to say this very, very clearly. It is not to cast aspersions on any member because I do not think that is my purpose, that is not how I operate. When the comment was made sometime last week about the Deputy Minister of Tourism, when they talked about his severance pay and all of these things in the House, I recognized that that man had served the government for twenty-five years. He did not take anything that he did not deserve, did he? Did he? It was due to him. Somehow it seemed to me that there was something wrong with what he had done, but that is not true. He had been there for twenty-five years and he had given all of his service to the community. That is not right to say those things. I think it is very important for us to recognize those things when we get into the House.

MR. HUNTER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: The Member for Windsor- Springdale, when I get here I tell the truth. You said today that the Premier interfered. I did not say the Premier's office or anybody working with him, you said the Premier. I know that -

MR. HUNTER: (Inaudible) Premier's office.

MR. LANGDON: You said the Premier interfered and I can say to you that he did not say anything to me and I do not believe it for a moment. It is your word against mine and we can do that.

I can honestly say to you that there was not one member over there who wanted to see me who was not allowed to, or was told no. I am telling you that anybody over on the opposite side knows that this door is always open, from me. Whenever a person wants a meeting they can have a meeting. That is always true and always will be as long as I am there. To say other than that would not be correct. I will not stand here and say anything that I do not believe to be true because it is not worth that.

We talked about furniture. We talked about the furniture belonging to Beaton Tulk and we talked about government. We can go back if we want to. We talk about people that are here. We talk about the Leader of the Opposition. You guys will say to us sometimes: We can't help what happened when former Premier Peckford was here, or whoever else, and that is true, you cannot. The thing about it is, if something happened when Clyde Wells was here and I am not in the Cabinet, how can I help that? When you talk about government, you talk about leaders. This government is about two years old. Your leader has not been there for two years. So, when you talk about leaders, they are both new.

We talk about furniture. I could go back and talk about - the Member for Grand Bank, or the minister, the other day talked about a mahogany dining room table that was valued at more than $12,000 that was sold for $1,100. What is the point of doing that? That is done, over and done. The minister has already said, whatever furniture belonged to Beaton Tulk, the former Government House Leader, they have already gotten it back, and so they should because it belongs to the people. You can ask yourself: Is the other thing back? I am not going to go there. We will leave it at it.

The other thing I wanted to talk about for a few moments - I am sure other members will want to carry on with it as well - and that is: Here in the House, we talk about people that serve in the House. I have heard many, many times, and it is probably political - we say things that are political that we probably do not mean. They look at us and say: You are incompetent. You do not know what you are doing.

Well, I only have to say to you, as everybody here, when you come here into the House, you take your oath, you do what you can, you work as a minister, you work as a MHA, and you do your best. There is not one person, whether you are NDP or Tory or Liberal, who does not do the same thing. Everybody here has to work. Everybody has to make sure they do that.

I do not know what they means by incompetent. If they think it is incompetent in the sense that I came from a very small community, that I came from poor parents, and you cannot expect anymore from a person who came from a small, rural, isolated community, than you can question that too. That is why, in a sense, many of us, when you talk about leadership - we can talk about leadership, and we can talk about this leader and this leader and this leader. We all know that everyone of us are different. We all come from different backgrounds.

One of the things that I have had an opportunity to do, and I want to thank the people in my district for doing it, is simply this: I can never be a minister until I become a MHA. I cannot do it. You cannot do that. Since 1989, I have gone back to my district weekend after weekend, like people over there, and have worked and worked and worked.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LANGDON: Well, in my case, that is what I say to my people. I want to thank them for the opportunity that they have given me to serve.

MADAM SPEAKER (M. Hodder): Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. LANGDON: I just want to say this, in conclusion, Madam Speaker, it does not say anything for us if we come here and label each other and say things about each other that we know at the end of the day are probably somehow not becoming of us as members. At the end of it, when we leave here, we have to be friends, and we have to realize this is a lifelong profession. Some of us are here for a few days and some of us are here for a long time. Madam Speaker, as long as I am here I want to say that I want to do what is best for the people I represent, for the department that I work in, and also for the people who are in the District of Fortune-Hermitage.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Before I get started on my debate on Concurrence, I do want to address a couple of issues. One of them was raised by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs just a few moments ago when he said: either the Member for Waterford Valley or the Member for St. John's South said something. Well, I can tell you that I did not say it today but I will pick up for my colleague from Waterford Valley because the report that you are talking about, the report on the quality of the Province's water supply, my colleague from Kilbride, when he was Environment critic had asked for that report. I had asked for it for a number of years and had been denied in this House. That is what my colleague from Waterford Valley had said today, that we had been asking for the state of the Province's water supply report for five years before we received it. That is what he said. So I have to pick up for my colleague from Waterford Valley.

The other statement that was made here, Madam Speaker, was by the Member for Bay of Islands. I did not want to interrupt him on a point of order, but the Member for Bay of Islands said I was in St. John's saying something about the Main River issue while my leader was out in Corner Brook saying something else about it. Well, I will challenge the Member for Bay of Islands because it is not true. I will challenge him. The Leader of the Opposition has been in this House for two years. He can go back over the records of Hansard. He can go back over media records. There is no statement that I have made over the past two years about the Main River issue, I can tell you that.

Madam Speaker, the Member for Bay of Islands had also talked about flip-flops and how much he has seen of flip-flops in this House of Assembly. I can tell him that our 1999 Blue Book had a lot of issues in it that the government side of the House has had flip-flops on, such as the Ombudsman which we had advocated for. They said it was a ridiculous idea, but now we have an Ombudsman in place under a different name but, I tell you, we have an Ombudsman in place in this Province today. It was not a ridiculous idea. The Ombudsman serves a very valuable role. The Ombudsman is there to represent the citizens of the Province when they feel they are not being justly represented by government. The position of Ombudsman was put in place by the PC government back in the 1970s. It was removed by the Liberal government in the early 1990s. Finally, we see the position of Ombudsman replaced in this Province, as it should be.

The Child and Youth Advocate was another flip-flop by the government today. It was a position that we had advocated for, that we had pushed for, we had asked for. A very valuable position in this Province. A position to represent youth and children who cannot represent themselves. Finally, after we had been told by government that that was a ridiculous idea, we now see that put in place. Another policy by this side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Another PC policy advocated in the 1999 Blue Book.

The payroll tax, and reducing the payroll tax. I remember on the campaign trail my colleague for Kilbride was advocating that we reduce or eliminate the payroll tax. Government members mocked the idea. Yet, what do we see today? Further reductions in the payroll tax. A tax, I may say, that was put in place by the Liberal Administration and now they are patting themselves on the back for reducing the payroll tax. If that is not a flip-flop, Madam Speaker, I do not know what it is.

Now we will talk about some issues that I had advocated for in my critic portfolio, such as waste management. I remember government members saying, what a ridiculous idea. Just because it works in Nova Scotia does not mean it is going to work here. But, what do we see today? A waste management strategy put forward by the Liberal government. A policy of the PC Party since 1997, put forward now by the Liberal government. Another policy, Madam Speaker, that was put forward by this party. So that is a bit of a flip-flop, I would say.

Oil recycling was advocated. I remember the first time myself and the then Leader of the Opposition back in 1998, I believe it was, the Member for Kilbride, we held a press conference where we laid out our policies for oil recycling. Just last month we now see oil recycling implemented as a policy by the Liberal government. Also, back in 1998 when I advocated for oil recycling, it cannot work in this Province. That is what government said: It cannot work in this Province. A PC policy again, Madam Speaker, that has been implemented by the Liberal government after they said: It won't work in this Province. It could not be done they said - could not be done. It was an excellent policy that was put forward by myself and the Member for Kilbride. Unfortunately, they did not implement as well as we had laid out in our policy, but at least the policy is implemented. However, I will say, when we get the opportunity we will upgrade that policy. We will improve that policy to more reflect the policy that we put forward in 1998, because it was a good policy then. It is still a good policy today. The policy that was implemented by government does not go far enough. I commend them for finally putting it in place but it does not go far enough.

Tire recycling was a policy first advocated by myself back in 1997. I pushed the issue of tire recycling for years saying that it was a great idea. It is a policy that should be put in place by this government. Again, myself and the Member for Kilbride, who was then the Leader of the Opposition, rolled out our policy. Pardon the pun, but we rolled out our policy on tire recycling. It could not be done. Not a feasible idea in this Province. I remember government saying: we do not have enough tires on an annual basis in the Province to implement the tire recycling policy. So, what did government do? They implemented a tire recycling policy. Now, let me say that the policy has been in place for a year-and-a-half and, to date, we have not seen a tire recycled in this Province. There are stockpiles of tires all over the place. Bull Arm is being used as a tire storage facility. There are tires all over the Province being stored and in stockpiles. Municipalities are complaining and concerned because they do not know how much longer they can continue to stockpile the tires. Government took our idea, they took our policy, and implemented it as their own, as bad as that was implemented because there are still no tires recycled. That was a PC policy that was advocated by this party and now put in place by government.

Paper recycling: This time last year, I stood in this House during Question Period and asked the former Minister of Environment, the Member for Stephenville: When are we going to see a paper recycling policy put in place in this Province. When are we going to see it? He said: We are implementing it next week. It has been a long week, Madam Speaker, because there is still no paper recycling in place in this Province. That is a policy that was advocated by our party, a policy that the minister said: Yes, we are putting it in place next week. We still do not see it.

Madam Speaker, I will tell you, in the Province's Waste Management Strategy they point out that paper comprises 37 per cent of the total waste from residential waste in this Province; 37 per cent. We have one of the pulp and paper industries in the Province that is crying out for recycled paper. In fact, they import it from the Eastern Seaboard of the United States. We have no paper recycling program put in place yet in this Province. That was a policy that I put forward as Environment critic for our party and we have yet to see it put in place. It is a policy that government is now claiming as theirs.

In fact, Madam Speaker, since 1997, when I first become Environment critic, I have been putting forward policies on tire recycling, on paper recycling, on oil recycling and on solid waste management.

I have a message from the minister. I have to say, I am sorry to see that the Member for Stephenville will soon depart from this House because I think he is an honourable gentleman. I think he was a good minister, so I am sorry to see him depart from this House. Let me read something that the minister put forward. "For generations, the people of our province have taken the simple solution to dealing with garbage - dump it into a landfill site or burn it. However, our current practices cannot continue. We need to move from simply dumping solid waste into landfill sites to developing long-term solutions which will benefit our environment, our communities and our people." He goes on to say, "The process began with public consultations on waste management conducted during the summer of 2001..." The process began in 2001.

I have been putting these policies forward since 1997, but the process began in 2001, the minister says, "... and we are now about to embark on the next phase with implementation of a Provincial Waste Management Strategy." He goes on to say, "I also want to recognize my colleague, former Environment Minister Ralph Wiseman, whose leadership and guidance pioneered the development of this strategy." Pioneered the development of this strategy! A new idea. He puts it forward as a new idea. A new idea put forward by the Liberal Party. A new idea pioneered by the former Minister of Environment.

These are policies that were put forward by this side of the House, Madam Speaker, well developed policies, well researched policies. The ones that have been implemented by government have not even been implemented properly. We do not have to look any further than tire recycling to see that.

Madam Speaker, I will move on to another issue that I want to talk about and it has to do with municipal and provincial affairs. It is a huge issue in my district and it has to do with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing units. I was delighted to hear earlier this year that this government signed the agreement with Ottawa for more funding, an infusion of funding into Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. There are a few things we need with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. One of them is handicapped accessible units which there is definitely a shortage of throughout the Province. There is a shortage of one bedroom and two bedroom units. I am hoping that some of that funding, Madam Speaker, is going to go towards dealing with those issues.

There is another issue, as well, and that is property that is owned by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing units. I remember at City Hall just six or seven months ago, one of the councillors stood up during one of the council meetings and said: If the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing properties that are in this city were owned by any other landlord, they would be condemned and shut down. Now, that was said at City Hall. He was talking in particular, at the time, about housing units on Gilbert Street, housing units that are in my district. He talked about those units and said, if they were owned by a private landlord, they would be condemned and shut down, they are in that bad a shape.

I contacted Newfoundland and Labrador Housing time and time again. I see the former minister nodding his head. Well, the current Minister of Transportation, because he knows what I am talking about. I mean, the units are in deplorable shape. Madam Speaker, I have contacted Housing time and time again to get shingles repaired on roofs, shingles that have been in place for twenty-five years. Housing went in and because they had a leak in the living room, they replaced the shingles on that side of the house and the shingles on the back of the House, they said: We will wait until you get a leak there before we replace those. Now, I see what the point of that measure was. They could not afford to put the shingles on the back part of the house, but it is throwing good money after bad because as soon as they get a leak on the back of the house, not only are they replacing the shingles but, perhaps, the gyproc or drywall on the ceiling in one of the bedrooms or in another area of the house. The shingles are twenty-five years old, yet not being replaced. That money is needed. I do not if it is poor management, poor policies, poor handling of the money that is at Housing or what the cause is, but we have seen units with electrical problems that have gone unattended for months and months, sometimes years before they were fixed.

Recently, there was an electrical fire in one of the units on Eric Street. Again, in my district. As a result of that electrical fire, some of the other units that have had electrical problems, outlets not working, fuses shorting out, those units got repaired as well. It got so bad that there was an electrical fire in one of the units before they got the attention that was demanded of those units. It is not only the units on Eric Street or Gilbert Street that we are dealing with. It is units through the entire city, and probably the entire Province. We see units with siding problems, siding deteriorated and in need of repair. Aluminum siding that is dented and cracked. Again, units in my district where there were actually holes in the siding. You could see the tongue-and-groove on the unit, and it went like that for three years before it was replaced.

I had a lady in my district who called about leaks in her roof that often that she finally got fed up and moved out of Housing, but before she moved out she contacted the media to let them know of her problems and the fact that they were not being addressed by Housing. Do you know what? The new tenant who moved into that unit is still complaining about leaks. What does that say about our provincial housing program here?

I had a housing unit on Lime Street where the tenant there had contacted Housing that often about the steps that he finally contacted me. I contacted Housing and informed them that he was going to go to the media unless somebody went out to have a look. When they went out they were going to condemn the unit because not only were the steps gone - he could not step out on his back patio because it was that dangerous but where the patio was attached to the back of the house it had rotted away. The floor joists on the back of the house had rotted away. They were going to shut the unit down until further repair. Now the tenant convinced the Housing authority to allow him to stay there and just bar up the backdoor so that he would not be using that part of the house or the back patio until Housing eventually got a chance to repair that.

We see housing units all throughout my district, and I would say all throughout the city, with windows that are drafty and leaking; creating leaks and more destruction of those properties because of the fact that the windows are leaking and rotting out the drywall and probably the lumber inside the drywall, possibly causing threats to electrical systems and so on. Madam Speaker, those tenants with the leaky windows are also paying higher utility bills because it is much harder to heat their units.

This type of thing is happening throughout the city and, like I say, probably throughout the Province. So that money that has been announced is needed. I hope that the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs sees fit to use that money the way it is supposed to be used. To repair those units, to put in place handicap-accessible units, one bedroom units and two bedroom units, because those are the things that are needed. Those are the things that are needed with housing. I am not, for one minute, going to point the finger at the workers at Housing because they can only work with what they have. They do not have the funding to enable them to carry out these repairs, and that is the problem. The funding is not there. Whether that is a result of budgeting for this House of Assembly, through the minister's department, or what the reason is, I am not sure, but the workers have their hands tied because they do not have the funds that are required to deal with the issues. It is pretty bad when you have the municipal council of the capital city in this Province saying that if those units were owned by a private landlord they would be condemned and shut down. That is pretty bad. They need attention and I hope they get it with this new money that has been announced.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

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

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I want to, just for a few moments, talk about things positive as opposed to things negative. I want to talk about hope as opposed to despair. I want to talk about things sincere as opposed to cynicism. In all of that, I want to talk about this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: I want to talk about the great government that has been given by our Premier, Premier Grimes. I want to talk about the great leadership. I want to talk about the insightful leadership. I want to talk about the visionary leadership that has been given by the Premier of this Province over the last two years.

Madam Speaker, I heard hon. members refer to the fourteen years in government. An old tired government. The point has been made a couple of times this evening that neither of these adjectives are accurate. Neither old nor tired is this government. This government is a new government led by a new leader. Two years, Madam Speaker, Premier. This government, over the last two years, has done more than any government post-Confederation in that two-year period.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Put another way, Madam Speaker, there is not a government, not a provincial government, post-Confederation, that has been so productive as this government has been in the past two years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: It has been absolutely phenomenal, it has been absolutely staggering, the performance of this government over the past two years. A fabulous record, a record that is unparallel in the provincial, public administration of this Province, post-Confederation. The record has been phenomenal.

MR. J. BYRNE: Twelve years wasted.

MR. LUSH: The hon. Member for Cape St. Francis says: Twelve years wasted. Well, Madam Speaker, that is an insult really to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to make that statement because they voted for this government not once, not twice, so we cannot condemn the choice of the people. In democracy we believe that the choice of the people is always the right choice, always the correct choice.

Talking about the Member for Cape St. Francis, I talked about the plan of this government as referred to in the Throne Speech. The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis read it, read the quotes from the Throne Speech, and he said our plan is compelling and focused. It is not grandois and unrealistic. My Government strives for- he read the things that we strive for- excellent education for our children, quality and accessible health care, jobs to provide for our families, more money in the hands of our people to spend, save and invest, transportation and technology networks that conquer our geography, and lastly, a true and equal partnership in the Canadian Union. Would hon. members know what his comment about all of that was, about these lofty and noble objectives? Do you know what the hon. member's comment was? Motherhood. Motherhood! Well, I will tell you what, I wish that governments in the past performed motherhood policies as much as this government has done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: I would say, Madam Speaker, the fact that there are seven mothers on this side reflects the kinds of policies that this government has been engaging in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: The fact that there are seven mothers on this side reflects the great social policy that this government has been enacting over the past couple of years. I have heard the comment made many times that the social policy of this government is a reflection of the ladies, the women who serve in this government. I think, Madam Speaker, they have made a tremendous contribution to the social policy of the government of this Province.

I also wanted to elaborate a little further on a comment I was making yesterday, and I may give fodder for some of the members for Open Line again or some press releases, but I want to say, Madam Speaker, that I was talking about the plan that this government has. I said: It is not difficult to find the plan of this government because it is written in several documents among which I quoted yesterday: The Strategic Economic Plan which was developed in 1992, a great plan, a great economic plan. Because it was made in 1992, does not mean that there are things in it not relevant today. It was a visionary plan, but it was about economics and the plan missed something because it is like so many other governments have done, that it's emphasis was on economics, developing the Province economically, and any social development was marginal, it was peripheral. Madam Speaker, there emerged another school of thought that said: We must link the social plan to the economic plan, and, after several months of hard work, we achieved just that, we achieved a strategic social plan that was interlinked with our economic plan. It has been applauded as one of the greatest documents by any government in Canada.

That completed that cycle, so to speak, Madam Speaker, that you could not have social things unrelated to economic development. Now our educational needs are linked to economic development, our health plan linked to economic development, our social policy linked to economic development. The Social Strategic Plan gives emphasis to the individual, it respects the individual, it is aimed at working for the handicapped, the disadvantaged, it is aimed at trying to help people become productive citizens, and all of this is done by interlinking the social and the economic. In between that, Madam Speaker, we also had another initiative which was Jobs and Growth. All of these things tied together made the plan. It was all culminated with the presentation of the Budget, with this motherhood stuff, so to speak, as the Member for Cape St. Francis characterizes it.

Let me talk about some motherhood stuff that this Throne Speech talks about. It talks about how we have grown in the last ten years. It talks about how our economy has become much more diversified. It talks about how we have created employment; more people working in the Province now than ever before, and it talks about how all of the economic indicators are moving in the right direction, having the highest GDP in the country.

Madam Speaker, hon. members opposite sort of laugh when you talk about GDP. Isn't it strange? I did not know that GDP had become such a derogatory word among economists. I thought the GDP was still a very good measurement of how the economy was growing, and it is. GDP is held in high repute among economists. Hon. members do not like to hear it, and they make such comments as the growth in the GDP does not help the person in such and such a community who is on unemployed, or it does not do this or do that. What it does, Madam Speaker, is tell us that the economy is growing and, in time, your people are going to be employed and, in time, government is going to reach its economic and social glory, its social aims. As sure as I am here, if there is no growth in the GDP, people are not likely to be employed either. You cannot have it both ways.

The GDP is a good measure of economic growth. The hon. members reject the idea, try to reject the idea, that this Province is leading in economic growth. It defies logic why anybody would want to do that, why anybody would want to be so negative, why anybody would want to be such a pessimist as to reject and try to repudiate all of these scientifically proven formula and scientifically proven analysis to determine the success of an economy. Madam Speaker, there is no question that the economy of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has been growing and will continue to grow. Employment will continue to grow, the health services in this Province will continue to get better, the quality of education will continue to get better, and social programs, in general, will continue to get better as the GDP improves. About that, there is no question.

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about some good things again, some motherhood things that have happened since the government implemented its Strategic Social Plan, since it brought in a program that connects social and economic development. I want to talk about some other motherhood things. I want to talk about some other initiatives.

We have had programs making housing more affordable to the people of our Province. We have increased the minimum wage. That is a good motherhood thing, isn't it, to increase the minimum wage? We have increased it. We have successfully put in place thirty-one public service contracts, Madam Speaker. We have negotiated thirty-one public service contracts giving our public servants the kind of salary that they deserve because we believe in our public servants.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: We believe in our public servants. We have confidence in them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) lay them off.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible) twelve years before that, laid 2,000 off, cutback, trimmed (inaudible). Talk about that while you are up.

MR. LUSH: Don't mind the hon. gentleman. He has not yet gotten over Churchill Falls and he is still living back in the 1960s, so we should be proud when he approaches the 1990s. We should be very proud when he approaches the 1990s even though they are the early 1990s.

Madam Speaker, this government has done a tremendous amount of work. The government has a new Strategy Health Plan for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Healthier Together, just recently put out by the Minister of Health. This document sets out new directions for the health care system over the next five years and will result in higher quality and more accessible and sustainable health care for the people of this Province.

Madam Speaker, the Ombudsman, another move by the government of this Province to give a Citizens' Representative, a Child Advocate -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: This government, Madam Speaker, completely reformed the labour legislation in this Province, something that had not been done - in what? - thirty years. This government took this bold initiative. Yes, Madam Speaker, these were the bold initiatives that I spoke about yesterday. These were the bold initiatives that I talked about; combining the social development with the economic development; bringing in Ombudsman; a Child Advocate; legislation bringing in a Citizens' Representative; and legislation improving the environment, our water protection. It is just phenomenal. It is just phenomenal, as I said, the legislation and the policy that has been brought in by this government in a two-year period. It has been absolutely mind-boggling. Madam Speaker, all brought in, all done, through the vision of the Leader of the government, the Premier of the government, who has tremendous vision, tremendous stamina. The man never stops thinking about what he can do, day in and day out, to improve the quality and the standard of life for ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Madam Speaker, I think I have demonstrated the initiative of this government, the bold steps taken by this government over the past couple of years, and we plan to do more. We plan to carry out every initiative in this Throne Speech because the hallmark of this government is that a promise made is a promise kept. A promise made is a promise kept.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Now, Madam Speaker, I can also say that I believe in combination with all of these plans that I have talked about, documents over the past several years that have been prepared by this government; with good research, I might suggest. Sound research in economics and in social policy. Great plans. Great initiatives. In addition to all of that, I would suggest that we will probably also produce another Red Book soon. We will produce a Red Book soon. Probably to match the Blue Book, but our Red Book will come from all of the plans that I have talked about tonight. Our Red Book will come from the plans that we have developed over the past number of years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Take ours (inaudible) that's all you have to do.

MR. LUSH: We are waiting for it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, sir, waiting for it.

MR. LUSH: We are waiting for it. When is the plan coming forward? That is what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want. They know what the plans of this government are, Madam Speaker. I have talked about many of them. They know what the plans are. We are waiting for the plans opposite. They are waiting for the plans opposite and the people of Newfoundland have a right to know what the plans are of the members opposite. I suppose in time we will see them. The plans are there for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to see re this government. The record is there and it is a great record. It is a record that has been unparalleled in recent times. It is a record that is unparalleled in two years by any government post-Confederation, Madam Speaker, and I rest my case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am certainly pleased to have the opportunity to stand and make a few comments on the debate that we have before us tonight here in the House.

As I listened to the Government House Leader, it causes me great concern to think - I truly believe that the Government House Leader is living in a different world, because when I look back on the past couple of years here - the Government House Leader put forward to talk about the social policy of this government. The social policy of this government in the last number of years. We have to ask ourselves, if there was such a great social policy coming forth here over the past number of years, why the people in this Province - why in excess of 50 per cent of the people in this Province have had to turn to social services in the last year - having youth between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five years. That is the social policy that we are talking about here, Madam Speaker.

The Government House Leader is not getting on his feet and telling the people of this Province that the youth of this Province have had to turn to social services in droves over the past couple of years; reaching in excess of 50 per cent this year, in the last fiscal year alone, between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five. That is the social policy.

Another part of the social policy of this government, that the Government House Leader is so quick to be on his feet to tell us all about - why doesn't he tell us that 26.2 per cent of children going to school in this Province each and every day, Madam Speaker, go to school hungry? That is a great social policy for the Government House Leader to be on his feet telling the people of this Province about. We do not hear that part of it. We do not hear that, Madam Speaker. That is what concerns me when we talk about social policy.

When we talk about the social policy of this government we have to ask ourselves: Why, in the last number of years, have we had the highest out-migration in this country? The Government House Leader was on his feet talking about the highest GDP in the country, but he does not tell that we have the highest debt in this country. He does not tell that we have the highest out-migration in this country. He does not tell that we have the highest child poverty in this country. I ask the Government House Leader, how do you expect the people in this Province to eat GDP? That is what they are trying to tell us. That is what they are trying to shove down the throats of people in this Province, that because our GDP is high we can survive and we can improve. Well, Madam Speaker, that is not the case. People cannot eat GDP, I say to the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: The problem we have here - one of the problems we have. We have many problems, Madam Speaker, but one of the major problems that we have is the lack of federal-provincial agreements. The lack of the cooperation between this government and the government in Ottawa. I have never witnessed in my time here in the House, in the number of years that I have followed politics in this Province, the level that we have reached now between the provincial government and the federal government in regard to agreements.

Madam Speaker, last year we had the former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, now the Minister of Labour, who travelled off to Ottawa looking for a billion dollar roads agreement. What did he do? He went up with a power point presentation to the Minister of Transportation. That is the plan. Oh, what a plan that was, I say to the Government House Leader, a Power Point Presentation to look for $1 million of a federal-provincial roads agreement and looking for 80 per cent from the federal government. What did we get, Madam Speaker? We got shoved out the door because of the lack of preparation by this government, the lack of consultation by this government, and the lack of being ready when they went to Ottawa. The Liberal member, the Liberal MP for Labrador, said it was a laughing stock, the presentation that the former Minister of Transportation put before the federal government looking for a roads agreement for this Province.

What do we find here this year, Madam Speaker? We find roads throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador that need work, and we need that federal input into that roads agreement, we need that federal money to be part of the total provincial roads program in this Province, because if we do not have it we are going to have major deterioration of the roads throughout this Province.

I have been up on my feet here in the House on several occasions, Madam Speaker, talking about roads throughout my district. Down through St. Mary's Bay, up through Placentia Bay, in through the Town of Placentia, in Branch country, Point Lance Road outside of North Harbour, down through St. Mary's Bay, there are steady, steady problems with deterioration of the roads. The fact that we do not have a roads agreement is playing a major factor in that, Madam Speaker. The reason we do not have a roads agreement is they same reason that we do not have an Economic Development Agreement.

We have seen members opposite on their feet talking about the need for an Economic Development Agreement. We, on this side of the House, agree 100 per cent. Again, you are traveling off to Ottawa to look for an Economic Development Agreement and we do not have our homework done on this end of it again, Madam Speaker. Then we ask ourselves why. Why don't we have a federal agreement on Economic Development? Why is the government, in their Throne Speech, asking for an extension of the agreement for March 2003 until March 2004? Because they lack the vision and the lack the plan to put it on paper to take it to Ottawa for the federal-provincial agreement that is needed, Madam Speaker.

ACOA, HRDC and all the federal government agencies do not trust this government and they are only contributing, in most cases, 20 per cent, in some cases 30 per cent, to the provincial government and they do not trust this government. That is why we do not have federal-provincial agreements. That is why the federal government in Ottawa is saying to the people in this Province, saying to the government here: We do not want to deal with you. We cannot trust you. You cannot run the shop, Madam Speaker. They cannot run the shop, therefore they are not going to give you -

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Just hold on now. I say to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, the only plan that I have seen her, Madam Speaker -

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I say to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, the only plan you have been worried about in the past two years is Aeroplan. The only plan you have been worried about is Aeroplan. That is what I say to the Minister of ITRD.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: The only plan that you have been worried about is Aeroplan. Come fly with us, I say to the minister, as you travel around the world. The people of this Province are more concerned about the plans that will create economic development in the rural parts of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: That is the concern we have. That is the concern that the people of this Province have. That is why I am on my feet, and my colleagues are on their feet, asking for this government to go to Ottawa and try and work out a federal-provincial agreement on roads, to work out a federal-provincial agreement on economic development.

For God's sake, do not send the Minister of Labour up there. The MP for Labrador said that the Power Point Presentation was not worth the paper it was written on; up looking for a billion dollars on roads. Do you know something, Madam Speaker, for the past twelve years, several times I have stood in this House and I have heard members opposite talk about the largest roads program in the Province's history, and you are still spending Crosbie's money. John Crosbie signed the Roads for Rail. John Crosbie signed the Trunk Roads Agreement. You are still spending Crosbie's money. This is the last year of that. So you are void of ideas, you are void of vision, and that is the problem of this government. That is why we do not have a federal-provincial agreement, because they do not trust you. The federal government does not trust you with the few piddly dollars that they are willing to put down here. Then you go cap in hand to Ottawa looking for more, and you cannot be trusted.

I say to the member opposite, I say to the Government House Leader, who talked about a Strategy Social Plan, a Strategic Health Plan, a Jobs and Growth plan, a Waste Management Plan - I look back to the Waste Management Plan, and they were supposed to have a committee in place by September or October, 2002. There is no committee in place yet, no organization in place. It is a major concern of the people in this Province.

The Minister for Municipal and Provincial Affairs stood on his feet and he was concerned about the furniture. While he said he did not want to get into it, he just wanted to bring it up, the issue I raised in relation to the former premier's and the former minister's furniture. The Minister of Municipal Affairs did not want to touch that.

The people in this Province were astounded by the answer from the Minister of ITRD. The Minister of ITRD, when she was answering the question, said: When they took back former Premier Tulk's furniture that he had and put in new furniture, when they brought back the furniture, they put it in storage in government and they lost it. The Minister of ITRD stands on her feet and tells people: We lost it, we cannot find the computer, we cannot find the desk, we cannot find the fax machine, we cannot find the chair, we cannot find the copier, we cannot find the shredder. Madam Speaker, how gullible do the Minister of ITRD think the people of this Province are, to stand up in her place and try to push that down the throats of the people of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Madam Speaker, the people know full well what went on with the furniture, and I make sure that they do.

Madam Speaker, we also stood up and asked questions on all the different things that are going on in this government. The Government House Leader gets up and says, another bold move, just like he is singing from the mountain tops; another bold move. He is pontificating in his position over there. Another bold move, we brought the Ombudsman back, we brought in the Ombudsman. Well, I do not know. The member has been around here a lot longer than I have. You are the crowd that took him out in the first place, so you have to bring him back. Madam Speaker, the people of the Province wanted him brought back. Have you forgotten that you took him out? Oh, but that was another administration, we had nothing to do with that. Oh, my, no, wipe your hands clear of that. You are all over there singing the coattails.

I watched television the other night, Madam Speaker, when the Minister of ITRD was on her feet standing up with the last Premier, the prior Premier, Premier Tobin. He was standing and saying he was going to stay for four years, he was going to fulfill his four-year mandate, and the Minister of ITRD was standing by nodding her head in agreement. Yes, everything was well here, Madam Speaker, because the coattails were long that time and they needed the coattails to address it.

The problem this time, Madam Speaker, is that there are no coattails. The present Premier doesn't even have a coat, Madam Speaker, to put on when he goes fighting for the people of this Province, and the people of this Province see it full well. Madam Speaker, back a while ago we had the Premier of the Province, during the election for his leadership - here is the brochure from the leadership. We are going to be the most transparent government. Most transparent! Yes, there is no doubt about that. The people of this Province see right through you over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: They see right through you over there. You need not worry about that. You have lived up to that, you are transparent.

They are going to bring in reform, I say, Madam Speaker. The people of this Province see full well, after fourteen years of this administration - and do not try to paint that we have forgotten about it. For the past two years now the present Premier has tried to say he did not have anything to do with the former administrations. He did not have anything to do when Premier Wells was here. He did not have anything to do with him when Premier Tobin was here. He was part of the Cabinet. He was part of the government. He was part of the decision-making of this Province that seen tuition fees increase by 300 per cent. Then we have the Government House Leader up on the mountaintop pontificating again that we will reduce to 25 per cent. Well, it is still 275 per cent more than what it was in 1989, I say to the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: It is costing the students of this Province 275 per cent more than what it was in 1989. Then we have the Government House Leader get up time and time again telling about the great, bold initiatives of this government, Madam Speaker. Well, I say to the minister, maybe he should sit down and think about the 50,000 people who have left this Province in the last ten years - about the bold initiatives that have come forth to keep people in the Province, to keep young people home. I say to the Government House Leader, that is what he should be on his feet talking about, the bold initiatives that will be in place to keep people in this Province and to bring those who have left back. What we need in this Province is a vision. What we need in this Province is a plan. You people on that side of the House are void of both, I say, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: I would say to the Minister of Labour: Call the election and you will see our plan very, very quickly.

We asked time and time again here in this House for - and we talked about child poverty today. The Member for St. John's West put forward a private member's resolution to be debated in this House tomorrow dealing with the School Lunch Program. My understanding is that would cost $25,000 to $30,000 to take that program to the end of this school year in June. The request has been in for quite some time, from what we can understand on this side of the House, and it has not come up with $25,000 or $30,000.

Lets look back at: Good things are happening in Newfoundland and Labrador. When the newspapers across this Province were filled with ads about the good things happening in Newfoundland and Labrador, including a picture of the turning of the sod down in Argentia - and I will get to that in a minute - $30,000 per week to get the Premier on smiling to try to enhance his own electability. The School Lunch Program is asking for $30,000 to carry it to the end of the school year for less than two months. We do not have the money. Still, you have $30,000 a week to parade around the Province - real change is taking place.

One of the pictures, I do not have it here with me - this is one of the ads. One of the pictures was the turning of the sod down in Argentia, where they went down to announce what was going to happen in Argentia. First of all, Madam Speaker, they had to bring the sods from St. Shotts. They had to bring the sods from St. Shotts to Argentia. That will tell you about planning. You ask the people in Argentia and Placentia area today about what is happening - are good things happening in that area? People down there are still waiting. They are still waiting and they will continue to wait for this government to act because the people there, time and time again, have been fooled. They have been fooled once too often. They will not be fooled again, I say to the members opposite.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: We will keep asking the questions, I say to the Minister of Labour. I will stand on my feet and keep asking the questions. If the need arises for me to stand on my feet and ask questions in this House, I will do so. You or no one else will keep me sitting down, I say to the member opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: I have a duty to ask the questions and to raise the concern. I say to the Minister of Labour, if he were concerned about employment in this Province he would be very, very concerned about what is happening in Argentia today in relation to the activity and the lack of activity that is happening there. Mr. Speaker, I say that happens to be the case.

We also talked about in this House - the Government House Leader was up on his feet talking about the bold initiatives of this government. He said a promise made is a promise kept. That is a heavy statement: A promise made is a promise kept, because people in this Province have been promised a lot of things from this Administration. People in this Province have been promised many, many things.

I can remember, if memory serves me correctly - and I ask any member opposite to stand on their feet and tell me that I am wrong - a better tomorrow. There was a promise of a better tomorrow, if memory serves me correctly. I say to members opposite, there are many, many people in this Province, because of the lack of a plan, because of the lack of a vision, because of the lack of drive on the other side of the House - many people, sad to say, are finding their better tomorrow in other parts of this country and other parts of this world because of the lack of plan from that side of the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, the record goes on. There is no doubt about it, I say to the Government House Leader, you have a record, a record that you should not be standing on your feet - in my view anyway - and trying to push down the throats of the people in this Province and saying full well that it is a record of achievement. It is not a record of achievement for most people in this Province.

I have asked questions in this House on several occasions in relation to economic activity, economic activity in my own district, economic activity throughout the Province. We talked about the roads earlier tonight. People have talked about the roads. Petitions have been raised here about the roads and the lack thereof of a roads agreement. Time and time again we asked - we say to the Premier opposite: We need to sit down with the powers that be in Ottawa. We need to sit down and try to work out some federal-provincial agreements.

I think one of the most important things facing our Province today is the lack of - bar from the fishery. That is the most important, bar from that - federal-provincial agreements. Then we say to ourselves, we have a Premier here in our Province who upsets the four Liberal MPs, makes little of them in the public eye, makes derogatory comments against the Prime Minister, derogatory comments against different ministers of the government, and then goes off cap in hand to Ottawa looking to get something for this Province, looking to solve some of the problems that we are facing in this Province. I say that is not the way to go about things. Sure, we stand up for the things we believe in. Sure, we stand up and make noise when the necessary time comes, but we have to have a plan. I believe the problem here is the lack of a plan from the opposite side of the House of Assembly. I think it is important that the people of this Province see the lack of that plan.

We will continue, as long as we are here on this side of the House, to raise the issue and we will not sit down and listen to members opposite. We will not sit down and listen to the Government House Leader get up and try to fool the people into thinking that things are a lot better than what they are. Yes, there is no doubt about it, parts of this Province are doing well. There are parts of this Province where the economic growth is doing well, but there are many, many parts of this Province, especially in rural Newfoundland - I can look around my own District of Placentia & St. Mary's and see where there is a vision needed, there is a plan needed, and there are certainly dollars needed to put those in place. We need to work on that as a people here, and certainly as a people here in the Province.

There is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Speaker, when we look back to March 24, 2002, and see communities, from 1996 to 2001 - in a space of five years, I say to the Minister of Labour - where we have communities like St. Vincent's, St. Stephen's, Peter's River, in my district that lose 24.3 per cent of their population.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. MANNING: I would say he has a problem hearing the truth.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it has been very interesting listening to the member just speak, the very member who talked about economic development. If we remember correctly, this was the same member who had to be shamed into supporting economic development in his own district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: In his own district - economic development.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak a little bit about connecting the dots today.

MR. MANNING: A point or order, Mr. Speaker.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Oh, come on now, we listened to you. We listened to you, I say to the member opposite trying to run out the clock.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: I can take it -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a point of order. I ask him to get to his point of order.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take exception to the comments by the member opposite for the simple reason, Mr. Speaker, that when a decision was to be made in this House, I held the most consultative process of any Member of this House of Assembly with the people in my district, and I did what the people sent me here to do. Maybe you people on that side of the House should try that some time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

As I said, Mr. Speaker, the member was shamed into it and I stand by my comments. We are not over here interrupting on points of order. We have the common courtesy to listen to people when they make their speeches.

My comments tonight, Mr. Speaker, are really about connecting the dots. It is easy for people in the Province to connect the dots. I would like to put them together, because so many people have talked about it recently. It goes back to the former Auditor General. Let's connect the dots here. Who is the former Auditor General? She was a Tory candidate-in-waiting and now she is the Tory candidate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, how many people have ever heard the former Auditor General, Elizabeth Marshall, talk about health care, social policy, or meeting the needs of this Province? I have not, and I do not know if we ever will, but I do know for ten years we have heard about cutting and trimming. I also know, and this is a quote from her, herself, and this is part of connecting the dots. She says: I have seen some of the PC policies, the ones that are of particular interest to me, and at this point in time they are in line with the way I think and the way I would do things.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Now, the Marshall plan; connect the dots.

Maybe they do not feel they are able to put out their policies, but we know the policies of the Auditor General and we know what she will do.

Let's talk a little bit further about the Auditor General, because now we know what she stands for, and if what she stands for is what the Tory policies are about, we know what the people of the Province are in for, and I hope they can connect the dots too.

Let's talk about the unfunded pension liability. The Auditor General has been so worried about the unfunded pension liability, very concerned, said it was a threat to our future and to our credit rating. Really, what the Auditor General is supposed to do is point out these things; however, the Auditor General is also supposed to comment on progress made. For the longest time, I could not connect the dots myself. I could not figure out when -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The people of the Province did it for me, I say to the Member for Ferryland. They did it for me because I listened to them.

I was wondering why we did not hear from the Auditor General when we had addressed our unfunded pension liability; because, during the seventies and eighties, we know - everybody in the Province knows - the Tories spent the pension fund doing what they were doing in their policy platforms. It was not until the Liberal government came in place that we actually started paying out cash to address the unfunded pension liability.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: We hear about the deficit. What people do not realize, or what they want people to forget, is that almost $300 million of our deficit is from the Tory slush fund policy platforms of the eighties which we are now paying off. People know it. They know it is part of our platform, but that is not even the point that was so fuzzy with me. The part that I could not understand was, when we started to address this: Why didn't the Auditor General at least comment that we were following her policies? I could not figure it out. Further, why wouldn't the Auditor General, now a Tory candidate, comment when our credit rating increased? Why? I do not know. Now, let's connect the dots. Because the Auditor General used her position as a stepping stone for where she is right now, a Tory candidate-in-waiting. It is clear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Connect the dots. It is easy to see.

Let's also talk about some of her other policies and why we should be so concerned, why the people of the Province should be so concerned, because we are. We now know what she stands for.

Do you know something? The people of the Province need to pay heed, because there is a large threat, there should be a big fear with any Opposition party that aligns themselves 100 per cent with the Auditor General. We all know what that stands for. I tell you, we can predict what will happen. You will see it. They will downsize, they will privatize, they will streamline.

AN HON. MEMBER: She said it.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: She said it, and it will trickle down to the people of the Province. What you will see is more people working, Mr. Speaker, but they will be auditors. They will not be social workers. They will not be teachers. They will not be physios or OTs. They will be auditors doing the books. That is what they will be.

I will say, for a government that has put over $500 million into health care, where will she take the money from? Because she likes their policies. She likes the Tory policies. They are in line with what she wants to do. Connect the dots, I say to the people in the Province, and surely it must cause concern, because it causes us concern.

We know what she stands for, but do you know what we hope for most this time? We hope that she will do a flip-flop. We hope that she will follow what we see in the flip-flop, because that is the only hope the people of the Province have, that she will flip-flop and not cut, streamline and trim what we have built in our social programs. That is all we can hope for, Mr. Speaker, because I can say, if she does not flip-flop - and the Member for Ferryland is getting right excited because I know he is only keeping her seat warm if she is lucky enough to even get here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, no. He knows it.

Let me say, if her policies are followed, let's connect the dots. The commonsense revolution, which is what their policies have been compared with by an article in The Western Star will make Mike Harris' Tories look like socialists if that is what happens. That is what it will look like. We will be seeing people lying on the benches on our streets trying to keep warm, the homeless. That is what it has been compared to. Let's connect the dots. I think it is very important for the people of the Province to do that.

She wants to run the Province like a business. What does business do? Make profits. We are not opposed to businesses making profits. We like to do that in some areas. We like to grow the economics in areas. We like to do that. We have no problem with businesses making profits. We have no problem -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The Member for Ferryland is so excited over there. He really is. He is getting nervous about his seat, I think, because he knows he is going to be replaced one way or the other.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, businesses -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I said one way or the other. Check the Hansard.

MR. SULLIVAN: You are admitting it now.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I am admitting it. You are going to be replaced.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, he won't be (inaudible) my points because I believe, I really believe that - and people will know - the United States and Canada are strewn with wealthy people who have tried to come to governments and run it like a business. They are strewn all over the world.

I will say, Mr. Speaker, a government lifts people up. It supports people. It does not knock people down. It supports them at a time when it is needed most. We will run government. We have run government with social policies. You can connect our dots. They are clear, Mr. Speaker. We have addressed the Unfunded Pension Liability. We have grown our economy. And, Mr. Speaker, just tonight, Moody's again have confirmed our credit rating.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: That is right, Mr. Speaker. This must kill them over there because they are convinced - it kills them that we are leading the country. It kills them that we maintain our credit rating, but the people of the Province can connect the dots. We know they can. We have much credit. We believe in them. We know that they know what could be in store for them, because while they are afraid to put out their policies, we know that if Elizabeth Marshall, the former Auditor General, a Tory in waiting and now a Tory candidate, if she gets her way, God help the people of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me say to the Minister of Finance, whether I take up thirty seconds or thirty minutes or three minutes on the point of order, whatever is allowed, I will certainly provide leave to the Minister of Finance in the time that I take.

But, Mr. Speaker, rarely in ten years have I seen such a personal attack on a private citizen by the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the aspersions cast on an individual's character that she somehow used her position, as Auditor General, to become a candidate for a political party is beneath contempt. It is beneath contempt. The Minister of Finance, if she had the intestinal fortitude, should say it outside this House and we will see where it goes from there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, and lastly, let me say this, the nurses of this Province understand who used their position to advance their own political gain. It was the former president of -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the member opposite, the Opposition House Leader, he just got up and made a personal attack on me in his own attempt to make a point of order. I would say that Elizabeth Marshall is a Tory candidate. I said, in her role as Auditor General, she hesitated never to criticize this government. She never, ever, at any point in time, acknowledged or gave credit for the things she should have done when she commented, for example, on what should have happened.

Mr. Speaker, I am repeating what I said. She never commended or congratulated the government for addressing the Tory mismanagement of our pension fund when we restored our unfunded pension liability. She never commented or articulated on the fact that our credit rating was increased, and -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: On a point of order, I heard the member over there personally attack a private citizen, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. member on a point of order?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to get to her point of order now.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is: In this House, when I spoke about the Tory policy and connecting the dots, I am making a very clear point, and I am saying with respect to the point of order, that I have heard here the member opposite take personal -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to quickly get to her point of order.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the member opposite also talk about personal individuals here in this House and I do believe my comments today and tonight are not out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is now 10:00 p.m. If the members want to stop the clock at this point in time -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Under our Standing Orders, I believe at 10:00 p.m. we will terminate the debate. It is now 10:00 p.m. and the Chair is looking for direction from members as to what we should do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House to concur in the report of the Resource Committee?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against.

On motion, Report of the Resource Estimates Committee, carried.

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