The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, the Chair would like to take this opportunity to welcome to the House of Assembly today, thirty students from Grade 7 to Level III from the following schools: All Saints All Grade School, Grey River, and St. Simon & St. Jude School, Francois. They are accompanied by teachers: John Barter, Jim Cashen, Ken Benoit, Wilson Warren; teacher's aid, Linda Dunford; and chaperone, Tina Warren.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I like to welcome to the gallery, sixty Level I, II, III students who are enrolled in Canadian Studies in the Foxtrap, Queen Elizabeth Regional High School, and they are accompanied by teachers: Mr. Trevor Rowe and Mr. Gerry Oxford.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, May 6, Canadian Heritage Minister Sheila Copps announced "Community Memories", a group of new exhibits available on the World Wide Web through Virtual Museums of Canada.

More than twenty-one exhibits from museums in Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec and New Brunswick are currently on display, and that will soon grow to forty Atlantic museums, all sharing their community stories to Web users around the world.

I attended the launching of the Virtual Museum in Torbay on Thursday, May 8. I am particularly proud to say that one of the exhibits that will be featured is the Torbay Heritage Committee's exhibit entitled, "A Scrapbook History: Voluntary Women's Groups of Torbay, Newfoundland".

Right now, you will find exhibits from Carbonear, Gander, Corner Brook, Port Union, Trinity, Bay Roberts, North West River, Bird Cove, Eastport and Newtown - some very old photos and some very interesting stories.

There is much to offer here in Newfoundland and Labrador in terms of history and culture, much of it unknown even within our own Province, particularly by our young people. I am thinking as well of young people around the world who want to know something of their Newfoundland and Labrador heritage. We have a lot of stories worth telling and preserving.

I would like to congratulate everyone involved in this endeavour and to thank the Town of Torbay for hosting the ceremony for the launching of the Virtual Museum in Torbay.

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.

In 1993, the Governor General approved the creation of a Certificate of Commendation to be issued to those who made a significant contribution by providing assistance to another person in a selfless manner.

On September 23, 1999, Hurricane Gert struck Placentia Bay and caused major damage to the port of St. Bride's. During the hurricane that day, Patrick Barry jumped into the turbulent waters and high waves to save his father, Lar, from drowning. Anthony Barry, Thomas White and Albert Young assisted in getting Patrick and his father out of the water. For his part in the rescue, Patrick Barry has been awarded a Medal of Bravery that was presented last year at Ottawa by the Governor General.

Yesterday afternoon, during the annual Blessing of the Boats at the harbour in St. Bride's, Mayor Eugene Manning, on behalf of the Her Excellency the Right Honorable Adrienne Clarkson, presented Anthony Barry, Thomas White and Albert Young with a Certificate of Commendation. These awards were presented to these three fishermen on the recommendation of the Canadian Decorations Advisory Committee in recognition of their quick and decisive actions on the once-in-a-lifetime day on September 23, 1999.

In a letter to the recipients, they were informed that their selfless actions are an inspiration to others and represent a high form of citizenship of which they can be very proud.

The residents of St. Bride's are very proud of these men and their selfless action in risking their own lives to save another. It was a very happy occasion in the community yesterday, despite the rain, especially for the families of those involved.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me today in congratulating Anthony Barry, Thomas White and Albert Young on a job well done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, both myself and the Minister of Health and Community Services were pleased to recently attend the Stephen Awards Banquet in Stephenville; a banquet that recognizes the citizens of the Towns of Stephenville and Kippens.

I would like to congratulate Mr. Gerry Murphy of Stephenville who was named Citizen of the Year at the banquet. Mr. Murphy has contributed greatly to the community of Stephenville through his work with the local Chamber of Commerce, the Rotary Club, and he continues to be active and well-deserving of this honour.

Other winners at the banquet were: Nita Guron, named Youth of the Year; Ryne Hepditch was named Male Athlete of the Year; and Adrienne Oliver was named Female Athlete of the Year. Also, Mr. Speaker, a number of individuals, including: Melinda Alexander, Kay Brenton, Fred Cluett, Mary Forsey, Karen Gallant, Gary Gilliam, Austin Lane, Winnie Marshall, David Murphy, Noreen Murphy, Milicent Penton, Betty Rumbolt, Rosemary Ryan-Forsey, and Russell Tulk were also honoured for their outstanding volunteer work in the community.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all members of this House, I congratulate these individuals, along with the rest of the nominees for their contributions to the Stephenville-Kippens area.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer congratulations to the school community of All Hallows Elementary, North River, on their hosting of the Provincial Finals of the Great Canadian Geography Challenge on April 5 of this year.

This challenge began earlier in the year with classroom competitions throughout this Province where school winners earned the right to qualify for the provincial championship. The contest is designed to generate an interesting geography among school age children and to do so in a fun and interactive fashion.

Mr. Peter Laracy, the coordinator for the Provincial Challenge and Principal of All Hallows Elementary indicated, "While literacy development in the areas of math and language is important, the development of geographic literacy is essential in a world where modern technology provides students with access to the world at the click of a button... Students must have a keen understanding of the geographic and historical nature of their country and the world as a whole."

The winners of this competition - and I would certainly like to offer congratulations to Oliver Winstanley of Holy Trinity Elementary, Torbay, who captured top honours; Miss Christina Price, of McDonald Junior High, St. John's, who took second place; and Andrew Harvey of Mount Pearl Intermediate School, who finished in third place.

The winner joins thirty-five students from across Canada who will compete at the same time in this year's National Final via the Internet. All finalists will be linked to a secure environment on the Geography Challenge Web site where the competition will take place on Saturday, May 24.

The Challenge is organized nationally by the Canadian Council for Geographic Education with the help of hundreds of local teachers and volunteers.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of this Assembly will join with me in congratulating all the participants in the Geography Challenge and wishing the winner success in the upcoming national competition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, this morning we learned what the government strategy, and the Liberal Party's strategy really is to win the next general election. It is not about talking about rural revitalization. It is not about how we are going to grow revenues for the people of the Province. It is not about improving health care and education. It is not about improving municipal infrastructure in the Province. It is about one person. It is about the government honing in and strategizing to tear down the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier this question: Isn't it a fact that the strategies revealed this morning is nothing about improving services to the people of the Province but, in fact, represents you and the Liberal Party's view that the only way you can win the next election is by spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt about the Leader of the Opposition?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind hon. members again to direct their questions to the Chair, not to individual members.

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the record shows quite clearly that our strategy for Newfoundland and Labrador has been laid out over the last fourteen years but, most particularly, in the last two. Our strategy is to make definitive commitments in a whole range of areas, economic and social, and to keep the commitments.

Mr. Speaker, what the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador does, as a political organization, is not the work of the government. The government is focused on helping Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Believe me, I don't think the people of the Province need us to point out the abundant and ever increasing shortcomings of the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am glad to hear the Premier talk about that his government has laid out a plan. Let's talk about that plan exactly, or the lack of one, Mr. Speaker. Last week in the Legislature, in debate in this House, the record of Hansard clearly shows, and I can quote directly from it, when talked about when the issue of the deficit came up, the $666 million deficit, the Government House Leader said that we have a plan to reduce the deficit but we are going to reveal it in time. He did not reveal it then. He has not revealed it now and nor is he going to in time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask the Premier this question: Does he share the Government House Leader's assertion of not laying out a plan of how they are going to reduce the deficit, that they will reveal it in time? If he does, can he tell us when he will reveal that plan to reduce the deficit in Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure the people of the Province are very impressed today that the lead question by the Opposition House Leader is about speculation, about an election, with all the issues that we are trying to resolve on behalf of the people of the Province today. They are consumed by the whole notion and concept of an election to the point, Mr. Speaker, that they are even causing some difficulties for us in the work we are trying to get done for the people who are without EI extension, that some members opposite talked about this morning on Open Line programs - not worth raising a question in the Legislature about. The question in the Legislature is about what is going on with electioneering. We are not interested in electioneering, Mr. Speaker, we are interested in doing what is right for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the Premier's answer demonstrates clearly what the thrust of my questions are today. Last week in this House members opposite had talked about EI extension. Last week in this House members opposite had talked about licensed buyout and early retirement. The only person in this House who would like to see the Opposition not talk about it is the Premier. If the Premier believes that a deficit of $666 million, which his government will not reveal how they are going to deal with it, is not important to the people of the Province then he may think again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask him this question. The Member for Ferryland, the critic for Finance and Treasury Board, asked the Minister of Finance this question. The Minister of Finance has talked publicly that over the next four years this government is going to reduce the Budget by $300 million.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: She will not tell us where that is going to come from.

Let me ask the Premier this question: In reducing the Budget over the next four years, if you get the chance to do it, how do you plan to reduce it by $300 million? Will we see more layoffs in education? Will we see more layoffs in health care? Premier, tell us exactly what your plan is to reduce the Budget by $300 million?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

People of the Province do understand that we provide solid, straightforward solutions and a plan. We have indicated, and a large part of it is working - they do not like the news, unfortunately. I do not know why it is that the Opposition does not like good news.

Mr. Speaker, we will reduce the deficit by 25 per cent in the first year, by 50 per cent in the second year, by 75 per cent in the third year, and back in balance in the fourth year. By the way, Mr. Speaker, the bond rating agencies are so confident that they reaffirmed our A credit rating as a result of that in just the last few days.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, we might point out as well, it is the group opposite that always ask for more spending, even though there is already a deficit. They will probably be up again today with petitions looking for more money for roads, more money for health care, more money for education. In the meantime, they are suggesting they might be going to reduce and do away with all kinds of taxes. So, they are going to take in no money but spend a lot more, and they won't tell anybody what any of their plans are, Mr. Speaker, but our plans are certainly there. It is so confused that on an issue that is current in the Province today - the deficit issue, Mr. Speaker, is one that is under control and has reaffirmed an A credit rating -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - for the Province for the first time in seventeen years. That is how good the financial circumstance is.

On the issue of the day, the Opposition does not know if they are for changing the Terms of Union, for an administrative arrangement or for some kind of council -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - mentioned by the Premier of Manitoba. Their leader, Mr. Speaker, mentioned about ten different versions of what he might support in one five- minute interview with Don Newman just a few days ago.

They have to make up their minds what they stand for. We know what we stand for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier knows it is not true. We have been the party over time, including the last election, that advocated for constitutional change. I will say to the Premier: Welcome to the party, Premier, it is about time that you and the government got there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier this question. According to the strategy outlined this morning about the personal malicious attacks on the Leader of the Opposition, let me ask him this: Does he share the Member for Port de Grave's view, who said in this Legislature last week, are there any potential conflicts of interest in relation to the position that the Leader of the Opposition has taken on business holdings? Does he share the member's view, for example, when the member questioned whether he was in conflict or not? Finally, does he share the view of the Commissioner for Members' Interests, Mr. Wayne Green, an independent officer of this House, who has ruled, Mr. Speaker, that all members, including the Leader of the Opposition is in compliance?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Does the share the Member for Port de Grave's view, that report of the Commissioner for Members' Interests on all members, including the Leader of the Opposition, really is not worth the paper it is written on?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe, rather than chase after red herrings, like the Opposition House Leader is trying to do today, because they don't want to talk about the current issues in Newfoundland and Labrador - he suggests that their position was clear. Well, I might remind everybody, Mr. Speaker, that their leader, in his interview on this matter, as to whether or not he supports a change in the Terms of Union, in an interview with Mr. Newman on Friday evening, said: Of course, I support the issue. If we had been elected in 1999, it would already be implemented. However, I question the timing, it is pretty tricky, it might be Meech Lake all over again. Maybe we should do joint management. It is really an awareness issue. It is not about the Terms of Union. Perhaps we should have an administrative solution or a joint management council, suggested by the Premier of Manitoba, and we will certainly support it however it comes to the House, but we should not have a rigorous debate about it.

Now, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: What is that?

PREMIER GRIMES: What is that in terms of a position -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: - about the most dominant issue in Newfoundland and Labrador today? I am sure, at the rally that I will be attending in a few hours, they will be interested to know that the Official Opposition -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - did not want to talk about this issue today. They did not want to talk about EI extension. They did not want to talk about licence buyout. They did not want to talk about an older worker adjustment program. They did not want to talk about getting the decision reversed. They wanted to talk about red herrings, about an election that may or may not happen some time this year, Mr. Speaker. That is their only concern. They do not want to deal with the issues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The Premier should stayed tuned. There is only ten minutes gone in Question Period, and twenty left. You will have lots of opportunity to talk about what you have done or failed to do with respect to the issues that you just mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, my next question for the Premier is this: He talked about and he said, earlier in this House, that what the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador does and what the Liberal Party does are two different matters.

Not the question, Mr. Speaker, because today we find out that the Consumer Advocate, who is also Director of Candidate Recruitment for the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, is espousing a policy that the government is looking at seriously going towards.

We also know, Mr. Speaker, that a good friend of the Premier -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

We also know that a good friend of the Premier, Mr. Saunders, the Petroleum Price Commissioner, is also recruiting candidates.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask him this question: Isn't it a fact, Premier, that what you are doing with your own friends is politicizing institutions of government to ensure that you have a stronger hold on the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the kind of questioning that we have today is why I am the biggest proponent in Newfoundland and Labrador for fixed-term elections.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, there is no election ongoing in Newfoundland and Labrador. There is one in Manitoba. There is one in New Brunswick. There recently was one in Quebec. There will be one in Newfoundland and Labrador some time this year, and we should take the twenty-one days of the election and have a great debate about those political issues.

What the people of the Province are looking for, from all of us today, is some leadership as elected representatives about the issues of people today who cannot fish because the ice is there, who cannot get their EI extended either. They are not interested in who supports what party today. They are interested in the people who are elected today doing something on their behalf, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: And it shows, obviously, that the Official Opposition has no real concern for it. They are confused about their position on this issue, as they are with many, because they do not have a policy platform. They say they have one, but "trust me" is their real position. We will show you something some time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Well, when they were asked to show something about this issue on Friday, Mr. Speaker, their leader gave about fifteen different answers in about a five-minute interview, because they do not know what their position is on any item of importance to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in the Province today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I know members opposite, in particular the Premier, would like that to be so, but just because he says it is so does not make it so. The fact of the matter is that our party has been a long-standing party who has talked about constitutional amendment, who has talked about shared jurisdiction in the fishery, and we support that today.

What people want to know is - today in The Telegram it was reported and quoted by the Premier, for example, he says: We are going to talk to federal officials first and then determine if we are going to need a constitutional amendment.

So, it is not our position, Mr. Speaker, that needs to be cleared up. It is the Premier's position.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me ask him this question. The Premier accuses this party, and in particular our leader, about flip-flops. We have talked about the privatization of health care in the Province. In Corner Brook, he talked about a long-term health care facility, and what they are trying to do, yet today we see, and over the weekend, the government completely turning around on the issue where they were over two weeks ago about the private-public partnerships.

What people want to know, Premier, is this -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what the people what to know is this: Where does the Premier stand today? Is he for privatization of health care and private-public partnerships, or the complete reversal now? Is he on the side with what the Leader of the Opposition talked about, about no privatization of health care in Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I suggest to the Opposition House Leader, he will probably be back as Leader of the Opposition again some time soon, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: In any event, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that he should read the full story that was in The Telegram, because the commitment that I gave to the representatives of CUPE was this: that we would gladly have a meeting with them and make sure they fully understand our position before we proceed with a 3P proposal, a private-public partnering proposal, in Corner Brook because, Mr. Speaker, we never -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: - ever have been and are not for privatized health care. It is only a misrepresentation of our publicly funded health care proposal in Corner Brook that involves some private partners that is being put about the Province by the Official Opposition for political mischief purposes, Mr. Speaker, that is confusing the issue.

We are not for private health care, but we do believe in consulting with people and giving them a full opportunity to say their piece before we proceed with an Expression of Interest, or Request for Proposals, to put in place the much-needed long-term health care facilities in Corner Brook, Mr. Speaker, that I understand - maybe I am wrong again - the Opposition believes -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - we should put in place in Corner Brook.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, one final supplementary for the Premier.

Isn't it a fact that this misguided, unwarranted and unjustified attack strategy on the Leader of the Opposition reflects a desperation of a government trying to hold on to power? Is this strategy not really made up of the stuff that comes from the south end of a north flying goose?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a word used in the public in Newfoundland and Labrador in the last couple of weeks - usually used by the Leader of the Opposition - a word called desperation. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of desperation involved in a line of questioning that suggests that because someone stands up in a democratic society where we have freedom of speech and reminds somebody of what a person has said, that they would characterize that as an attack on a character.

A reminder in the public of what someone has said is not intended to be an attack on anyone. It is just exactly that: reminding someone what the publicly stated views of that person are. Others decide whether or not that constitutes any kind of a basis on which they can made a judgement about that person. We do not believe in attacking anyone. We believe in dealing with issues, doing things that are in the best interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, like trying to make sure we do something with the fishery issue today instead of spending the first twenty minutes of a Question Period talking about an election that will be called some time in the future, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my question today would be to the Minister of Human Resources and Employment or to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Obviously, I guess, they are both working on this file.

I wonder if either one of those ministers could give the people out there today - I am talking about fish plant workers and fishermen who are going through hardships, not being able to put bread and butter on the table - if they would give us an update today and tell those people if they can expect to see the EI rules and regulations extended so that they might collect benefits?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

As I said last week in the House, we have made representation to the federal government on this very serious issue. It is very serious to the fisherfolk involved. We have impressed upon the federal government how important this is to the fisherpeople of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, all of our federal MPs, on both sides of the House, are aware of this issue. They have made representation on behalf of the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador. I guess, Mr. Speaker, the only thing that I can say is that this is a prime example of how the federal government operates, how in tune they are with seasonal work here in Newfoundland and Labrador, especially in the fishing industry.

I am at a loss as to why the federal government has not responded. I guess it is the lack of knowledge of the central government, that thinks only of themselves -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: - when they live on a street corner in Toronto or Ottawa, that is all they see about the country.

Mr. Speaker, I believe, and I agree with the member opposite, that the time has come for the federal member to make a decision about a very, very critical issue in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we are asking for, I say to the minister, is not new. It was done in 1974 and it was done again in 1992.

Minister, your federal cousin, the minister in Ottawa, is talking about putting a package together, coming back and making another announcement. I say to the minister, the need is now. Those people cannot wait two weeks or three weeks to put a package together. Those people need funding now.

I ask the minister if he can give fishermen and fish plant workers any information today as to when they can expect to see this package, and what has he done as the minister responsible to make sure that this benefit is extended?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: As I said, Mr. Speaker, government has made representation to the federal minister on behalf of the fisherpersons of this Province. The question of when can we expect an answer, Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the federal government and I believe that most of us in this House, I would say all of us in this House, are beginning to believe that they cannot even speak for themselves.

MR. WALSH: I wish you could speak for them.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Yes, you are right. The hon. Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island says, I wish you could. I wish I could too, Mr. Speaker, because this is a very serious issue in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. These people need the help of the federal government. These people are responsible for EI. These people are responsible to control or to manage or to implement the program of EI that they have. Certainly goodness, Mr. Speaker, with all the fuss that has been on the go for the last few weeks about the problems with the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, certainly goodness, somebody in Ottawa would recognize that we need help down here for the fisherpersons of this Province.

MR. WALSH: And need it now.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, we need it now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Youth and Post-Secondary Education.

Mr. Speaker, this government has repeatedly and loudly, I might add, stated in this House, in the media, through Budget press releases, that tuition fees in this Province are indeed the lowest in the country, implying our students have the least amount of student debt. They have the most accessible and affordable post-secondary education in the country.

This same government, I would say, Mr. Speaker, are rather silent in admitting it was they, in their tenure of over fourteen years in office, that have forced increases in tuition well over 300 per cent.

In light of this, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to explain the different analysis presented in a recently released document, Missing Pieces III, which clearly ranked this Province fifth on the scale of tuition fees. Isn't this, Mr. Speaker, further truth that this government is not giving the people of this Province the full story, conveniently cherry-picking statistics to paint an inaccurate picture?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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 am delighted, after your third attempt this week and last week, you have asked this question. In fact, you have left out the very most important part of the Missing Pieces document. What they did say is that Newfoundland and Labrador has shown the most significant gains in post-secondary education across the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, despite the rhetoric that was brought forward by your colleague, the Member for Ferryland, we do have the lowest Canadian tuition in the country.

Mr. Speaker, we have made aggressive gains in our post-secondary education. What we are doing, as a government, is listening to young people. Young people are the users of the system, and we have made four cuts to our tuition. This September we will have the lowest -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, please!

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

MS THISTLE: - Canadian tuition right across the country, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This same report pointed out the hidden cost of post-secondary, namely user fees, which are not included in tuition rates, I say to the minister. These user fees, under the tenure of this government as well since 1993 have risen by 500 per cent and since 1998 by over 200 per cent! Doesn't this independent study show that while government claims to have lowered tuition modestly it has allowed user fees to go up dramatically, with the effect that students actually are paying more?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know where this member opposite is getting his information. He is definitely not getting it from the correct source. There are absolutely no user fees - absolutely no user fees. The student union dues - we have Canadian Federation of Students' fees, and we have Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Students' fees. The only fee there is, is $40 per semester and that is for the university's recreation complex Field House. There are no fees, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

Federal Fisheries Minister Thibault continues to talk co-management with the crabbers of Shippagan, New Brunswick, with respect to the prosecution of the crab fishery. Has the Premier yet been able to convince Minister Thibault, or even ACOA Minister Gerry Byrne, that co-management with the people of this Province is a good idea, starting with showing some respect for the recommendations of the all-party committee of this Legislature and the House of Commons?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure the people who are impacted throughout Newfoundland and Labrador are pleased to hear the thoughtful question about the fishery issue in the Province today.

Mr. Speaker, ever since the announcement was made just over two weeks ago, we have been in regular and repeated contact with several of the ministries of the government involved at the national level in Ottawa. The latest contacts were throughout the weekend when both I, personally, and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for Newfoundland and Labrador were in contact regularly and repeatedly with both Minister Thibault and Minister Byrne, our representative in the federal Cabinet. As a result of that, there are some actual face-to-face meetings occurring today because we did press the point, as the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi would point out, there is a negotiation occurring in New Brunswick with respect to crab quotas and co-management of their resource, and why wouldn't there be a negotiation with Newfoundland and Labrador about the cod quotas and the announcement that was made two weeks ago?

Again, what the outcome will be, I do not know. I know what our position is. We take the position that the decision taken should be reversed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: We think there should be EI extension. There should be licenced buyouts and there should be an early retirement program, along with the longer term incentives that we all need. Mr. Speaker, where the discussions will go, I do not know. I can report they are occurring today on a face-to-face basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Why should the issue of EI extensions be an issue of discussion with Minister Thibault and the Minister of Fisheries here? Isn't this something that the Government of Canada was quick to respond to - with the SARS issue in Toronto by changing the rules and regulations immediately. Can this government not get a response from the federal government on this issue totally separate from the idea of negotiations with Minister Thibault? Why is this government getting no response whatsoever from the Government of Canada on the issue of EI extension to date?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Those very questions, as well, are being asked by Newfoundland and Labrador based Members of Parliament in the House of Commons to the federal minister responsible, the Minister of Human Resources and Development Canada, because it is a mystery to all of us, as to why it is that a very timely response can be made to a serious issue - and rightfully so in Toronto - and we agree that the right decision was made for the right reasons. What no one in Newfoundland and Labrador can understand is why it is taking them so long.

The request, by the way - and it was acknowledged two weeks ago when we were in Ottawa - was made some three weeks before that. So they have had the request with respect to EI extensions in Newfoundland and Labrador before the Government of Canada, with the right people, for some five weeks. We are including the discussions with anyone who might support our cause, including Minister Thibault, Minister Byrne and everyone else. It is the direct purview of the Minister of Human Resources and Development Canada. We cannot understand why it is taking so long to make that decision when - as it was pointed out earlier today - there are precedents in Newfoundland and Labrador. Only the Government of Canada can answer for why it is we do not have that part of this particular issue dealt with and resolved to our satisfaction already.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in this House to present a petition on behalf of the community of Colliers. The prayer reads:

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 roads in the community of Colliers, especially Harbour Drive, have deteriorated to a point that the safety of motorists and pedestrians are being compromised; and

WHEREAS access to residences, businesses, churches, postal facilities, schools and recreation areas have been seriously affected; and

WHEREAS little, if any, maintenance and repairs are carried out on an annual basis;

WHEREFORE your petitions urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to make a commitment to include the upgrading of this road system in its annual capital disbursements for the upcoming fiscal year, as is in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by all the residents of this particular community. In looking at this particular stretch of road, especially the Harbour Drive, I just want to draw attention to the House that it is in a deplorable state of disrepair. There have been some attempts down through the years to patch it up, I guess, but have been unsuccessful. It is at a point right now where the safety of the travelling public is at risk. Travelling over this road - and this is the main artery in this particular community. It is a very important artery because it connects all aspects of the community. It is a road that needs to be used by school buses, by response vehicles, such as ambulances or fire trucks. The various vehicles that are necessary to carry out the business of that community are having difficulty in navigating this particular road.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of senior citizens have their residences on this road as well. They, in particular, find it very difficult to have access to the services around them. The point is that the community is quite willing to see the government partway on this endeavour. They have been petitioning government now for a number of years to bring this road up to a standard which they would then be able to, I suppose, take their own responsibility for that road. It is absolutely necessary that this road be looked at, that it be taken into consideration in this year. It cannot go on any further, the road has to be repaired.

I would ask this House to do everything it can to push this petition forward and to have it actioned.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition containing between 2,800 and 3,000 names from residents all across Labrador, from almost every community. I will read out the preamble of the prayer:

That due to the lack of availability of medical services in Labrador, residents of Labrador are forced to travel to the Island portion of the Province to access health care services, particularly when it deals with; and

That commercial airline flights between Labrador and the Island have been reduced such that it is difficult to book flights, and the cost of travel between Labrador and the Island is extremely expensive; and

That financial assistance made available to residents through the medical transportation assistance program in our Province is inadequate for residents of Labrador due to the extreme costs;

THEREFORE your petitioners call upon parliament to increase health care funding to the provinces and territories so that adequate and appropriate funding is available to residents of Labrador to offset the high cost of commercial air travel from Labrador to the Island.

Mr. Speaker, this deals with a very serious matter. On Friday of this week I put out a press release notifying the public and the media that I would be presenting this petition in the House of Assembly today.

Mr. Speaker, there is a program in place but it falls far short of what is needed or what is reasonable. I will just give you one example, Mr. Speaker. This, by the way, Mr. Speaker, is using a very modest rate and it is restricted strictly to the patient involved, not any other family members who have to travel. If you take into consideration air fares and if you look at the amount that is allowed to be claimed for living accommodations and the amount that is allowed for meals, if you take all of that into consideration, if a person had to stay in the St. John's area for month, which is not uncommon, it is quite frequent, the total cost, minimum, would be $5,500 of which only $1,000 would be reimbursed.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that government play a greater role in assisting the people who live in remote and isolated communities of our Province, play a greater role in allowing them access to health care. This is a classic example, Mr. Speaker, where, depending on where you live, your quality of health care is totally dependent upon your ability to pay. There are many people who live in Labrador who do not have benefit packages that provide for travel. There are many people who work there making ten, twelve, fourteen dollars an hour, and when they are faced with something like this it is impossible. I know of cases where people have told me that they would not be able to travel simply because they could not afford to.

I know of many other cases, Mr. Speaker, where people -

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?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: I know of other cases, Mr. Speaker, many other cases, where I and other people have become involved in raising money in our communities so that people could afford to travel to this area to receive medical treatment. Mr. Speaker, I don't believe for a minute that people in this Province should have to depend upon the generosity of their friends and neighbors or organizations within their community to make sure that they are able to access adequate health care.

We are calling upon this government, Mr. Speaker, to improve the transportation assistance program, to remove the cap that is presently in place that limits what a person can receive in the form of a rebate, to increase the allowable expenses. Where, I ask government, can you find a hotel room in this city for seventy-five dollars a night? That is not reasonable, Mr. Speaker. The hostel at the Health Science Centre is pretty well full all the time. People are not able to get in there when they need to on many occasions. Where, I ask this government, can a person live on fourteen dollars and fifteen cents a day when it comes to meals with a monthly cap of $650.

I don't when this program was implemented. Maybe the rates are reflective of the conditions at that time, but they certainly fall short now, Mr. Speaker. This government has to do something to this plan that will increase what a person is able to receive in order to access health care.

I would like to point out to government, as well: All of this subsidy, Mr. Speaker, is presumed on the basis that a person has the money up front to pay and get reimbursed later. On many occasions that is not the case, that is not the situation, for a lot of people who live in remote areas of our Province and work each and every day for a living.

I am asking government to review this policy, to increase the amount of subsidy that is provided, particularly as it applies to the rebates and the deductible of $500, to erase all of that and give people a chance to access health care in the same way, in the same manner, and no more out of pocket than somebody who lives in near proximity to the major health centres in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. LUSH: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if members would permit me to go back to Notices of Motion, that came down a little fast. It is the Notice of Motion that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. tomorrow, nor at 10:00 p.m.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it agreed that we revert to Notices of Motion?

AN HON. MEMBER: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreed.

The hon. minister, I think, has given the notice.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) given notice, Mr. Speaker, the motion.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, before calling the particular business of the day, I would like to move first reading of Motions 4 through 8, inclusive. That is, Bills 13, 12, 11, 14 and 10.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000," carried. (Bill 12)

On motion, Bill 12 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands to introduce the following bills, carried:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act." (Bill 11)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Corporations Act." (Bill 14)

On motion, Bills 11 and 14 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Expropriation Act," carried. (Bill 10)

On motion, Bill 10 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, also we ask first reading of Motion 4, Bill 13.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, "An Act To Create A Pension Plan For Provincial Court Judges," carried. (Bill 13)

Motion, Bill 13 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Order 3, debating the Concurrence Motion - the Social Services Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 3.

The hon. the Member for Gander.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to start the debate on the Estimates of the Social Services Committee. It was my pleasure to Chair this Committee for the last month or so, and I thank my colleagues on both sides of the House for their hard work and their diligence on the conclusion of the Committee's work that we are now starting the debate on today. There were some very interesting questions over the weeks leading up to the conclusion of our work that, I have to say, led to some very interesting discussions in the Committee.

The five committees that are covered under the Social Services Committee are, the Department of Education, the Department of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education, the Department of Human Resources and Employment, the Department of Health and Community Services, the Department of Labour, and the Department of Justice.

I just wanted to make some brief comments on each of these departments and some of the points that came out through the Estimates Committee. I think, in particular, that several departments' work, and their analysis of what has been done over the past year or so, is very important for the public of the Province to hear.

As many people would know, the mandate of the department - I would like to start with Human Resources and Employment - is to assist people, really, in helping to find employment in our Province. I have to say that, as a government, we are very proud of the fact that right now in our Province - and it has been true for more than a year now, for several years - we have had the highest employment levels ever in our history, the highest number of people working at any time since Confederation. Of course, part of the mandate of the Department of Human Resources and Employment is to make sure that people who are receiving social assistance have dignified income support for all of those who are in need in our Province. We are very happy to say that those numbers are decreasing on a year-over-year basis for several years now. Of course, most of that is because, as a Province, our economy is moving ahead and, because of that, more jobs are being created.

I think one of the main highlights that has happened in the Department of Human Resources and Employment in this past year that we were all so very, very pleased about was the passage of the Income and Employment Support Act that was passed in this Legislature just this past December. We all knew that there was a lot of work to be done before that could be done. There were consultations around the Province, and the staff of that department really worked hard over the last few years to ensure that this bill was the best that it could be, and outlining the circumstances that we are in our Province now, and what we are able to do, and the improvements that we were able to make. I think this was the first time that this bill has been renewed since 1977, so it was well over thirty years and well needed to be done. I know that this act now is a great tool for the staff of the Department of Human Resources and Employment to be able to help clients even more in our Province.

One of the pieces that I was very pleased to be a part of in the past two years, in my previous role as the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, was the work that we did with Human Resources and Employment to help individuals who are victims of violence. I have to say the work that has been done by this department is some of the best that has been occurring anywhere in the country, and that we are very pleased as a government to be able to have implemented many of the recommendations of the working group for victims of violence, which were brought to the department in February of 2002.

These measures specifically that were acted upon by the Department of Human Resources and Employment were to help people who are receiving income support and to be responsive in particular to their unique and sometimes very urgent needs. I remember very clearly one of the items brought forward in the public consultation was the fact that if a woman, for instance, happened to be a victim of violence and needed to get to a safe house, to one of our transition houses, under the old rules it was possible that you could call for help and that the person at the transition house, sometimes their hands would be tied. They would not be able to say, yes, we have the ability to pay for your transportation to get you to these safe circumstances in a transition house. So, the new rules that were put in place were enacted so that anyone who is receiving income support, or anyone who is in urgent need, the ability is there to deal with it immediately and then the next day to get things straightened out so that the bills are all properly paid, so that the transition houses have the ability to help anyone in need who calls and that no one will be denied the safety of a transition house because of lack of financial resources.

Of course, the Department of Human Resources and Employment, we heard a lot about their commitment for people who are living with a disability, that the supported employment programs continue to be important. The community-based employment assistance program, that provides the necessary supports for adults with developmental disabilities to participate in employment.

The 2002-2003 budget for this program this year is $3.12 million, and that really was to respond to the increasing demand on this program last year. I know that an extra $300,000 had to be put into that budget to help provide the supports for persons with disabilities. This year they are saying they will now provide that enhanced support, the regular-based budget, but also to include the extra $300,000 which was required towards the end of the fiscal year last year in order to meet the demands there.

I know we were very pleased to hear of the success of the program that we partner very well with. While many times we are often complaining about our relationship with the federal government, we know that the National Child Benefit Program continues to be a very successful program, which we partner very closely with the federal government on. We know that over the years it has been very successful in this Province in that many needy families are being greatly assisted by it. For the past two years this government has reinvested the savings that are resulting from demographic changes in this program back right into the program.

For the coming year, I believe there was an extra $250,000 the minister described as being extra money that is available. All of this has been reinvested into a small increase for families in the rate structure. While it is only $215,000, the point is being made here today that any money which can be reinvested from the National Child Benefit Program into the pockets of needy families, it is being done. At every opportunity, since 1999, we have been doing this. When combined with the increase in the federal child benefits, families in our Province now will receive a combined child benefit of approximately $2,848 annually for the first child and that will be effective July 1, 2003. So that is a very significant amount of money for a low-income family to be receiving to assist them in rearing their children.

For example, a low-income family with two children received a total of $2,040 annually in 1997 in child benefits. By July of this year, just a little over a month away, this family will now be entitled to $5,583 on an annual basis. That is very significant, to go to a little over $2,000 to well over $5,000. That is more than $3,500 difference for each family since 1997. That is very significant when you trying to feed your children properly and clothe them, and to make sure they have all of the opportunities that they can have to have a good education and to make their way in life.

The Budget this year also provided for an allocation of $500,000 to the Kids Eat Smart Foundation. It was just last week actually we were very pleased, as MHAs on both sides of the House, to be working with the poster program that the Kids Eat Smart Foundation had. I was really pleased that the school from my district, Gander Academy, had won for our particular school district. I will be bringing that poster back - after it has been displayed here for the next month - to the District of Gander to be proudly displayed there through the summer. I have to say, the money that the Kids Eat Smart program invest in schools and in children in our Province is so very, very important.

I have two really excellent programs in my district. At Gander Academy they have a breakfast program that is running really well with volunteers from our community. In the community of Glenwood and Appleton, at Lakewood Academy, they have an excellent snack program that they serve at recess time in the mornings. It is one of the best programs that I have ever seen. In both schools they have extraordinary support from the community, whether it be church groups or individuals, or local Lions Clubs, rotary clubs and fire halls. They all really do help with these programs because we all know that children need nutritious food to be healthy in order to grow and to learn. I am really proud of the growth of this program and how much it is helping the children in our Province.

I think we have probably one of the best programs in all of Canada when you consider the challenges in this Province. To see the way many communities and schools have realized that in some cases, in the larger centres, it is much easier to get donations and to get volunteers, to have facilities in schools and the wherewithal to start school lunch programs. I have seen some extraordinary examples as I have travelled around this Province over the last few years of very isolated communities, and communities that really need these programs, which have very innovative solutions that have been put forward for programs to help children both grow and learn.

I also know - as the minister was pointing out at the Estimates Committee - that this coming fiscal year we will be adding five social worker positions to the current fifteen social workers in our Province that are delivering the support application programs. This will make sure that the required social work supports are available to parents in their efforts to secure spousal or child support. I know this is another program that, as a government, we are very proud of. We have been able, in the past few years, to sign agreements with other provinces to make sure that parents who are working away from the Province, and in some cases have not kept up their spousal support, that we are able now to track them with the partnership agreements we have signed with other provinces to make sure that the children - either the mother or father who are left here in this Province are receiving the spousal support that they deserve so that the children can have the appropriate food and all of the shelter requirements and learning requirements supported that anyone who has children would recognize are so very, very necessary.

We also know that the department this year is starting a new computerized pay system. While you might think all of that is just a bureaucratic technical thing, it is very, very important in the department. It will be started as a pilot project on the West Coast of the Province this summer. We know that by putting these systems in place it is very good for the clients of the Department of Human Resources and Employment but it is also very important in freeing up staff to do more important work. So the more we can use technology to do the tedious work of applications and everything, and to put the pay systems in place, we know that this leaves the workers to work with the clients who so much need their support.

As I pointed out, social assistance caseloads have continued to decline in our Province. We hope that because of the progressive initiatives we, as a government, have been able to put in place, that we will be able to accomplish our goals ensuring that the economic and social needs of low-income families and individuals in our Province are met and that the department will be able to continue to grow the levels of employment in this Province.

It is predicted that, again this year, levels of employment will grow as our economy continues to grow. It is our hope that everyone who wants a job in the next few years will be able to receive a job. I think it is really important that between departments - like Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education and Human Resources and Employment - the training needs are there for everyone who is able to go to work and wants to go to work, that they are able to do it. It is also important to recognize that people at many times in stages in their lives may have requirements where they are unable to work and it is so important that we have the supports in this department to be able to address their everyday needs in a dignified manner.

Also, Madam Speaker, I was really impressed with the Department of Health and Community Services, with the estimates and with the discussion that took place. I know we went a little bit over time - not too much on that - but there were some really interesting discussions through that department's estimates as they were being presented. I know they have had a really challenging year with the doctors' strike which went to binding arbitration. Now the report has been presented and, I believe, they are now setting the stage of implementing the report of the binding arbitration proceedings.

I think a lot of people in our Province do not recognize, and I think it is well worth the time to spend just a few minutes talking about the department's budget for the past few years. For this year it is $1.6 billion. That is a lot of money for a little over half-a-million people. It is one of the sources of pride for us, that in spite of the fiscal challenges we have as a government we spend well above the average amount of expenditure per capita than most provinces in our country do.

This year the Budget has gone up, yet again, $71 million. I know when I first joined government in 1996 - and I well remember the terrible, fiscal circumstances of our Province at that time. I remember going through the program review process and how hard it was on government departments all over the government. It was very, very difficult but I remember - all of us, especially some of us who were new to the political arena - very well going through and knowing that at the end of the program review process we could not cut a cent in the Department of Health and Community Services. Health care is such an important need. Really, without your health - even education and your job and almost anything that you do is not possible unless you have the highest degree of health possible in your own personal circumstances.

I remember very well how hard it was to find the budget, to balance the budget in other departments so that we could not cut a cent out of the Department of Health and Community Services. Every year we have managed increases. It has been challenges. I know how hard it is for every board of every hospital structure in our Province - how hard it has been for them but we have tried so very hard to support them. We are finally seeing now that some of the boards are in a better fiscal position; that they are able this year to actually balance their budgets. We know that we still have some boards who are in very difficult fiscal circumstances, but we are finding that we are able to help them.

I know that we need to thank our boards more for all that they do to make sure that our people receive the best health care possible. We know that this year we have put more than $600 million into health related capital projects and equipment. I am very pleased that part of that, and over the past few years, of course, a total of $69 million will go into my district in the hospital expansion that is there, and just now in a few weeks we will be opening the expansion and starting the work on remediating the asbestos and other big problems that are in the present day structure. It is going to take some time to get that finished, because it is very tedious work. All of the health care foundations, you know, we have been able to match the funding for them as they have been out fundraising for various pieces of capital equipment. I have to commend them for the work that they have done over this past few years. I know that last year, in this past year, $26 million is being committed for capital equipment, and that includes another MRI for our Province where we know there is a great deal of debate going on now to look at whether that MRI should be stationary or mobile.

Of course, many of us feel that a mobile MRI, as the second MRI for our Province, is a very worthwhile thing to do, because we know that in the other regions outside of the Avalon how difficult and how very expensive it is for many people to get to these services. I know, also, we need a plan for future MRIs in our Province. I know that the mobile MRIs work so well in New Brunswick, that the first MRI they had was a mobile MRI. Now, as they have been able to afford it, and the numbers of clients who need it, they have been putting it in the larger areas and then moving the mobile one into the more remote or into the northern areas.

Our hope is that we will have a plan like that, that will show the people of this Province that these much needed health care services will be available to them at least somewhat closer to where they live. I do not think we will ever see the day when we will have MRIs in every single nook and cranny of our Province, but it sure helps when you do not have to travel more than a day to get to such a much needed service.

Also, this year there is $1.3 million to increase rates to personal care homes, and the number of subsidies that are provided for individuals. That also, as the MHA for Gander district, I was really pleased to see because we so badly over the last few years, especially since Gander has become a retirement haven for many seniors in our Province, we needed a personal care home and there is one in the process of being built right now that should be open by the end of September. All of this is good news, not just for my district but for all of us, no matter which side of the House you sit on, all of this will be of benefit to the people of our Province no matter where they live.

I also know that money has been provided for the drug prescription program. This year we will be spending about $100 million on the drug prescription program, and we know that a lot more money we would like to be able to spend.

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

The hon. member's time is up.

MS KELLY: My time is up?

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It is my pleasure today to be able to make a few comments during this Concurrence debate on the departments under the heading of Social Services.

Before I make some of my own comments, I just want to respond to some of the points that have been raised by the Member for Gander when she talks about - because, as Chair of the Committee, she summarized some of the significant points that came out during those discussions. I thank her for that summation. I just want to highlight a couple of points that she did make.

Firstly, she talks about the amount of investment that this Province has made into creating employment opportunities for persons with disabilities. It is ironic that she stands in this House today and makes such comments, complimenting government on the tremendous work that they have done in this area, when it was in fact just last week, last Friday and Saturday, that many employment corporations around the Province, run by volunteers, I might add, Madam Speaker, many of these organizations are run by volunteers, had their annual meeting and conference where they sat together and talked about some of the challenges that they are facing. What they are saying to us, what they are saying to the people of the Province, is they have many clients, in fact, who have found, have been able to find, employment. They have been able to identify employers who want to provide employment opportunities for persons with disabilities. They have been able to provide and identify coaches, trainers, who will work with some of these individuals and help them make that transition into the workplace, but there is one fundamental obstacle, and that is finding financial support from this government to be able to do it.

In my own district, the Employment Corporation, the Ability Employment Corporation there, asked for some $49 million to provide employment opportunities for some twenty people, some twenty individuals with disabilities.

AN HON. MEMBER: Forty-nine million?

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Forty-nine thousand. I thank the member for correcting me, $49,000. Not a lot of money now, but it was going to create employment opportunities for some twenty-odd people with disabilities. When they finally got the approval, it represented 18 per cent of the amount that they requested.

Over the last couple of weeks, Madam Speaker, I have had half-a-dozen phone calls - not just from my own district but other districts of the Province - talking about this very same issue. Many people with disabilities this year are not going to find employment opportunities because of lack of funding.

Earlier in this sitting we had the minister, I guess, table for the House, a copy of the strategic social audit. I just want to read something for the House. It says, "...about 60% of persons aged 15 to 64 with disabilities were not in the labour force...". It goes on to say that only 27 per cent of persons with disabilities are actually in the labour force. That is in government's own strategic social audit, which is intended to profile the Province as we are right now, today, measuring on a variety of factors.

When you consider, Madam Speaker, that there is only 27 per cent of the persons with disabilities in this Province who are actually employed, and I listened to the Member for Gander stand and talk about the tremendous work this government is doing in providing the necessary funding to provide employment opportunities for persons with disabilities, I say, from the government's own publicized record, the strategic planning audit, it reflects a dismal failure and it reflects a government who has not responded to the challenges associated with people with disabilities as they try to move into the workforce.

The other point that I think bears some mentioning, and we hear this a lot, we have had the Minister of Health and Community Services stand and boast about the tremendous investment that this government is making into our health system, I acknowledge that $1.6 billion is, in fact, a lot of money, and it does represent a significant portion of the Province's budget. I acknowledge that. I think it is reasonable that we should spend a large chunk of our provincial budget in the area of health services.

One of the things that I have to challenge is, when someone stands in the House and boasts about the fact that, as a Province, we spend a higher per capita amount on health than many other provinces in the country. In fact, it has been suggested that we are among the highest. What has been happening here, if you look at the factors, what do you consider when you do the math and calculate per capita spending: number one, you would consider the amount of money you are spending on the one hand, and on the other hand you would consider the number of people in the Province. So, mathematically, it is not a great deal of work to figure that one out. What has been happening in this Province, we have had such a rapid decline in our population, what we are finding is that our younger, healthier people are actually leaving the Province. That is one of the numbers that we are going to count in doing that calculation.

The second thing that is happening is, our health care costs are rising. Some of that is increasing because of inflation. It is pretty natural. We understand that. The other significant point is, what we are left with in the Province as a percentage of our population, the percentage of the elderly in this Province, as a percentage of the total population, is increasing more rapidly. So what we have, we have a significant increase in the number of people who are demanding greater levels of health services and a reduction in the number of people who have, or access health services very little. It is no wonder, Madam Speaker, that the per capita investment in health services in this Provinces is increasing, and so it should, but it is not a statistic that we should stand in this House, or out on the street corner, and brag and boast about, because it is not a positive commentary about where we are headed in this Province. So, as a member stands and makes those comments, I think it is important to put them in perspective.

One of the other things she talks about is the tremendous work that health boards are doing in balancing their budgets, and I acknowledge that health boards are, in fact, doing a great job in providing health services. Whether or not they are doing a great job in balancing their budgets, I have to bring into question.

When we went through the Budget Debates in this House, and when we went through the committees as we talked about the department budgets, one of the significant points that came up was that health boards in the Province today still have an accumulated deficit somewhere in the range of $98 million or $99 million. What is more startling, Madam Speaker, is that there is no strategy for debt reduction. When I asked the minister during that period, could he share with us his plans and the board's plans for debt reduction over what period, what would be the cash flow requirements to be able to eliminate the deficit, what I found - and this is frightening - is that there is no strategy today to reduce that debt over any reasonable period of time. We are leaving it to chance. We are leaving it to each individual health board to try to free up enough money to be able to run their day-to-day operations while, at the same time, come up with enough money to reduce their debt.

One of the examples was that the Health Care Corporation last year had a surplus, and because of that surplus they were able to apply that surplus to reducing their accumulated deficit, and that is admirable, but you have to ask yourself, Madam Speaker: How does a health board reduce its operating cost to create a surplus?

It is a fair question, and I am certain that some of it was as a result of prudent management decisions, and I commend the management and the staff of the Health Care Corporation for those types of decisions, but I have to acknowledge, and the minister, I think, should acknowledge as well, that much of those savings came about as a result of reduction in service. Any time you see significant increases in wait lists, then what is happening? We are not responding to the demand. We are not responding to the increased pressures for services in certain areas.

When I hear cardiovascular surgeons say: We do not do electives anymore. Everything that we do here is on an emergency basis because we are under such tremendous pressure, we have not been able to do this in a planned fashion. We do not have the resources to be able to do it. Our OR time has been cut. Our budgets have been cut. Our nursing staff has been cut. It is no wonder that they have a surplus. We have created long wait lists in many service areas and it is as a result of that long wait list because we are not spending the money. We are not spending the money, and I suggest that is short-sightedness.

We may, in fact, for a year or two, be able to save enough money to allow someone to make a reduction in an accumulated deficit, but as soon as you put in place a mechanism where you are providing emergency service only, then you are not dealing with the real issue, because that is going to come back to cripple you after awhile. What that is going to do to you, I suggest, Madam Speaker, is that what may be elective today is going to become an emergency tomorrow, so our health system will always be in crisis, responding to emergencies only and very little proactive response.

I look at government's Budget this year, and I look under the heading of health services and it talks about the key priorities. It says here that the key priorities for this year are strategies for wellness, strategies for mental health, and strategies for long-term care and supportive services.

I just want to pick a couple of those. The first one I will pick is the area of long-term care. When I see a government produce a document that says: One of our priorities is long-term care services. I started looking then at the profile of this Province and saying to ourselves: How many people are out there today, Madam Speaker, on a wait list to get into a nursing home? How many people are out there today on a wait list for home support services? What is the state of our personal care home sector of this Province? That is where the question becomes much more startling. It is great to see it on paper, that it is an objective and a strategy for the coming year, but we have to ask ourselves: Where is the commitment?

I look at my own district. In fact, tonight, the Premier, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Minister of Labour have all been invited, together with my colleague for Bonavista South, to join with a group of people in Clarenville to talk about long-term care services in that area. More precisely, Madam Speaker, to talk about the commitment that this government made to build a nursing home in Clarenville back in 2001, but has not actioned that commitment; provided lip service to it only. That is the discussion that is going to take place in my own district tonight. Last week, I attended a discussion in Corner Brook to talk about nursing home services in that region of the Province. Again, an unmet need.

Health systems don't go into crisis overnight. This government has been in place now for fifteen years. What we are experiencing today, in 2003, is an accumulation. The problems we have today are a reflection of what has happened in the past. Had we, as a Province, developed a long-term strategy for where we wanted to take the health system five or ten years ago, many of the issues that we are dealing with here today would not be a problem.

Let me give you one good example. Tonight, I said, we are going to be talking about a commitment made to long-term care in Clarenville to build a nursing home there of forty-four beds. That was announced in the 2001 Budget. Allocation to put some money into some design work, re-announced in 2002. Here we are in 2003, and still no action, still waiting. The wait list is getting longer; the pressure points become greater.

One of the projects going to be carried out this year is to start the construction of a nursing home in Grand Bank. I just, out of curiosity, tried to trace the history of that particular facility. Madam Speaker, that is a district that neighbours yours. Many of the residents of your district, I am certain, will take advantage of that new facility. One of the things I found, when I went back through the Budget documents and the commitments that this government has made, I picked up the Budget document and in 1989 there was a bold announcement, just like there was in 2001 for Clarenville. In 1989, this same government made a commitment to build a nursing home in Grand Bank. I picked up the Budget for the next budget year, 1999 - a re-announcement of the exact same nursing home. I knew that nothing had started, so I picked up the Budget for the year 2000 - the same announcement for the same home. In 2001, the same announcement for the same home. In 2002, the same announcement for the same home. Here we are in 2003, five years later, an announcement that it is actually going to start. As I understand, some money has been allocated to call tenders to actually start the construction.

Madam Speaker, what we have here is a history. The Member for Gander stood and talked about the renovations to the Gander hospital. It was - what? - eight, ten years ago. Ten years ago you could drive by on the Trans Canada in Gander and see steel being erected to expand the hospital. What are we doing here now in 2003? Still talking about it. We are going to open the new section sometime soon and we are going to get around to and we are going to start, sometime in the future, the renovations to the old existing part. This was to be a condensed project, a three or four year project starting ten years ago. Here we are today still not finished.

I say to this government, Madam Chair: When you stand and boast about your commitment to long term care and then you stand here and see it is one of the priorities in 2003 - this was an issue that obviously needed to be responded to five and ten years ago. Today it is finally a priority. Today it is a crisis. It is more than a priority, it is a crisis. It has become a crisis because of inaction over the last ten to fifteen years.

I say to this government, Madam Chair: If you are going to establish something as a priority and you are going to make a commitment - and this is important. Any time a government stands in this House or delivers a budget and says it is prepared to make a commitment, like the commitment they made to the people of Clarenville in 2001 - they made a commitment to build a nursing home and tonight many of the people in this House have been invited to come out and say why it is not being done or to tell the people when it is going to be done. Unfortunately, Madam Chair, I under the Minister of Health and Community Services has indicated that he won't be available. I understand that the Premier has indicated he won't be available. I understand that the Member for Bellevue, and the Minister of Labour, has indicated he won't be available, as has the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

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

The hon. member just indicated that the Member for Bellevue and the Minister of Labour wouldn't be available for a meeting in Clarenville tonight. I just want to let people know that the House of Assembly is open tonight. If they want to have a meeting, I suggest that they have it some other night other than a night when the House of Assembly is open.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: That is typical of this government, in that, we will only talk about it on our terms and when we are ready. When it is convenient for the people who are impacted, they are not available, they are not prepared to come out and meet with them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: That is typical of the attitude and typical of the response. It is convenient for the people -

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Labour, on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: This member has been a member of this House of Assembly for fourteen years and I am not sitting here today listening to the hon. Member for Trinity North suggest that I am not out there representing my constituents. I made my commitment to the people of Bellevue District to represent them and to trust me in that my judgement would be in their best interests. The hon. Member for Trinity North, I must regret, offered himself, saying, trust me, but crossed the floor and forgot about chronic care in Clarenville many, many months ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The House recognizes the hon. Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

To the point of order, Madam Speaker. I made a commitment to the people of Trinity North that I would represent their interest, and their interest is very clear. One mandate that I have is to represent their interest. That is just exactly what I have done in the last three years and will continue to do after the next election -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: - to represent their interests in this House of Assembly on issues that are important to them. So I say to the Member for Bellevue, do not stand in this House and preach to me about your commitment to your district because many people in your district have been saying that this nursing home is equally as important to them as it is to the people in Terra Nova, Bonavista South, and Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: That is the interest I represent here and that is the commitment I made three years ago and it will be apart of my commitment in the upcoming general election to continue to represent them on the issues that are important to them and on issues that are in their best interests. I will continue to do that, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Now, before the Member for Bellevue threw me off my trend I was talking about commitment and commitment to health services; commitment to the people of this Province.

Let me look at one other issue, and this is an important point. I raised this the other day in Question Period. This government says it has a commitment and one of its priorities is to mental health services. We heard that a year ago. We heard it two years ago. In fact, in 2001 this government produced a report called: Valuing Mental Health. It is a framework to develop a mental health strategy for the Province.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: By leave?

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I don't have leave. They really do not want to hear the truth, obviously.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Speaker, I want to move the motion that I gave notice of on Thursday, I think it was, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. nor at 10:00 p.m.

MADAM SPEAKER: It has been moved that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. or at 10:00 p.m.

All in favour of the motion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM SPEAKER: Against?

Motion carried.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in the House this afternoon to engage in the concurrent debate, especially as it relates to my department. As we have heard, the hon. Member for Gander in her remarks referenced the ongoing commitment that this government has to health care. In this year's Budget we have committed some $1.6 billion towards health care. Again, Madam Speaker, representing in the area of some forty-five cents of every program dollar going into health care in this Province. I think that speaks volumes for the importance we accord to health care and all the various health care issues.

Madam Speaker, having said that, I think we do have to acknowledge that even at that level there are still concerns out there. There are still demands that I receive on a regular basis which we have difficulty in meeting. It is interesting, Madam Speaker, one day in this House we will hear Opposition members rise in their places and condemn government for their handling of the finances; that we are not spending appropriately; that we are overspending; that we are running deficits. Yet, day after day we hear hon. members rise and suggest that we need to be spending more money. Well, there is something wrong here, Madam Speaker. I suggest that you cannot, on the one hand, rise and say: You are spending too much. Then, in the very next breath, say: Oh, by the way, I need this. I need that. I need the other thing. All of us understand, in terms of the demands our constituents have.

I do not criticize any hon. member for coming to this House and representing the concerns of their members because the concerns are there and they operate on a number of levels. I recognize, as the Minister of Health and Community Services, that many of the things we cannot do in the areas of our roads and highways, in the area of municipal infrastructure - that capability, that capacity, is not there because those monies have been directed towards health care for the people of this Province. On a regular basis, as said to us, health care is the number one priority. Madam Speaker, there is no question. Anyone looking at this year's budget document can see quite readily that this government is not failing on its commitment to the people of this Province. It has delivered, again, a budget which speaks in volumes to the importance that they accord to health care. All of the monies that are committed here in the area of diagnostic equipment, infrastructure, all of these things are intended to enhance the delivery of health care in this Province.

Madam Speaker, just referencing a few of the things that are contained in the Budget. The hon. member opposite, in his comments, just referenced long-term care. Indeed, long-term care has become a very energized debate in this Province over the last number of months. I have had the opportunity, as I reported to this House previously, to travel the Province to meet with groups in the various areas, and to see firsthand the needs that are there. There is no question, the needs are there. They are serious. They are time sensitive in that we want to try to move on these as quickly as we can.

I visited facilities in Corner Brook, Conception Bay North and here in St. John's. In all of these areas the needs are very serious. I have also had occasion to visit the site in Clarenville where the group is meeting tonight. I met them some time ago. Last year we did commit some money to begin the planning but unfortunately - as I have told them when I met with officials some time ago - in this year's Budget, as part of our difficult budgetary process, we were not in a position to commit additional monies beyond the $500,000 which is presently being expended to move that project forward to the next level.

I understand there is a public meeting there tonight. I am sure the people will make their views known very clearly. I am pleased to hear the Member for Trinity North mention that his colleague from Bonavista South is going to be there with him. I am sure that the Member for Bonavista South will give him a lot of support this evening in terms of the issue in Clarenville. I comment the Member for Bonavista South for going to the meeting this evening and showing his support for the Member for Trinity North. As I said in my letter to the organizing group, I look forward to getting a full report on the proceedings and keeping informed as to what is happening on the ground.

Madam Speaker, in this year's Budget there are a couple of things that probably needs some attention from the minister. One of these I started to speak to the other day, and that is with regard to the provision of MRI services. We have recognized in this Province for some time that at the present time our capacity and our capability to deliver that very important diagnostic service is limited. We had a consultant study that was done some time ago that made recommendations to government. Madam Speaker, we also recognize and understand that, while it is an important service, it is also an expensive piece of equipment. Right now, the estimate is somewhere in the area of $3.8 million to $4 million per machine. If you are getting into that - and that is not talking about the operating costs that would go forward as part of that as well.

We have, I am pleased to report, Madam Speaker, increased out capacity here in St. John's with the new machine that we have put in place. In fact, it has greatly enhanced our ability to deliver this service and, beyond just delivering the service, it has an increased capacity in terms of the types of service that it can provide.

We did, Madam Speaker, in this year's Budget, commit to going to the second MRI machine. What we also committed to was a process whereby we wanted to ask the health care providers and the boards to give us some direction as to where we should be going with regard to the MRI services.

Madam Speaker, as I reported in the House last week, it is rather interesting that just a year ago, almost to the day, we were debating in this House of Assembly a private member's motion brought forward by the Member for Trinity North in which he had indicated, with the support of his colleagues opposite, that they wanted the government to commit immediately to another MRI. Beyond that, that was fine, but the MRI should be mobile to serve Western, Central, Central East and Central West.

Madam Speaker, it is interesting, when reviewing the debate which was supported by all members opposite, the Member for Windsor-Springdale who spoke in the debate said, "We must support the intent of this original resolution. I cannot support this amendment with an intent of just consulting with the health care boards..." which is speaking to the amendment which was introduced by me to allow for a debate by all of the groups concerned looking for some direction from them, which is what we committed to in this year's Budget.

Madam Speaker, throughout that debate members opposite who spoke supported that position, that in fact they felt there was no need to have further discussion. The hon. Member for St. John's East, "Why are we going to consult with this group of health care corporations who already have said that they recommend the purchase of MRI scanners, and that of a mobile MRI scanner, and have said they have agreed that an appropriate schedule can be arranged. Why would we be saying that we would consult with them? We have already spoken enough about the delivery of diagnostic equipment here in the Province."

Again, Madam Speaker, it is strange to see why anyone would feel that looking for direction and allowing for consultation would be the wrong thing to do, but it is interesting, Madam Speaker, to see what a change you can have in the course of one year, what a difference in one year.

Apparently, last year the resolution came out of their annual meeting and there was a resolution passed to the floor. This year, I see it reported in the paper last week that their leader, in speaking to the MRI, said: I am the Member for Humber West and there is no doubt where I would prefer the MRI to be located. I want the MRI to be in Corner Brook.

This the leader of the same group who a year ago were saying: We do not want any consultation. We want it to be a mobile unit.

Further quoting, he says: The whole decision has to be whether it will be a mobile or stationary MRI. That has to be decided. Once that decision is made, then we can go to the next step.

Now, isn't it amazing what a change one year makes. What a difference one year makes. Madam Speaker, it is interesting that again it is typical of the kind of things that we hear opposite. Their position on any given day depends on who their audience is and where they are.

We, as a government, have committed that we are committed to consultation. As a matter of fact, consultation took place about a week ago. We brought in health care providers. We brought in radiologists from right across the Province. We also brought in representatives from the various institutional boards. We got some direction from them. Government is now examining that further and we will be bringing the group back within the next couple of weeks. So, certainly within a couple of weeks we will have a final resolution on this issue.

I have to say that, to me, is the way we should proceed. That is the way we should be governing in this Province, allowing the opportunity for community engagement, for community involvement, for community support, for collaboration and partnerships. That is what it is all about.

It is interesting in terms, as I said, with regard to the comments we hear opposite day after day, speaker after speaker rising and condemning the fiscal plan and the fiscal management, or mismanagement as they refer to it, of this government. Yet, in the very next breath, asking government to commit to further expenditures. Well, it would be interesting to see, Madam Speaker, with that line of thinking, what their decisions would have been had they been in a position to make those hard choices with regard to going to forward in this year's Budget. In fact, there is no way you can satisfy all of the concerns that are out there. That is something that you recognize up front, but you try to do what you can with what you have available to you.

Where does that fit with where the hon. members opposite are in terms of their policy and where they are? Well, Madam Speaker, with regard to health care, it is kind of interesting to look at one of the comments made by the leader opposite in talking about what he thinks the health care policy should be. This, again, is quoting from an article in The Telegram, quoting the Leader of the Opposition. It says: The Newfoundland Government needs to follow the lead of New Brunswick and Alberta in developing a plan for health care delivery in this Province, says Conservative Opposition Leader Danny Williams.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, not Alberta.

MR. SMITH: Alberta.

Now, Madam Speaker, what does that say to what the hon. members opposite have to offer, that they are going to Alberta looking for direction and ideas as to how we should deliver health care in this Province? This is what the Opposition are coming forward with, and this is what they are offering.

Surely, the hon. members opposite must have a better idea, and the hon. Member for Trinity North, who rises on a regular basis and expounds as if he is the most recent guru and has all of the answers with regard to health care, surely he must have some exception with his leader who thinks we will go to Alberta to get the answers. Because quite frankly, I suggest to hon. members of this House and to the people of this Province, the answers we need will not be found in Alberta, not to serve the needs of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Madam Speaker, what are the Tory governments of Alberta and New Brunswick contemplating? What kinds of things are they looking at? What kinds of things do they expect that the hon. members opposite would - or we could use the Tory government in Ontario. There is no shortage of examples that we can find in this country. If you talk to the citizens who live in those jurisdictions, I can tell you, they will not give a ringing endorsement to the records of those Tory governments.

For example, the things that they talk about are high premiums, health debit cards, private clinics. Madam Speaker, where have we heard the privatization? This is the crowd opposite who are referring to us and talking to us in trying - even today, a suggestion from the Opposition House Leader was that we were looking at privatizing health care. Nothing could be further from the truth, but what I said in this House is that we should not bury our heads in the sand and we should not be afraid to explore all of our options to try to address the many needs that are out there on behalf of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Madam Speaker, in the area of long-term care, what we have said is that we recognize that at the present time we have a challenge in the area of some $200 million. Two hundred million dollars that we do not have at this point in time to direct towards that problem.

Surely no one would suggest that we should sit idly by and refuse to try to find ways to address the problems, since the people in these areas are crying out to us to find solutions. We, unlike the hon. members opposite, are working to try to find solutions rather than standing by and fumbling around trying to find resolutions in areas like Alberta, because I would like to see what Alberta could offer the hon. members opposite, or to this government, or to the people of this Province by way of a resolution of dealing with health care. I shudder to think what it would be and I shudder to think what a policy would be that could be produced by the result of any consultation involving the group opposite and those people in those jurisdictions.

Madam Speaker, the interesting thing is that day after day we hear the same sort of thing. We hear all kinds of criticism, but we hear very little in the way of suggestions. Any time something happens we see the hon. members opposite, the first thing they do is jump to their feet and say: Oh, that is ours. That is our policy. You are taking our policies.

I do not know if you have it patented, I don't think so. It is an idea and I think nobody can claim ownership to ideas. It is hard to believe - I think you have to be pretty presumptuous and you have to have quite an ego to think that you are the only one capable of coming up with an idea. I think that is carrying it a bit too far, I would think.

It is rather interesting when you hear the line of questioning today talking about the criticism directed towards the Leader of the Opposition. Yet, day after day, we hear hon. members opposite specify certain individuals and direct all kinds of derogatory comments towards them. That happens on a regular basis. Yet, if someone suggests or questions something with regard to the Leader of the Opposition, it is a personal attack; we should not bring it up.

I would say to the hon. members opposite, before you go saying that, start practising what you preach; because, quite frankly, you are not impressing anyone with the kinds of line of questioning that we are seeing in this House that is bringing into dispute the character of certain individuals in this Province. I think it does not reflect very well on individuals who pursue that type of activity.

Madam Speaker, the issues in this Province and the challenges that we face are formidable. There is no question about it. There is no question they are formidable, but, Madam Speaker, this government is committed to find the resolutions. This government is committed to work with the people to bring about a resolution and to find the best way possible to deliver on the services that are needed by all the citizens of this Province.

Madam Speaker, I have confidence in the people of this Province. I know the people of this Province, and I know that they can recognize and they know who is working on their behalf. They know this is a government that is committed to them. This is a government that is committed to continue to work on their behalf, and I have no doubt that we will be back doing this after the next provincial election and into the years to come.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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 today to stand and make a few comments on the Concurrence debate as it relates to the Social Services Committee, on which I served as Vice-Chair and had the opportunity to go through several departments of government, namely: the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Community Services, the Department of Human Resources and Employment, the Department of Justice, the Department of Labour, the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, which involves Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, and the Department of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education. Certainly, we had a great opportunity to question the ministers and their staff and to raise some of the issues that are pertinent to the people of the Province.

Before I get into my main comments, I would just like to make a few comments, if I could, Madam Speaker, on the Minister of Health who was just on his feet. He talked to us, and again I did not realize that the disease had spread on the other side but it seems like the Minister of Health has gotten the disease also when it comes to the Leader of the Opposition. I have heard many speakers on the other side of the House get up day after day and continuously find and try to find fault in the Leader of the Opposition, and it does not surprise me that they are at that, but it does surprise me the level they have taken it to. It just shows that they are just trying to get away from the issues that are of concern to the people of the Province and deal with the Leader of the Opposition, but I was very surprised that the Minister of Health has caught the disease also. I am very, very concerned about that.

The Minister of Health was on his feet at that time and he talked about some comments that were put forward by the Leader of the Opposition in relation to Alberta, and he tried to make a big thing out of the fact that the Leader of Opposition had mentioned the Alberta health care system. There was no talk in the minister's speech, which I found perplexing, Madam Speaker, about this government hiring the Hay group in Ontario to come down and try to straighten out the Health Care Corporation here in St. John's. There was no discussion on that. The Minister of Health forgot that. He forgot all about the fact that they paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Hay group in Ontario to come down here; and, at the end of the day, what did the Hay group tell us? They told us to lay off nurses. They asked us to lay off front line staff and to save a half-million dollars here and a couple of hundred thousand dollars there, and how we were going to do that with a reduction of services. Only for the Leader of the Opposition and the Health critic on this side of the House raised those concerns and raised the issues of the Hay group, some of the things that the Hay group had put forward may have been adopted. They may have been adopted. Therefore, we raised the issues with the people, but the Minister of Health forgot all about that. He forgot that he went to Ontario. We had a problem here in Newfoundland and Labrador and he went looking for an Ontario solution to that problem. We have seen that time and time again with this government. We bring in outside experts, as they are called; outside experts. I say, Madam Speaker, we bring in outside experts time and time again wasting taxpayers' money, if you ask me.

Then, what did we do? When we had the Hay group report, the Minister of Health turned around then and brought down the Reid Bonnell Group to the Province. Again, we had a Newfoundland and Labrador problem and once again the Minister of Health trots off to Ontario and looks to bring down a company from Ontario to straighten out our problems. We brought the Reid Bonnell Group down. Basically their plan was to take the suggestions and the plans of the Hay group and to spread them out across the Province. Where the Hay group was specifically dealing with the St. John's Health Corporation, the Reid Bonnell group then would deal with right across the Province. So, their plans, Madam Speaker, and their cuts and their reduction in services would be implemented right across the Province.

That certainly concerns me, when we have the Minister of Health who so quickly jumps up on his feet and so quickly talks about somebody else but forgets completely what this government has done in the past couple of years in relation to bringing in so-called outside experts to deal with the concerns that we have.

He raised the issue, Madam Speaker, of the MRI and where it should be and what type of MRI. The Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education said that she wanted a mobile unit, she would like to see that. The Minister of Environment, Madam Speaker - both who sit at the Cabinet table - wants a stationary MRI in Corner Brook. We have the former minister, the Member for Gander, who would like to see a mobile unit also, and then we have the Member for Bay of Islands who is not really sure what we are talking about anyway in the first place. Madam Speaker, he is just getting around and trying to clue in on what is going on here now. He is not sure exactly what he wants either, but I am sure he will get around to it. When somebody tells him what to get up and say, he will get around to doing that sometime before the day is out, I am sure, Madam Speaker.

The Minister of Health also touched on the expenditure of money. It seemed that he had a problem with us as members of the Opposition standing on our feet and looking for expenditures in our districts for road work, expenditures in our districts for water and sewer, expenditures in our districts for education, for health or whatever the case may be. He seemed to have a problem with those concerns, Madam Speaker, in relation to our getting on our feet every day and asking those questions.

It is not the expenditure of the money that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are concerned about, Madam Speaker, it is the management of that money. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves again the question: Who do we believe would be the best managers of the coffers of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? Certainly, when we look and we see, over the past number of years - certainly, we have been privy to information on that and it is very public now - when we see what this government has done with expenditures, the dollars, over the past number of years, we ask ourselves why are we closing up beds in the hospitals in this Province. We ask ourselves why our roads are in such a condition as they are in this Province, all throughout the Province, in my own district of Placentia & St. Mary's and throughout the Province. We have to ask ourselves why people are out there looking for home care services and can't get an hour or a couple of hours a day for home care. We have to ask ourselves that question. We have to ask ourselves why people cannot afford certain drugs that they have to go on and have to take some type of other drug, other than what the doctors prescribe? We have to ask ourselves why 20,000-plus children in this Province go to school every morning hungry? Time and time again we have to ask ourselves that question. We have to ask ourselves why children in our school systems are going around sponsoring from door to door, having walk-a-thons and bake sales, and having fundraisers so they can buy copy paper and chalk for their classrooms. That is what we have to ask ourselves.

The reason we find ourselves in those situations is because we look back, Madam Speaker, over a litany of Liberal legal losses. A litany of Liberal legal losses in this Province over the past number of years. We have to look no further than Trans City's Cottage Hospital contracts. "In 1996 the Newfoundland government lost its appeal over a 1991 decision not to award cottage hospital contracts to the preferred bidder, Health Care Developers, but to give them to friends of the Liberal Party, Trans City Holdings." It cost the taxpayers of this Province in excess of $20 million to take care of their Liberal buddies. It cost the taxpayers - just on that one instance alone, Trans City's Cottage Hospital Contracts, it cost us over $21 million.

Then we have Atlantic Leasing Ltd. Murray Premises Museum contract. Again, the premier at the time, Premier Wells, did not agree with it. So he decided he was going to axe that and it ended up in court. What did we find? "The Newfoundland Supreme Court of Appeal upheld a 1997 decision against the Newfoundland government for its failure to renew its lease for museum space from Dec 1989 to June 1992, which caused Atlantic Leasing to lose ownership of the Murray Premises in 1992. The Newfoundland government settled out of court with the company for $4.2 M - a figure first hidden by a nondisclosure clause in the settlement agreement but revealed by Finance Minister Paul Dicks Dec 10/98 after the Opposition submitted a Freedom of Information request." Four-point-two-million dollars the taxpayers of this Province had to pay because the people opposite once again had to take care of their buddies; $4.2 million.

Then we have the situation with the Cabot 500 Corporation. I am sure many members on the other side are very familiar with that. "Newfoundland Supreme Court Justice Robert Wells ruled on Dec 30/99 in favour of seven former employees who sued the government for wrongful dismissal. Former employees will receive lost wages covering the period from Dec 3/95 to Dec 31/97 plus $20,000 each in general damages. St. John's lawyer Steve Marshall (representing 5 of the 7) said the judgement could cost the province between $700,000 to $850,000 not including legal fees. The Telegram estimates the total could be nearly $1 million." Another Liberal legal lose where it cost the taxpayers of this Province in excess of $1 million.

Mr. Speaker, then we had Andy Wells and the Public Utilities Board. "The Supreme Court of Canada on Sep 15/99 dismissed a Newfoundland government appeal and upheld a 1997 Newfoundland Supreme Court of Appeal decision awarding Andy Wells 2.5 years' salary plus pension benefits after he was wrongfully dismissed from the Public Utilities Board. The Supreme Court also awarded him legal costs since the matter began, which could range from $25,000 to $30,000. The Telegram said Wells could get more than $550,000 in compensation and pension benefits. The province also spent $34,041 to hire a high-power Toronto lawyer to help fight their case." Another case, Mr. Speaker, where we are climbing up on a million dollar figure again for the members opposite on another legal challenge that they so willfully lost in the court.

Here we go again and again, the list goes on. Tors Cove Excavation. The Telegram reported November 21, 1998, the Newfoundland government reached an out-of-court settlement with Tors Cove Excavation for damages incurred by the company after the Province revoked its licence over river diversion work carried out in the early 1990s. It is believed to be worth $1 million. The settlement was subject to a nondisclosure agreement.

Again, Mr. Speaker, time and time again -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Yes, I just did them a few moments ago.

Here we go again, Tors Cove Excavation, Cabot 500 Corporation, Andy Wells Public Utilities Board situation, Trans City's Cottage Hospital, Atlantic Leasing Ltd, millions and millions and millions of dollars it has cost the taxpayers of this Province over and over again, because of two reasons, Mr. Speaker.

The number one reason, to take care of their buddies attitudes on the other side of the House. That was so prevalent over the past fourteen years, Mr. Speaker, that it is dangerous now. People are very concerned about it, and also the incompetence of the members opposite to try to deal with situations out there. Instead of that, they just drove people out the door, drove them home out of here. Then the court decided they were going to be compensated for that because the members opposite, including now the Supreme Court Judge, as far as I understand, who is well in there now, certainly initiated a lot of this, with the support of members opposite. Then they tried to forget all about this on the other side. Oh, that was bygone days. That is not part of us. That is bygone days. No, it is not bygone days when the people of this Province are out looking for home care; when the people of this Province are out looking for hospital beds to be opened; when the people of this Province are out looking for roads to be repaired in this Province. We have to go back and remind the people of the Province and remind the people opposite of the incompetence that has been shown here over the years and has cost the taxpayers of this Province millions and millions of dollars. That is why we find ourselves in the situation that we are in here today, Mr. Speaker. That is the problem that we find ourselves in.

The list goes on. Other legal matters; Tom Egan, December 15, 1998. The Supreme Court Justice upheld in March a ruling that Tom Egan was wrongfully dismissed December 20, 1996, from his Marystown job for conduct unbecoming of a social worker. A ruling the Newfoundland government appealed and they lost. They had to pay court costs and pay the man again.

The list goes on and on about the costly legal payouts over the past number of years of this government. Now we find ourselves in a situation where we cannot afford to do the road work in the Province.

I can tell you one of the main reasons, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot afford the road work in the Province. It is not because of the expenditure of money. Again, we will get back to the plan. Where is the plan? Where is the plan to address the concerns with the roads in this Province? We have a plan that was submitted in February, 2002, by the then minister, the current Minister of Labour, requests for a new cost-shared highway agreement between the governments of Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada in February, 2002. A power point presentation brought up to the federal government, Mr. Speaker. A Grade 4 would do better. We have a power point presentation brought up to the Minister of Transportation of Canada looking for $1 billion for road work in this Province. It is certainly needed. There is no problem with that. It is needed in the District of Placentia & St. Mary's. It is needed, I am sure, in the other forty-seven districts in the Province. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that we need to have that federal-provincial agreement, but we need to tie our laces up here in this Province and put a plan in place that they will accept.

The Member for Labrador, if memory serves me correct, laughed at this power point presentation when it was brought forward. Minister, he laughed at it, the fact that you looked for $1 billion to present the power point presentation to the Minister of Transportation and expect to be taken seriously and expect to be funded. Even the Member for Labrador, MP O'Brien, scoffed at this. It is a concern that we have.

Getting back to the Estimates, if I could, Mr. Speaker, I just got sidelined for a moment. Certainly an issue that came up in our debate through the Estimates Committee was school busing. The concern that we have, and with the reconfiguration of schools in the Province, we have seen an increase, in some cases, of school busing. There are several concerns, and I will list off a couple just to highlight what has been brought to my attention.

There were several concerns and one has to do with overcrowding on buses in some parts of our Province. It is an issue, I am sure, that some parents are very concerned about, but I think the number one concern that has been raised with me over the years is the age of the buses that are on the roads in this Province. We here in Newfoundland have - and the Minister of Education answered our questions that day - we, in this Province, have a rule or a procedure, I guess, a process where we are allowed to take buses on a road that are thirteen - I think it is thirteen years - or less. Now, these same buses that transport our children in this Province are buses that have been taken off the road in Ontario and other provinces, that are brought down here and are then used in this Province.

Now, we have to stop and ask ourselves the question: Is it necessary that we take buses that are condemned? They are condemned, to be taken off the roads in Ontario. They are condemned, to be taken off the roads in other Provinces of Canada, and we take them then. We have people who go up there, pick up these buses, and they take them down here and they put them on the roads here and transport our children. On the very roads that almost every member in this House has a problem with driving in a car, we take a seventy-two passenger bus and expect to be able to bring children over those highways, Mr. Speaker, and over those roads and have safe conditions for them to do so.

Now, we have a situation here where we have unsafe conditions of the roads, and on top of that then, we have a bus that has been condemned in Ontario, taken off the roads in Ontario because she is too old - I realize there are inspections done. I realize the minister told us that day that a certain amount of inspections are done per year, but we have to ask ourselves: Should there be a uniform policy across the country where your bus or a bus that is taking children back and forth to school in this country, not only in this Province, in this country, is certainly uniform across the country so that everybody is dealing with the same level of safety and concern?

I know it is a concern to parents out there when it comes to buses and the age of buses that are on our roads, and it is something that needs to be looked at. We had a good healthy discussion that morning, I must say, with the minister and his departmental officials on that. Hopefully, by raising the issue in Estimates, raising the issue here in the House, the minister would have a serious look at that and maybe it is something that we could address to give the level of satisfaction to parents who are out there, that their children are certainly, number one, driving in a safe vehicle - because I think that would be a genuine concern for all members on both sides of the House, that our children are driving in safe vehicles.

The fact remains that, in some cases, the parents, teachers, and people who are involved in the education system in our Province, are very concerned about the ages of the buses and fact that they are condemned in other parts of the country and then they are brought down here.

Mr. Speaker, another department that we had some dealing with was Municipal and Provincial Affairs, in our Committee stage, and certainly Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. I know in my own district I get many, many inquiries in relation to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and the concerns that people have out there. We have an aging population in our Province, as I am sure you are fully aware, and people out there who certainly need some assistance from Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. The fact is that right now, from my understanding, the Corporation is dealing with applications around September 1999 and October 1999. We have over three years of applications that are not even looked at yet. We have many, many situations out there in the Province where people certainly need to have some repairs done to their homes and these are genuine concerns that people have put forward.

I know that members on both sides of the House deal with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing on a continuous basis, but certainly it is an issue that - we had a good discussion on it that morning in Estimates with the minister at the time and it was something that I hope to see some activity on from the government over the next little while, Mr. Speaker, in relation to it.

Again, we have a serious situation in regard to housing. People living in unsafe conditions, unhealthy conditions, especially for our senior citizens and people who are getting up in years. Anything that gives them a reason to be living in unhealthy conditions is something we should all look at.

MR. SPEAKER (Butler): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: I was just getting going here, Mr. Speaker. I have four other departments that I have not even touched on yet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. MERCER: No leave.

MR. MANNING: I say the Minister of Environment does not want to give me leave. I would like to have that noted here, that the Minister of Environment denied me leave because he knew I was getting to the MRI situation in Corner Brook and something that he certainly did not want to listen to.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: I will be back later on, I say to the Minister of Environment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted today to rise in this House and talk about the importance of post-secondary education in this Province and to reiterate government's position, particularly as it pertains to Budget 2003. Budget 2003 was definitely an education budget, and I am honoured to be a part of a government that places such a high emphasis on our young people and their education.

Mr. Speaker, if you would allow me the time, I want to compare what the members opposite are saying and not saying. The Opposition have stated in their previous Blue Book that they plan to "...design a Strategic Plan For Post-Secondary Education that will balance the interests of public policy with respect to post-secondary education with the forces of the free market." Now, what in the world is that? They are going to balance the interests of public policy with respect to post-secondary education with the forces of the free market.

Can you imagine a young person reading that and hearing it? What in the world does that mean? Can you imagine that? Does that give our young people any assurance, that the Tories are going to look after their education because what they are planning to do is balance the interests of public policy with the forces of the free market? Well what a statement to make, Mr. Speaker.

Now, the Opposition are also saying that they will be committed to providing stable funding to Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic. I would like to ask the members of the Opposition, are they committed? They are saying absolutely nothing. We do not know if they are committed or not - no plan.

In a recent article in The Muse - and I have that article here, actually - the Leader of the Opposition, and this was November 28, 2002 -

AN HON. MEMBER: You have to table (inaudible)..

MS THISTLE: Yes, I don't mind tabling it. It is public knowledge.

Anyway, the Leader of the Opposition was asked to comment on the prospects of continuing tuition cuts. Do you know what he said? He said: The PCs have no plans to change or alter tuition cuts.

Can you imagine? The PCs have no plans to change or alter tuition cuts. However, he could not promise any more fee reductions because he wanted to look at the books, but he had no commitment, no plans for altering or changing tuition.

I heard that the members of the Opposition and the PC Party had a convention a week ago and they had a few resolutions at their convention. One of them was to make education a priority for the party. So you are telling me now that it was not a priority of the PC Party prior to now. I would like to ask you: What is your plan for education in our Province?

The Western Star reported on May 5, that a motion was submitted by the St. John's East District PC Association to make education a priority. Can you imagine? In the year 2003, the St. John's East District PC Association was going to make education a priority. Now, the motion received a great deal of support from educators, members of the home and school associations, parents and others. I wonder, did it receive any support from the PC caucus or its leader? Who knows? There is absolutely no plan for the Opposition party for education. I would like to know, where is their plan?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out today that under a Liberal government, Newfoundland and Labrador was one of the first provinces in the country to address the problem of high tuition. This government implemented a freeze in 1998, 1999 and 2000. Since 2001 we have a reduced tuition rate for Memorial University, undergraduate and graduate programs, by 25 per cent. The most recent decrease of 5 per cent, which was announced in our Budget 2003, will bring our university tuition rate, the lowest Canadian tuition rate in the country, bar none.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: That is something that all of us Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should be proud of. We are focusing on education and we are committed to it, and we show it. Where is your plan? Where is your plan?

According to Stats Canada, students at Memorial University pay $2,760 per academic year as compared to $3,870 in P.E.I., $5,061 in Nova Scotia, and $4,668 in Alberta. Do you know something? Tuition for non-Quebecers, anyone who is not born and raised in Quebec, not a Quebecer, can you imagine, it is $3,968.

I can tell you one thing, we do have a plan and we are delivering that plan. Look at Budget 2003. We are preparing our young people for the world job market. You can see by the employment figures that were released only a few days ago by the Minister of Human Resources and Employment for the month of April, and the stats that you look at from last year, we have had the best employment rates ever since statistics were kept by the Newfoundland Statistics Agency. We have a plan for our young people. What plan do you have for our young people in this Province? I would like to ask the members of the Opposition that.

Last Tuesday, I released a report called, Beyond High School: A Follow-Up Study Of 2001 High School Graduates. Those statistics were more than encouraging. Seventy-one per cent of our young people graduating choose a post-secondary education. That is really outstanding when you consider just in 1995 there were only 65 per cent of our young people choosing post-secondary and today- well, two years ago, 2001, we have 71 per cent of our young people choosing post-secondary education.

Mr. Speaker, we are not going to stop there. We are not going to stop there. We are going to continue to arm our young people with the most information they can so they can make the best career choices.

The first document that we launched was called, Career Search, and that was released in November, 2002. It recorded the employment and earnings of post-secondary graduates in the year 2000. Do you know something, Mr. Speaker? In the next few weeks we will be releasing a third in our series of long-term follow-ups of post-secondary graduates, and it will track labour activities over the past five years.

You know, Mr. Speaker, one thing we did find out in that survey that we just released, Beyond High School, the most influential people in encouraging young people to choose their career, you would think it would be educators, guidance counsellors, career information and so on, but the most influential source of encouraging young people and directing them are their parents.

Our surveys confirmed that it is the parents who make the biggest choices in directing young people in what they should do. It is our intention, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that we arm the parents with all the information possible. You know something? That information, that exchange, that happens around every kitchen table in Newfoundland and Labrador. We all know that when we sit down to the evening meal young people will tell us what is on their mind, what happened at school, and we will be able to exchange information as to where the job demands are and try to inform our young people - and young people should know, even in junior high, what career they might be interested in. They should have all the information in front of them. I know much of this information is available today on our Web sites, and I guess there is so much information sometimes it could be information overload. We need to sift through that information and make sure that our young people are aware of what jobs are out there, what the demands are for certain sectors, and make a very informed decision.

I want to reiterate a little bit about last week in this House. My critic stated that there were a low number of graduates coming out of our post-secondary institutions and the percentage of those who actually fulfil the requirements of programs is one of the lowest in the country.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct that information today. That is totally incorrect. According to Stats Canada, in terms of university graduation rates in Newfoundland and Labrador, our rate stands at 33 per cent as compared to the Canadian average of 30 per cent. In fact, we are doing better than the national average, much better.

In the year 2000, eight thousand students graduated from our Province's post-secondary institutions. In fact, our graduates are performing at an exceptional rate when it comes to finding employment. Full-time employment, Mr. Speaker, for Memorial University's undergraduate programs increased from 56 per cent in 1996 to 65 per cent in the year 2000.

What are the prospects for employment for our young people? I would like to talk a little bit about this. Employment rates for a one-year college program at the College of the North Atlantic have gone from 58 per cent in 1996 to 71 per cent in 2000. Private colleges have gone from 45 per cent in 1996 to 62 per cent in 2000. Employment rates for two-year college programs, like College of the North Atlantic, have gone from 53 to 68 per cent, from 1996 to the year 2000. Overall, we have seen significant employment rates with our college programs, from 52 to 70 per cent. I would certainly not call those failure rates, I would call them excellent rates.

Graduates from all post-secondary programs show very high levels of both personal and financial satisfaction with their investment in post-secondary education. For example, 90 per cent of Memorial graduates are satisfied with the investment they have made in their education and training. In a recent research bulletin, Human Resources Development Canada estimated over the next five years 70 per cent of new jobs will require a post-secondary diploma.

Now, what are the prospects for employment for our young people in this Province? In fact, you don't need to look any further than this building. Look at our public service employees. There are between 30,000 and 40,000 public service employees, depending on what time of the year it is, both seasonal and permanent. We all know, Mr. Speaker, that the average age of our public service employees is mid-forties, I think closer to forty-seven. So, within ten years we are going to have a huge gap in our public service employees. That is certainly an area that young people today can concentrate on. We recognized that about five years ago, in Treasury Board, when we started our graduate recruitment program, to hire at least fifteen young people every year to join our public service employees so that we could mold them into a public service career if that was their choice and give them exposure to different departments and, in the end, hopefully they would want to stay in the public service.

Look at our trades in this Province. We already know that we have the same experience in our trades. We have an aging workforce in our trades. We have a huge gap that we will need to fill for our trades people. We have a project starting up this spring, Voisey's Bay. We are going to need quite a few workers, in the hundreds. If you look at long term projects in this Province, we need to address that, and there are several departments today working on that very thing: the Department of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education; the Department of Human Resources and Employment; the Department of Labour, and so on. There are unique opportunities there right in front of us that we know will be available to our young people of tomorrow.

This government has introduced a number of initiatives to make the cost of education much easier for our young people. We have introduced huge changes, a complete revamp of our student loan program. It is now possible in our post-secondary education institutions in this Province to have total writeoff of the provincial portion of our student debt, providing students meet the criteria, which are more than generous. If they want an undergraduate degree and they finish in eight semesters - in fact, they are even given two semesters grace period. They have an opportunity to have the Newfoundland portion of their student loan completely wiped out.

With the new initiatives just announced for our Student Investment Opportunity Fund, we are going to make sure we are able to help young people get into that first job. Many of them have the best credentials possible but they do not have that first-time experience. So, with the new initiatives that we have announced in this budget we will be able to subsidize a young person's wage with an employer so they can get that first-time experience. We will even be able to look after young persons who want to get a cooperative work term in their particular sector. We are doing a lot of the right things. We are listening to students, Mr. Speaker, and it is working. Students tell us what they need to have a good education and we are responding.

I would like to just change gears for a moment because there is a very important issue that surfacing in Central Newfoundland, and that concerns a flip-flop arrangement by the Leader of the Opposition. Some months ago there was a resolution brought to this House - and many other members have spoken on that today and other days - concerning the possibility of a mobile MRI for Central Newfoundland. The object then was to have this mobile MRI travel from Gander to Corner Brook, and everywhere in between, so that everybody in that catchment area of 200,000 people would have the services of a mobile MRI.

The Leader of the Opposition was one of the people who stood in this House and agreed to that resolution. All this House agreed to this resolution. When questioned recently in Corner Brook by The Western Star - and I quote, this is what he said: I spoke with some of the doctors who were interviewed and my position has been the same right from the start. His position has not been the same right from the start. He stood here and agreed with a resolution for an MRI that would be mobile. He said, "I am the member for Humber West and there is no doubt where I would prefer to have the MRI located." What he is saying is that his position was sustained from the start. That is inconsistent, Mr. Speaker. It is totally inconsistent. We do not have the money, as a government, to put a stationary MRI in every health care facility in this Province. So, Mr. Speaker, he has certainly flip-flopped on this and other issues.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to just leave a few words with this House. That is -

MR. H. HODDER: No, don't finish yet, keep going. We want you to go on until 5:30 p.m.

MS THISTLE: Oh well, if you will give me extra time I will stay here because I have lots more to say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, we have announced a lot of initiatives in this year's budget, Budget 2003. We have heard it said that people who have already received their education and are now in the pay back mode for student loans wanted something to help them. We listened and we are designing - it is in concept stages now - a tax initiative for those people who wanted -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS THISTLE: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MS THISTLE: Well thank you for the kind gesture of this House to continue on with my very important topic today.

Anyway, I was talking about the initiative for repaying of student loans. It is a concept now. We are calling together all of the stakeholders and we will establish the rules for this upcoming income tax period, income tax 2003, which will allow people who are now in a position to pay on their student loans - they will get a tax credit for a portion of the amount paid on the principal.

Mr. Speaker, do you know that this year we have $9.2 million that we are applying to our Student Investment Opportunity Fund? That will allow more than ever young people to have that summer employment position. We actually fund about twenty different programs under this plan so that we will get students into - not only summer work that they need so very much so they will be able to put aside savings for the fall for post-secondary education. Since 2001 we have been able to help, through this program, 7,000 students.

I will now be able to finish my speech today by saying the following: Mr. Speaker, and to the members of this House, there has been a great lot of changes to our post-secondary education plan and it has come from whom? The users. The students themselves. They have come to us as a government and said this is what we need to make our education more accessible and more affordable. We are listening and we have demonstrated that, and we will continue to do so in the future.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am pleased to participate in the Concurrence Debate on Social Services. I might just say, by the way, Mr. Speaker, that according to our rules when a minister quotes from a document or a speech, or whatever, the ministers are automatically required to table it upon request. So I am wondering, while I -

MS THISTLE: (Inaudible) any problem with that.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, it is important. I want to say it because it is important. The minister may present a number of viewpoints that I think are important for all of us to have a look at, and I would not mind having a look at it.

Mr. Speaker, just for a moment, because the minister talked about, during the last election, what the Tory Party, or what our party proposed. I was the leader of the party at the time, and the minster said - and this is the section she quoted from. Here is what was said directly. It says: We are committed to an open and transparent post-secondary education system in the public and private spheres. We will judge both the accountability and performance of public and private post-secondary institutions against that which is in the best interests of students, employers and the public at large. We will design a strategic plan for post-secondary education that will balance the interests of public policy with respect to post-secondary education with forces of the free market.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister tried to leave the impression that what that meant was we were going to somehow leave post-secondary education, tuition and students open to the free market. That is not true. The policy we talked about was matching what we are training young people in Newfoundland and Labrador for, what they are training, what they are getting in post-secondary institutions, whether it be at Memorial, College of the North Atlantic, in the private sector - that what they end up getting, whether it be a degree, a diploma or a certificate, that it matches directly with job opportunities in the free market. That is what we talked about.

Mr. Speaker, we went on to say, and I think it is important for the record to demonstrate clearly what we talked about, these were the commitments we made during the last election. We said, "A PC Government will mandate the Department of Education to consult widely within the community at large and among stakeholders in the educational field, including the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Students, in the design of a strategic plan for post-secondary college education."

That does not say, nor does it mean, that we were going to impose some sort of plan on students in this Province. It did not say, nor did it mean, that we were going to, in some arbitrary fashion, in Newfoundland and Labrador, if we were the government at the time, over the last four years, that we would have seen escalating tuition rates. Absolutely not true. It meant exactly what it said. It meant that, if we were going to design a strategic plan for post-secondary education in Newfoundland and Labrador, then it must include, it has to include, and it must absolutely include, the students of Newfoundland and Labrador, through their elected institutions, namely the Council of Students Union, the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Students.

Mr. Speaker, we went on to say, "A PC Government will conduct regular performance audits of the College of the North Atlantic to determine how well we are doing in public post-secondary education; will publish the results for public scrutiny; and will act to ensure a greater degree of auditing of the College and public auditing of Memorial University."

What is wrong with that? We spend about $110 million a year, we grant and provide to Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is the public's money. They are charged then with the responsibility of offering degree-granting programs; the ultimate responsibility, and probably one of the most important responsibilities in our Province, of ensuring that people who pay tuition, who want to get a higher education, have the ability to do exactly that.

Public auditing or accounting of that money is critical because it ensures, from the public perspective, what Memorial is charged to do, and this House of Assembly, through the acts of this Legislature, it ensures that happens.

The third thing we said during the last election, "A PC Government will establish and enforce, in conjunction with the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Career Colleges, an effective mechanism for regularly evaluating the financial and academic integrity of private colleges, and will enforce procedures to secure students against college failures."

What was wrong with that? That policy emanated from the complete financial collapse of the Career Academy, that left hundreds of students holding the bag in jeopardy of getting their certificates, some of them, 75 per cent, 85 per cent, and 90 per cent through their program. Now, what was wrong with that policy? All it did was to ensure that the interests of the public and, most importantly, that the interests of the post-secondary students, were first and foremost.

Now, this will be familiar, the next one. "A PC government..." - we said during the last election - "...will reform the student aid system in consultation with the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Students, with a view..." - Mr. Speaker, this was January, 1999, four years and some months ago - "...to providing new tax credits for education and allowing students to declare their independent status earlier."

Now, the government made a move in that direction - somewhat of a move in that direction - in this last Budget by providing some tax incentives. It did not amount to much. I think everyone understands that, but it was a move in that direction, but for the minister to leave an impression somehow that this party is going to, you know, arbitrarily hike tuition increases really is a bit much to swallow, when we have been the party of record that talked about it.

More importantly, here is what we said, "A PC government, in view of the importance of education to the economic future of our province and the employability of individuals, will initiate a public debate on the wisdom and means of waiving tuition fees for the first two years of post-secondary education."

Now, that was an important component of this party's policy in the last general election, because of this. Most experts in the field of post-secondary education will tell you this: that if anybody in our Province, or anybody in Western Civilization, and in the society in which we live today, if they wish to get on a meaningful career path that will provide them with long-term sustainable earnings to participate as individuals in our society, to interact, to understand the responsibilities of their freedoms that they have been given, to be able to contribute in a direct and a greater way, anybody today needs at least a minimum of two years post-secondary education under their belts. That is what that commitment recognized, that principle. It was not like it was thirty years ago, Mr. Speaker, or even thirty-five years ago, where graduation from a recognized high school in our Province could do exactly that for you, where graduation, one year post-secondary education could do that for you.

I have an aunt who taught in St. Mary's Bay. There are many teachers who went to university, who used to come back every summer. In fact, it is the reason summer sessions were offered at Memorial in the first place, to provide teachers with the opportunity to complete their degree programs. In the last election, recognition of the fact that today a different standard exists, that in order to get on that meaningful career path, in order to be able to interact with society and for you to - as opposed to it controlling you - to have some measure of your own independence, to be able to exercise that independence, you need at least, generally speaking - there are always exceptions, but generally speaking - you need at least two years post-secondary education. That is what we talked about. That is what we purported, and that is the view of this party. It is not the view - and I understand the minister. She has a point of view and she has every right to stand up here and say it today. While I disagree with it, I will defend her right to say it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Absolutely.

I do, in the strongest possible terms, disagree with it because the record bears something else out.

Mr. Speaker, let's look at what the situation really is, in terms of post-secondary education in the Province. How well are we, as this House, how well is government, and how well really is the department that the minister leads, how well are they doing in preparing people for the market opportunities and for the job opportunities that exist?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer, if I might, because this is very, very important. If we were to believe the minister, that the department is making significant headway in meeting the challenges of matching graduates from their fields of expertise when they graduate to what the job market is actually entailing, it is not so.

Let me refer, if I might, to a pre-Budget consultation session and a document that was delivered by one of our zonal boards, one the biggest ones - the Capital Coast Development Alliance. They undertook a research initiative entitled: Making the Connection Between Youth and Employers.

In doing that research, they talked to employers, they talked to different sectors of our economy, and what they found, independent of whether it comes from the Official Opposition or independent of what the minister has outlined here this afternoon, can be described as nothing less than startling. For example they said, "Construction companies have been turning down work due to lack of labour. There are few new entrants into many occupations, yet we know that significant percentages of skilled tradespeople will retire in the next few years. For example, based on the 1996 census, 31.7 % of all skilled tradespeople (including plumbers, carpenters, bricklayers, roofers and electricians) are over the age of 45, with only 7.6% in the 15-24 age category."

Here is a startling figure for you. The marine industry, we all know - we are a Province that has been built and sustained by water, by the sea, by the ocean. We have developed over our lifetime here, 500 years, many of the skills that ensured that we survived here, many of the skills that my great-grandfather, grandfather and their great-grandfathers had, many of them, arguably, the point could be made, are lost, but the fact remains that we are a marine province; our history comes from it, our expertise comes from it.

Listen to this. Under that research initiative here is what was found. "The Marine Industry is experiencing worldwide shortage of marine officers. The Baltic and International Maritime Council projects a shortage of ships officers to be 42,000 by 2005, up from a shortage of 18,000 in 1995."

If I were sitting in the minister's chair there right now, I would see opportunity, and I would see it for the youth of Newfoundland and Labrador. I would say, herein lies a significant opportunity with better than average pay scales, a significant career opportunity, lifetime, an ability to take a natural advantage that we have to educate our youth that are upcoming into it, and to be able to sell that advantage to the world. Who knows, if we invested in that, where that might go.

Let me go on to say, because it is important, "Employment from a number of programs at the Marine Institute..." - just listen to this Mr. Speaker, this is startling - "...is virtually guaranteed." You name a position today where you can get a post-secondary education where somebody can say that when you graduate from this particular program that employment for you is virtually guaranteed. "For example, of the graduating class of 2000, 100 % of the graduates from the Marine Engineering Systems Design and 93 % of graduates from the Nautical Science programs were employed.." Just listen Mr. Speaker, and here is the telling tale, "Yet, there is a negative perception towards employment in the marine industry with only about 4 %..." Here we have an industry that is going to experience a worldwide shortage, by 42,000 people, where employment from these two programs, upon graduation, is virtually guaranteed. Yet, only about 4 per cent of the 2001 provincial high school graduates entering the Marine Institute were even interested, because of the negative perception. In the Avalon East school district, of the 1,800 new matriculants - 1,800 now, Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind where the significant opportunities lie - just twenty-two students or 1 per cent enrolled in marine programs at the Marine Institute.

One has to ask the question: Why are we not promoting these fields of endeavor amongst our high school students? It is not because we don't have a natural advantage. We do, historically, culturally, everything, Mr. Speaker. It is who we are. It is where we come from. Why is it - and the question begs to be asked - we are not promoting that? There are many, many young people today, given that information, encouraged, told about the programs, beginning when they are twelve and thirteen and fourteen years old in the junior high system, could find themselves in less than ten years, when they are twenty-two and twenty-three and twenty-four, filling a worldwide shortage and promoting this Province and putting out there a set of skills. It is not because we don't have the facilities. The Marine Institute is amongst the best in the world in terms of its facilities. It is not because we ourselves don't have the intelligence. There is nobody in this world today, in my view, as intelligent, hard working, honest or as forthright or diligent as people who come from this Province. We understand the meaning of hard work and what it takes to succeed. The question is this: Why isn't government pushing students and asking students and encouraging students and promoting these programs?

Let's look at the oil and gas industry. The oil and gas industry can be characterized as having a youthful work force, it says. The skills gap in this industry is generally the result of insufficient work experience. This is very interesting, Mr. Speaker. It is not because we don't have the education or that students coming from here necessarily don't have the education, but the skills gap in this industry is generally the result of insufficient work experience followed by institutional training gaps. Now, that is not the students' fault. That is government's and the program's fault. That is where accountability comes in. That is why we talked about it in the last election. That is why we talk about it today. That is why we talk about accountability, because when we do performance audits, these sorts of things, if they fall through the cracks, show up so that we can correct them. After all, isn't that we are here for?

It goes on to say, "Apprenticeships, interns and co-op programs are just some of the recommended solutions to closing the gaps." What we need is more of them. What we need right now, Mr. Speaker, is not to be spending scarce public dollars on meaningless public relation campaigns but putting them into intern programs for students, because that is what this study is saying: that we need more of them, not less.

When we talk about, if I am asking for more money, yes, I am. I am not asking for more than what you have but I am asking you not to waste what you already have so you can put it into extra training programs for Newfoundland and Labrador's youth: more apprentice programs, more intern programs, more co-operative programs, because that is what this independent study found out.

Just listen to this, Mr. Speaker, "Within the IT industry, companies are facing recruitment difficulties in a number of areas including..." - this is an independent study predicting skills and training shortages beginning now and in the next five to ten years. Companies are experiencing recruiting difficulties in - "....computer programming, project management, business management, engineering and computer networking and sales. Similar to the oil and gas industry, the problem within this industry is not so much demographics as the industry is characterized by a youthful workforce but again, the lack of job experience."

So, it is not that we do not have the young graduates, is what this study found out. It is not that we do not have the young graduates and the critical mass of graduates that can fill and fulfill these positions. It is that we do not have enough of programs such as co-operative programs and intern programs so that people who now have the skills experience-wise can pass them on to young Newfoundland and Labradorians. That is the problem.

In my world, and in my view, and I do not think it is out to lunch, I do not think it is thinking pie in the sky, and I do believe that every member in this House has to recognize that and would understand that in my view, and I believe our view, that in order to correct that, to fulfill the shortages, we do not need to put people into the programs and encourage them; they are already there. We do not need to give them the educational experience; they already have it. What they are lacking is work experience. The old adage no job, no experience. No experience, no job. That is what we are talking about here. That is what this study found, and if all government has to do is to look at the problem with a practical solution, saying: Hold on here, now, hold on. Do you mean to tell me that if we invested another $500,000 today -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: Can I have a few moments to conclude, Mr. Speaker, please?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

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

If all we have to do is to take a small amount of money in the scheme of the Budget and start targeting it to computer programming so that our students who have that educational background can get some valuable work experience through more co-op programs, more intern programs, then the question begs to be asked, and begs an answer, to be honest with you: Why haven't we done it? Why haven't we done it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) this year.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it goes on to say - and government have done it, no question, but the issue is this, in targeting those areas - I know when I used to be President of the Students' Union at Memorial, 1984-1985, one of the most successful programs that we offered, as a students' union - not Memorial University, when this was in conjunction with the co-operative program from the School of Business, Engineering program - was a program and a proposal that we put forward as a group. It was done a couple of years before me, but we continued to lobby for it year after year, the co-op program, federally funded.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: What was that?

MR. NOEL: We are talking about how interesting your speech is.

MR. E. BYRNE: It was federally funded, and what it did - I think that was fifteen years or more ago now, or twenty years ago, almost - it provided the cash so that the School of Business and the Engineering Faculty, through its co-operative programs, could actually place students in a variety of different workplaces related to their academic course of instruction. One of the most valuable programs. We cannot do enough of it.

If there is an example that is real, that can make a difference in every student's life, it is confirmed by this study both in the oil and gas sector and in the IT industry alone. I will finish with this. Those two industries alone, which represent a significant part of the future economic development of this Province, those industries do - and it is not that we do not have young people who are there, Mr. Speaker, we do - characterized by a youthful workforce, in two areas of our economy we have a youthful workforce. What is lacking and what has continued to be lacking right up until, and still does today, is the ability for this Province and us, as a society, in Newfoundland and Labrador to provide them with more co-operative and intern programs so that they can get the valuable work experience they need so they can solve that old puzzle of no job, no experience, no experience and no job. From where I sit and where I stand in this House, it does not take a lot to solve the problems that have been highlighted in this study.

Yes, we are making progress.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. members for giving me time. I am just about to conclude, as I gave the minister time to conclude her speech.

Yes, we are making progress, but there is a lot more that we can do. It does not take an adversarial situation to bring it. It takes practical-minded solutions to meet practical situations, and why they are not done are the questions that people are asking today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am certainly pleased today to rise in this hon. House and make a few comments on this Concurrence debate, the Social Services debate. I think it is always important to remember where we were some 500 years ago. The fishery was always the mainstay of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We utilized the fishery some 450 years. What took us some 450 years to harvest, the federal government destroyed in fifty-three years.

Mr. Speaker, from my recollection, I think 1992 was probably the turning point in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is when the collapse of the cod fishery occurred. Some 40,000 people became unemployed in the Province, probably the biggest disaster that ever hit the country, let alone the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I guess it was at that time we realized that we did have a significant problem on our hands, so we had to change the way that we did things, to concentrate on other activities so we could increase the economic situation, the economic opportunities in the Province for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We had concentrated, actually, on three things: aquaculture, tourism, and information technology.

Mr. Speaker, today aquaculture produces some $22 million. Last year, tourism brought some 450,000 people to the Province, and last year some $750 million was realized in Information Technology. So, Mr. Speaker, this government did have a plan and they did move forward. They did change the way that we do things. They did concentrate on other businesses that we could attract so that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador could have a better life, a better opportunity, other than the fishery.

Mr. Speaker, consequently, the department that I represent, the Department of Human Resources and Employment - it is practically a new department in terms of departments. Established in 1997, just about six years ago. It was in 1997 that we probably saw the worse cases in terms of caseloads for the department; some 36,600 cases on income support.

For a Province like Newfoundland and Labrador, the challenge is not easy. We have always said that we are tied directly to the federal government. Their funding does not help us in a big way, but we have always, through our ingenuity, found ways to help ourselves. Yet, also continue to lobby the federal government so that we can have a better life here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I find it unusual, Mr. Speaker, that a country like Ireland could get some $600 million a year from the EU for ten years so they could rebuild or build up and diverse their economy so they can create jobs for their people. Here we are living in the best country in the world.

AN HON. MEMBER: Six hundred million pounds.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Sorry, 600 million pounds, which was double actually, for ten years. Yet, the Canadian government does not see us. I do not believe they see us, Mr. Speaker, as Canadians. I do not think they see us as equal partners as Canadians. I guess it will come to a head at some point in the near future when Mr. Vic Young presents his report on Renewing and Strengthening Our Place in Canada. That is some thought for another day at the right time, the right place, to put forth the case that needs to be put forth for the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, last year we implemented a new Income and Employment Support Act. We did things differently from what we had been doing in the past. We wanted to link income support with employment so that people on income support would have an opportunity to make that transition because we believe, as a government, that people on income support need an opportunity. Those who are able and those who can and are willing want an opportunity to go to work. So we changed the way we do things. We went out and we consulted with the people. We listened to the ideas that they brought forth. For the first time in history we enshrined in legislation a preamble, together with guiding principles, outlining the basis of which services would be provided to people on income support.

We changed the definition of relative for the purposes of determining eligibility for income support, resulting in more benefits for some clients. We streamlined the rules for the applicants of income support, minimizing the administrative burden on applications and creating increased equity in the application process.

We introduced regulations to allow applicants to retain their RRSP contributions for a ninety-day period following application for income support to enable persons to make the transition back to employment without depleting their savings. That is the kind of situation that people often found themselves in. Income support can happen at a moment's notice anywhere. We want people who have made provisions for savings to allow them the opportunity to keep their RRSP for ninety days so they can find a way to get back into the workforce.

We put in place legislation to enable parents receiving income support who wanted to pursue post-secondary education to retain a maximum scholarship of up to $5,000. We wanted to allow these people to get skills that they could market for themselves. Again, we believe that people want to work.

We introduced legislation to permit families to establish support trusts for their adult children with disabilities up to $100,000 without penalizing income support benefits.

Mr. Speaker, we increased the funding for the Income Support Employment Program by $300,000 last year in 2003, and we have maintained that $300,000 this year. Is it enough? No, Mr. Speaker, it is not enough. It is not enough to meet the needs of the people with disabilities out there who want to be integrated into the workforce and to try and live a normal life. It is not easy, Mr. Speaker, when you know that you don't have the money to do it. So, we are looking at innovative ways to help these people, to use the existing monies to try and provide that opportunity. When you know that you need an extra million dollars just to take care of those who are waiting to be helped, then we want to face those challenges. We are not afraid to face them. We just want to be innovative in what we do, so that we can help everybody at the same time.

Mr. Speaker, we introduced the Newfoundland and Labrador Child Benefit which is payable to all low income families, not just those that receive income support. We also reinvested the savings that accrued to the Newfoundland and Labrador Child Benefit back into the program in the fiscal year 2001-2002, 2002-2003, and we are doing it again, Mr. Speaker, in 2003-2004 for eligible families.

We have extended the health care benefits for individuals and families leaving income support for employment, up to six months. Mr. Speaker, people finding themselves on income support who want to make that transition find it very difficult to move from income support to a job without being supported for a short period of time.

We have improved the liquid asset level for persons qualifying for income support to avoid depleting assets fully and making the transition back to employment more difficult. We have allowed them to keep some $500 a month of earnings, Mr. Speaker, some $1,500 for families, so it makes it easier for them to make that transition.

Mr. Speaker, we have moved outside of the box in terms of thinking and looked at more progressive measures that can help people make that transition from income support to work.

Mr. Speaker, in Newfoundland and Labrador it is not easy to make that transition. I just heard the Opposition House Leader talk about what we should be doing. We created a program called NewFoundJobs which will fund people who are on income support to do some upgrading in their training, to do their adult basic education, to help them with transportation, so that they too can become productive members of society.

It was quite interesting that the Opposition House Leader talked about opportunities that existed worldwide in the marine field. Mr. Speaker, it is well-known that my department is in the process of doing a labour market strategy for the Province. Considerable work has been done. We probably - in terms of statistics and how they are applied here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador - have more information than anywhere else in the country. We know from the information and the work that we have done, we know where the need is at. We need to consult probably further on what we are doing. We are prepared to do that. We are changing the way that we do things.

It is true that people need to know. People need to know what jobs are available. What jobs will be available in the future. What kind of training they will need. These are all decisions that young people who are in high school today are making and will be making. It is important for them that they make the right decision; that they move forward with all of the information that is available to know that they have a good future. Yes, it is true, we, as a government, have an obligation to provide as much information as we can to those young people. We will be doing that, Mr. Speaker, so that anytime any young person is inquiring about what they should or should not do, what types of courses are available, what are the best options so that they can be gainfully employed. Then that is the kind of information we are gathering so that people will have a better opportunity than they had twenty years ago.

Mr. Speaker, we do help graduates. We just announced in the Budget monies to help graduates find their first job. We have had, for some time, a Graduate Employment Program that helps graduates after a period of time if they cannot find employment. They go to the employer and as a government we subsidize them for the first year. It gives them that first year's experience. As someone said earlier, without the experience you cannot get a job.

Mr. Speaker, this government is moving forward in a positive way. We looked at the problem with victims of violence, Mr. Speaker. We have made arrangements now for a pilot project in Corner Brook which will help these people to make that transition out of a violent relationship into a safe place; help them to set up their first living arrangements to get out of the situation that they are in and have people who are directly involved with them onsite to help them make that transition. That is the kind of thinking we have applied, and it is all in the best interests of the people that we serve.

A few years ago, Mr. Speaker, we set up a single parent pilot project to help single parents make the transition from income support to be gainfully employed. I must say, it was one of the most successful programs in the country. It is still going well. We intend to keep it going for the rest of this year where young, single mothers have an opportunity to take part in the workplace because it is an opportunity for them. We keep saying that we believe anybody who is able- bodied and willing, has the skills, can and will and want to make that transition from income support to being gainfully employed - because we have always said that people gainfully employed certainly adds to their dignity, adds to their income, and adds to a better future for everybody involved.

Mr. Speaker, in this Budget we contributed $500,000 to the Kids Eat Smart Program because we know it is important for children attending school - that they be fed. That program began in 1998, and in 1998 we entered into an agreement with the Kids Eat Smart Program and contributed $1 million to that program for a five-year period. In March of 2001 we amended that contract and, again, contributed another $1 million to the Kids Eat Smart Program. In this Budget, as I said, we have contributed another $500,000.

Mr. Speaker, we are helping on all fronts. We are not solving all of the problems but we are dealing with the problems in a constructive, reasonable, positive way that is good for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We believe that things do look bright for the next few years for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

When we look at Voisey's Bay, this summer it will require some 500 people to be employed. We are looking at a project that will last for some twenty, twenty-five or thirty years that will inject some $11 billion into the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to say that without pointing out the billions of dollars that we will give to the federal coffers.

MR. COLLINS: How much are we going to get?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Eleven billion dollars over the life of the project.

MR. COLLINS: How much are we going to get?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: The Member for Labrador West wants to know how much we are going to get. I think I said on three occasions that it would inject some $11 billion over the life of the contract. Not to mention, of course, the billions and billions and billions of dollars that the federal government will get without any consideration of giving some of it back to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, so that at least we can become equal to the rest of Canadians.

I think we released a social audit sometime ago which told us exactly where we were in terms of being equal or below the Canadian average. For some fifty-three years, Mr. Speaker, we have been trying to reach the national average. Trying to reach a standard of living that exists everywhere else in Canada, except here in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is very, very discouraging to think that after fifty-three years the people who have the power in Ottawa will not see, does not see, and is not prepared to help us reach that standard. As I said, that debate is probably for another day in the near future.

That is why we, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, are determined to make our way. We are not going to give up, Mr. Speaker. We are going to continue to work, continue to find innovative ways to help ourselves because we know that somewhere, sometime, in that central government they will sit down and say: We need to do something. They have not done anything yet. The fisherpersons of this Province have been looking for extended EI for over a month now. They have not responded but they cannot bury their heads in the sand and say they did not know. They are very much aware of the need, even with the closure of the fishery, again, recently by the federal Minister of Fisheries, a unilateral decision. They did not put much thought into what they were doing. They have yet to come forward with a comprehensive plan to deal with the problems that they have created, solely theirs, and to try and help the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

So, Mr. Speaker, in the last ten years we have come a long way. I said earlier, back in 1992, with some 40,000 people directly unemployed, the kind of disaster that no other province in the country has ever faced in the history of Canada where some 40,000 people were put out of work. If that was in Ontario you would see riots in the streets, but not here. Not here, Mr. Speaker. We have done as much as possible, that can be done, with the level of resources that we have, and we are going to continue to move forward in hoping that some day -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to clue up?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: I think I can speak for everybody in this House when I say that all of us in this House and every single Newfoundlander and Labradorian hope and pray that some day, somewhere, in that federal government, they will wake up and say that we need to do something that is right for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, if they do not do anything for us, they will never, ever, ever, take away the will, the desire, and the hope of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

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 am very pleased to be able to stand today and talk in the Concurrence debate, or talk about the social aspect of the Estimates that have gone on over the last number of weeks. It was very interesting to sit in those Estimates and have an opportunity to question the ministers and their officials with regard to the vision, or direction, in which those departments would be going in the upcoming year. It was very encouraging to be able to ask the questions and to get some idea as to where indeed this government hopes to bring, I suppose, this Province in the next number of weeks and indeed months.

Even though I sat in on the Labour Estimates and the HR and E, the Education, both Post-Secondary and K to 12, I would like to speak today mostly on the education aspects of it. I have listened to the previous speakers get up and make reference to the plan, I suppose, for the Education Departments over the next year. I indeed listened with interest to the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education as she went back to the election of 1999 and made reference to the policy of this party and what I would call her misunderstanding as to what was stated in that document. My colleague from Kilbride got on his feet, following that, and clarified where this party stands when it comes to education, especially with regard to post-secondary education.

One of the things, of course, that the minister made reference to was funding, and I find it again interesting. She talked about stabilizing funding to MUN and to the College of the North Atlantic. I would have to remind the minister that if she wants to indeed go back in history, I would go back to the mid-1990s and the horrific cuts to post-secondary education that this government certainly imposed upon Memorial and the College of the North Atlantic. That would have been in the mid-1990s, and the cuts were horrific to the point that even as we speak today we have not yet gotten back to the level of funding that was evident in the early 1990s, in 1992. So when it comes to stabilizing funding, I suggest that the minister look at their own record as a government and talk about ways to make sure that the funding for post-secondary stays consistent and long term.

The tuition debate continues, and certainly I brought up questions today in Question Period. Again, the minister is getting on her feet and talking about this Province as having the lowest tuition rates in the country. I still have to take the minister to task because, regardless of what we said on this side, she has totally ignored our presentations and again looked to indicating that this government is doing more than it actually is doing.

The tuition cuts, again, the funding to the post-secondary over the 1990s, it was this government that certainly drove tuition rates in this Province up to well over 300 per cent of what they were when this government took over fourteen years ago. That 300-plus per cent, when you look at them drawing back 25 per cent of that 350, there is still a long ways to go to get it back to where it was originally.

The other side of it is the hidden cost, which again I made the point in Question Period today that there are hidden compulsory fees for post-secondary that are not taken into account when the tuition rates are looked at. Again, this government does not have a record that they should be proud of with regard to the compulsory user fees. Mr. Speaker, since 1993, when we talk about these funds, these compulsory funds, in order for -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: - and I would say the Education Minister is shouting out over there, name them, and that sort of thing -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is the cost of post-secondary education is not only looked upon with regard to the tuition rates. When you enter any course - and there are different courses, there are different programs - there are compulsory fees that are associated with those programs or with those courses that the student has to pay for, if indeed they are to take that course.

What I am saying, and I say to the minister - and you can check the statistics. You are good at checking statistics over there, and you are good at picking out the statistics that support your point of view. All I am saying to the minister, Mr. Speaker, is that if he looked at these auxiliary fees, compulsory fees, user fees, since 1993 the fees in this Province, on average, have gone up over 500 per cent. Since 1997-1998 those same fees have increased by 200 per cent. Even as the freeze was put on tuition, these compulsory fees were certainly increased by over 200 per cent.

MS THISTLE: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: Now, the Minister of Post-Secondary is, again, sort of talking out there but I get back to her reference to our convention of a week or so ago, Mr. Speaker. A funny thing about it -

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

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am just wondering if the member opposite would permit me to ask him a question as to which fees he is talking about, and would he list them?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once again, I would just indicate to the House that I am presenting that, when I look at the tuition cuts that have been certainly imposed upon this Province by this government, as I pointed out to the minister, they have risen over the decade by something like 350 per cent. When we talk about user fees - I will reiterate it again - when we talk about user fees, and those are compulsory fees that are attached to programs, to courses, that these fees have increased since 1993 by 500 per cent. Since 1997-1998 these same fees, I say, Mr. Speaker, have increased by 200 per cent. Now, I cannot say it any -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot say it any clearer than that, but I will get to the point because I have some points that I am going down through and I am not going to be put off by the crew on the other side trying to throw me off to hide what their record is. I am going back over their record, and that is what I am looking at.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: I say to the Minister for Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education, if you are getting up on your feet, if the minister is getting up on her feet and saying things, I think I should have the say over on this side to get up and respond to it. Now, I am responding as I am going down through and I have the points here.

The other one was the convention of a couple of weeks ago, Mr. Speaker. The minister got up and said: Oh, isn't it time that the crowd on this side made education a priority? But, she did not reference the resolution. The resolution was brought about because of a cutback of 160 teachers that the crowd over there imposed on us!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: That 160 teachers. Maybe the Minister of Education wants to get up on a point of order on that one. Maybe I am not counting those correctly. Maybe he might want me to name the 160 teachers. Maybe that is what he wants me to do.

What I am saying to the minister is that the convention brings from the grassroots of this Province, concerns. There was a resolution that was brought forth from a district association in this city that indicated that 160 teachers were serious cuts and they were going to interfere with the programming, especially with learning resources, and they were calling upon us, as a party, to bring it forth into this House, to make sure that the Minister of Education understood that you can cut teachers but, in cutting teachers, you are cutting programs and (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: If we want to get back in history, we want to go back in history. Let me go back in history to 1999, and my colleagues on this side will verify it, because the then Minister of Education got up and I had made a statement that you can no longer divide. You cannot do it on numbers any more. Despite the decreases, you cannot allocate on numbers; you have to allocate on needs. That minister said, and challenged this side to go out and find examples where cuts in teachers would interfere with programs, where cuts in teachers would eliminate programs.

Some of my colleagues, and I look at my colleague from Waterford Valley, went around the Province - my colleague from St. John's East went around - we went around this Province from Port aux Basques to, I guess, the Northern Peninsula, to the East Coast, and we found not one example, not two examples, not three examples, but we found literally hundreds of examples that were brought to us that clearly indicated that cuts in the teacher force were interfering and cutting programs. It is no different today.

It is hard to get across to the Minister of Education, it is hard to get across to this government, that you just cannot do division. You cannot look at a declining number of students and necessarily say that you have to have a declining number of teachers, because in doing so we are down to the very barest of bones, I suppose. We have gone beyond the bones with regard to the allocation of teachers in this Province, with regard to ensuring that the programs stay the same.

I say to the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education, I was proud that resolution came forth. I was proud to stand up and speak for it, and I was proud to vote in favour of it, because if that makes any difference in convincing you on that side to look at the needs of the children in this Province, well, I tell you, it is a job well done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Unfortunately, with twenty minutes, it is very difficult to get across my points.

Another one: Just the other day, Beyond High School was released. There is some good information. I say that to the minister; there is some good information. Again, every statistic that seems to come out of that government, every statistic, there is a hidden side to it. This one right here, Beyond High School, if you notice, is: A Follow-Up Study of June 2001 High School Graduates.

Guess what, Mr. Speaker? That does not include all of the people who are involved in the system. It does not.

Look at what it says: Graduates. It talks about graduates, but it does not talk about those children who have slipped through the cracks, who have dropped out from probably Grade 6 to Grade 11. All they look at, when this statistic is done, are those who can graduate in Grade 12. I am telling you, and I say to the minister, and I say quite honestly, there is a cohort of individuals who are not even looked at here. They are not even looked at. I say, Mr. Speaker, they are the ones who are showing up at the food banks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: They are the ones who are showing up on the unemployment rates. They are the statistics that we have to look at. Yes, as of the year 2000, this is a statistic of all entrants accessing the social assistance program for the first time. Forty percent were youth, aged eighteen to twenty-four. Now whether it has dropped significantly in the last couple of years, I do not know, but this is the fact.

So, I am saying to the Minister of Post-Secondary Education, that you have to look beyond statistics. You have to look at what is out there - not necessarily what is out there, but who is out there. I am telling you right now, when you come beyond high school - and it is nice to tract the graduates, but it is equally as important to tract those who have dropped out of the system; those who are in most need of the assistance. That is where this government is failing, because you are not looking at the full picture and you are simply taking out the statistics that will satisfy your quest at re-election coming up very, very soon.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: Not going soon. I do not know about that.

I would like also to draw attention - and again, the programs that are usually drawn to our attention - anytime we talk about employment and things, there are programs - and the minister will say: Well, this program is in place and that program is in place. Well, let's look at one particular program. It is the Provincial Apprenticeship System. Now this is the entry into the job market. To be an apprentice means that you are eventually going through the system and ending up with journeyperson status so that you will be able to continue on.

In the fiscal year of 2001-2002, there are 6,150 active and 2,091 inactive apprentices in thirty-six designated trades registered, with about six or seven new entries yearly. However, it goes on to say - and this is the key point about it all - an inactive apprenticeship are those who have attended post-secondary training but have not found the necessary employment to obtain journeyperson status. This goes back to what my colleague for Kilbride mentioned before, that you certainly need job experience (inaudible) job. There is no doubt the relationship is there. This program alone indicates that approximately 70 per cent of the individuals who started the apprenticeship program are inactive. In other words, the inactive are those who have not found the necessary employment to obtain journeyperson status in this Province. That means the success rate of this apprenticeship program is literally 30 per cent. So I say, Mr. Speaker, this is not acceptable.

We need to take a hard look at where this government is going in making sure that our young people are not only getting the training that they need - and to talk about the training is another time which I brought up basically about the entry rate into post-secondary. Literally, since 1996, there has been a minuscule increase in the number of high school graduates who are entering post-secondary. When it comes to post-secondary, I am telling you, the entry rate is high - amongst the highest in Canada - but once again, the exit rate is one of the lowest. This is something that is not talked about but something that really, really needs to be addressed.

In talking about it -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: If I might, Mr. Speaker, it says: The combined graduation rate in a four or five-year program at MUN has fluctuated between 50 per cent and 58 per cent from 1991 to 1996, with the current rate at 56.5 per cent. Now in my books, Mr. Speaker, that is not a good rate. The minister said: Seventy-one percent are entering post-secondary. That is the entry. I am saying fifty-six are exiting.

Now, the College of the North Atlantic - just in response to the minister's request for it - the graduation rate for most three-year programs is less than 50 per cent. In my books, again, that is not acceptable.

MR. BARRETT: In your books?

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes, in my books, I say to the Member for Bellevue.

I am certainly trying to indicate, Mr. Speaker, to the government members on the other side that it is okay to use statistics, but it is how you use statistics that really is the mark of the relevancy of those statistics. It is the results. What I am calling upon government to do is to give the full story, to look at both sides of it. If you are talking just about high school graduates, say high school graduates, and make sure that you also take into account those who are not in that category, who are more -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: I would thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the time that I have been given for this debate. I will leave it at that, and I shall be back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind hon. members, before I recognize the hon. the Member for Labrador West, that the time allocated for this debate is three hours. We have ten minutes left in the debate.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to make a few remarks today on the issue at hand, the motion of concurrence on the Social Services Committee, which, Mr. Speaker, touches on a wide range of government departments.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off by saying that I have had a lot of conversations with the Minister of Justice in the past year concerning the absence of a resident judge in Labrador West, something that we had for many, many years but something which has been lacking now for quite a number of years. I have asked the minister to supply me with the figures that will show, Mr. Speaker, not only the disadvantage that the communities are at when it comes to not having a resident judge present, but also the cost that involves transporting people who have been arrested and arraigned to Happy Valley-Goose Bay, the cost of the officers who have to accompany them, the hotel bills and all the other stuff, to see whether or not it would be financially warranted. We know, Mr. Speaker, that it is warranted that we have a judge in our community, but just to see what the financial comparison would be. Many people in our community and in our area, Mr. Speaker, believe that it would be financially prudent to have a judge resident in the area.

Throughout this afternoon's debate, Mr. Speaker, I heard the Minister responsible for Post-Secondary Education talking about this Province leading the way in the lower cost of education for the young people of our Province. I want to say to the minister, that we acknowledge and we applaud the efforts that this government has made in reducing tuition levels, but, Mr. Speaker, there are many other areas of cost associated with obtaining an education that have nothing whatsoever to do with tuition. In actual fact, Mr. Speaker, depending where you live in this Province, tuition can be the cheapest part of getting a good education for most students and for most parents.

I have questioned the minister several times in the past, and the previous ministers, on why it is that people who have to travel great distances to attend post-secondary education institutes, why it is that there is no benefit afforded to the parents of the students who pay for their children's education. They do that, Mr. Speaker, as I have said previously, not because they have oodles of money that they do not know what to do with. They are doing it at considerable cost and sacrifice to them and the remaining members of their families.

For example, Mr. Speaker, for a person who has to - in St. John's, whether they are from Labrador or other parts of our Province, on the Island, there is the cost of renting an apartment or staying in residence. There is the additional cost of groceries. There is the cost of telephone calls, and the cost of travel in and out. There are many other costs attached, and if the parents are paying for that, Mr. Speaker, they have no way to claim that as a deductible income tax deduction when they are filing their tax return, or they do not have - the students have to borrow to compensate for the extra expenses involved. That is a complete disadvantage, Mr. Speaker, for people who live outside of the immediate St. John's area.

Mr. Speaker, we heard some discussions here from the minister today on health care in the Province. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that has a high cost too for people who have to travel to the St. John's area to obtain health care services. I have been speaking about that in recent days, Mr. Speaker, about the cost of transportation, where a person has to fly into St. John's, where a person has to stay at a hotel, where they have to buy their meals, and the government has in place today - because it has been recognized many years ago, Mr. Speaker, that there are additional costs that people should receive help with. The plan that is in place at the present time, I must say, Mr. Speaker, does not go anywhere near the cost of helping people who have to pay huge amounts of money in order to get medical treatment that they require.

Mr. Speaker, the waiting lists for appointments. It is not uncommon to hear someone say that they have to wait six months to receive an appointment to see a specialist, to get an MRI done, or a CAT scan or other such things that they may require. That is much too long, Mr. Speaker, for most people in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say also that, when you are coming to St. John's to visit a doctor, and this happens quite often, you go into a doctor's office, you have a discussion with him, you get some tests conducted, and you are told to come back in three weeks. Mr. Speaker, not everybody who lives in this Province can jump in their car and be in St. John's within a matter of five, six, eight or ten hours drive. For other people that means two airfares, two airline trips, that they will have to fork out. It goes worse than that, Mr. Speaker, because that is just two trips. Many times this happens on several occasions. There is a high cost for people who live outside the mainstream area, off the Avalon Peninsula, that people have to incur expenses that people who live in the St. John's area do not incur.

The other lacking area, Mr. Speaker, that I want to touch on is the prescription drug plan that exists in this Province today. I have asked the minister to change that on several occasions. I have presented petitions in this House on a weekly basis since I have been elected, and nothing has changed. We still remain today the only jurisdiction in this country that does not provide any assistance whatsoever for people who have diseases like MS, like Alzheimer's, people who require hormone replacement drugs, all of these things Mr. Speaker. If a person is working for a living in this Province, they have to pay for that themselves. Most people do not have a drug plan. Even for those who do, the drug plans differ. Some of them have lifetime maximum caps and once you exceed that cap you are on your own for each and every other thing you require. I think it is unfair, Mr. Speaker, and it is fundamentally wrong that we should be the only province in this country that does not afford any help whatsoever to its citizens.

I have asked on repeated occasions that this Province introduce a co-payment system, like other provinces have done in this country to provide that type of assistance, and still it falls on deaf ears, Mr. Speaker. It falls on deaf ears because this government has not seen fit to make any changes whatsoever that would provide people with the type of protection they need. That is wrong, Mr. Speaker. It is wrong, and I say to this government that it is totally wrong for this government to expect the hard-working people of this Province to make a choice between putting food on their tables, to providing things that members of their family need, or purchasing a drug that they require in order to assist them with a particular disease that they have. That is wrong, Mr. Speaker, and the time has long gone when that should be like this. It has to change, and I say to this government, it is up to you. You are the government of the day. You are the ones we have brought this problem to, and it is up to you to take corrective action.

I encourage everybody throughout this Province, regardless of whether their MHA may sit in this area, to approach their MHA and put pressure on them so that everybody in this House can agree that this is one change that needs to be implemented.

On the issue of post-secondary education, Mr. Speaker, and training, I could not agree more than the comments made by the Official Opposition House Leader when he talks about the need for training and education and hands-on training to take place simultaneously. Many of our young people today are in a Catch-22 situation. They go to school for a one-year program, a two-year or three-year program, study hard, and come out of school, only to be told, and face the real world, you have to have two years experience or five years experience. Nobody will hire you without that experience, and how do you get it without having a job? That is why it is fundamentally important that more co-op programs, that more trades, more training, all of post-secondary education should be tied to a co-op type program where young people, while they are getting an education, can also work in the field and develop experience and see how things work so that when the time comes for them to go out into the workforce, they will have the experience that is required.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: Okay, Mr. Speaker, I know my time is up. Debate is ended and I thank you very much for the time afforded me.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to concur in the report of the Social Services Committee?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

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

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I think there is an agreement that we recess now and resume at 7:00 p.m.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker, "That this House Approves in General the Budgetary Policy of the Government." The Budget Speech

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly am very pleased to rise tonight to discuss the Budget and the implications of that Budget; in particular, Mr. Speaker, the implications of that Budget as it applies to my particular district, because it is important, I suppose, that we not forget who we represent in this House. Certainly, I am one who is very proud to represent the constituents of Harbour Main-Whitbourne, and to bring to light the challenges that these residents face in trying to make a home in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Before I begin that, Mr. Speaker, again the Budget was supposedly an education budget, but again, as I spoke earlier today, I see that it is not necessarily an education budget because the loss of 160 teachers from K-12 is certainly a devastating blow not only to the workforce of the teachers but to the programming that is available to the children in that particular system. I only hope that the programming can be saved, that it will not be lost, and that we are not taking a step backward as opposed to forward.

With regard to the post-secondary, the government has indicated, or shown, that they are making some attempts to claw back the horrendous increases and tuition that they imposed upon the students in the 1990s, and we hope that the students, especially the post-secondary students, can avail of all that is there to be offered to them in the hope that they can, certainly, go forth with a good career plan and on a good career path.

To get back to my district, Mr. Speaker: One of the things that needs to be spoken about is the state of the infrastructure in, not only my district but certainly the districts throughout this Province. In particular, I reference the road systems and the difficulties that the constituents of my district are having in going through the highways and byways of this particular Province. In my district alone I have, I suppose, something in the tune of $18 million in priority requests that are put before the government, and they have been put forth over the last number of years, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, very few of them, really, have been actioned.

I have, in this sitting of the House of Assembly, had to bring forth to this House petition after petition, I say, Mr. Speaker: one, a petition from the residents of George Town; a second, the residents of Marysvale; and a third, just today, from the residents of Colliers. All three of these communities are looking for, not necessarily a super highway, Mr. Speaker, but they are looking for a basic service. That basic service has been compromised over the last number of years by the very fact that there has been very little in the way of roadwork allocated for my particular district. Pavement that was put in back in the 1970s certainly has deteriorated, Mr. Speaker, to a point where it not up to the standard of a good gravel road.

I know there are challenges, not only in my district but beyond, but what the residents of my district look for is some equity. They don't expect, again, the sky, but they would like to see something in the way of a plan for the next two years, the next three years, certainly the next ten years, as they come to grips with - what I refer to as deferred maintenance, because that is what it is. This government, over the last fifteen years, have put off a lot of priorities in this Province that is certainly catching up to them.

In my own home community of Georgetown I have a small business owner. She attracts business from all over the bay, but she is finding in all seasons - because she is at the end of the particular road that I refer to, a small section of it is gravel and has not been maintained - that her customers are not going to that business, they are going elsewhere. I cannot tell you how important it is to have a business in a rural community.

In Marysvale there is a road, Ryan's Road, and the only convenience store is located on that particular road. Again, the proprietor has written numerous letters asking for assistance for ditching, asking for assistance for an upgrading of the road, so it is at a level that at least her customers are not tearing the bottom out of their car when they come to this particular business. If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, these customers are going to go elsewhere. What happens then is that this convenience store - again, not only does it provide a service to the residents but also you have to look at it, that it provides employment in this small rural community.

These are just two instances where the infrastructure is so absolutely important for the well-being of the community, for the safety of the residents, but also to ensure that services are provided to the people in these communities.

The third one, which I presented today, Mr. Speaker, is a petition from all of the residents in Colliers. Everyone of them signed it because the road they are referring to, Harbour Drive, certainly is a busy artery in that particular community. Once again, it has deteriorated to the point where it is almost impassable. It is absolutely necessary that something be done. The call goes out - and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has been petitioned by the people, has been petitioned by me. It seems like, with regard to the road work, it just never seems to happen. It never seems to happen. It gets put off.

What is even more shocking, I suppose, is that the local depots certainly do not have the flexibility to deal with what is going on in the communities. This past winter, Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you how frustrating it was for many of the residents of my district as they grappled with the snow clearing of the - especially the secondary roads. It appears the Trans-Canada was often the first to be plowed and the first to be opened but the only unfortunate thing about it was that many who travel the Trans-Canada could not get to it because a lot of the secondary roads, a lot of the bypass roads were not up to a standard where they could travel over them with some degree of safety.

This coming year, of course, there have been numerous requests put in. One in particular, Mr. Speaker, is the seawall down in Clarke's Beach. This is an awful eyesore. It is a very, very scenic part of my district - certainly most of my district is very scenic in attracting tourists who come to take pictures, to paint, but this is a particular eyesore. It was a project that was started probably five or six years ago, half completed. Not only does it deal with the esthetics of it, but it certainly shows that - that particular seawall, not only is it there for picture taking but it protects the road from the sea. I cannot tell you the damage that the sea can do in any particular district or any particular area as it starts to eat away at the road system. Again, this is yet another case where the requests have gone in on a constant basis, which have been ignored. The only thing about it, Mr. Speaker, is that it creates a situation where, just trying to keep ahead of it, then, when it is finally done, it is going to cost ten times what it would have, had it been done at a better time.

The residents in my district appreciate anything in the way of help when it comes to taking care of the basic needs. Yet another one, and a disappointment that I must express - because really, when I see the Budget, I know that there was a plan for waste management. In my area, especially in the Conception Bay North area, there is a great need to establish a good system of garbage collection and disposal. As a matter of fact, it was that incinerator down in Harbour Grace that was spewing out dioxin to an extent that it was perhaps the worse in Canada.

The Mayor of Harbour Grace, Mayor Coombs, took a stand, as did his council, and made sure that there was a time limit whereby that would close down, and the government was given ample warning, but it seems as if - and especially as I see it come out in this Budget - there is very little in the way of funding allocated to carry forth on the plan that was released some time ago. The area of Conception Bay North is suffering as a result of it because they have to now ship their garbage to Robin Hood Bay. It is costing a heckuva lot from curb to Robin Hood Bay, and all because of the lack of a plan.

The government has talked a lot about putting in a waste management plan, not only for Conception Bay North, I might add, but for the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We, as stewards of environment, must stand up and protect the environment around us, because we have seen far too many occasions where our environment has paid a cost.

I serve the community of Makinsons, and we know of the horrendous cleanup as a result of a PCB spillage in that community, and the implication of that spillage is still being seen as we find that this government allowed the dumping of contaminated PCB material in the dump in that area.

Mr. Speaker, there are challenges, there is no doubt, but I again call upon the government to make sure that they realize that - I know there are not dollars for everything, but there has to be a plan. There have to be priorities set, and I cannot think of any other priorities more important than the basic infrastructure, waste management.

I talk as well, Mr. Speaker, about water situations that we still have in my district, and in any number of communities that are still under boil orders. It was my district that, I guess, the first evidence of contaminated arsenic wells came to light, and again how important it is to make sure that there is clean drinking water for, indeed, everyone.

Mr. Speaker, the Budget this year certainly does allocate a certain amount of funds, but again I have to speak on behalf of my own district in saying that the priorities in my district will not be met; that the people in my district will still be driving over roads that are not fit to drive over; that they will still have to boil their water; that, I guess, the various services that many of us take for granted will not be available to them, but they continue to ask me to speak on their behalf. I was a little taken aback today when one of the members on the other side got up and really indicated that perhaps we should not be, on this side, asking for more money; that we should not bring forth the needs of a particular district; that we should be quiet and be glad with what we have or with what we are given. I would say to the Speaker that I was sent in here, elected by the people, to speak about their particular needs. If those needs cost $1 or they cost $1 million, that does not mean that I just have to be silent because of the cost of them. You have to be, on that side, reminded. I say to the Member for Bellevue that a plan, if it is going to make sure that every person in this Province, regardless of where they live, are assured of basic services, health services, education services, municipal services, I say that is a good plan; but the plan that I see from the other side certainly is not a plan that I would consider to be a plan for the future. They do not have a plan. They have been fourteen years now basically struggling to provide just basic services. There is no gravy out there, I say to you, Mr. Speaker. Now, when we are on the eve of the election, which we are on the eve of the election, all of a sudden they are over, they are looking at us and telling us that we do not have a plan, as if we are going to come out and give a detailed analysis of where we are going.

That is the purpose of an election. That is the purpose why you have an election platform, and we are prepared to roll out that platform as soon as is necessary, as they are, hopefully, because what I have seen over there right now - if they are saying we have a plan, I certainly would be very glad, as I think the Government House Leader the other day said they have a plan but they are not going to tell us until the election is called. I suppose, he said, when the election is called.

I think there is bantering back and forth, I would say to you. The point that I was getting to, I suppose, before I just got off on a tangent, is that I have been given, from the people that I represent, the plan that they would like to see in place. Even if it is by petition, even if it is by letter or request, I have an obligation to present their plan to you and hopefully get equal treatment.

When I look at what has been brought into my district with regard to roadwork, I find that $23 million - and I have some degree of sympathy for the current and even past Ministers of Works, Services and Transportation, because $23 million to take care of the infrastructure and roads in this Province certainly is not even near where it should be. Until, I guess, we enter into some sort of a planned partnership, dare I say with the federal government - maybe, just maybe, we can in that partnership bring forth what we need in this Province which is a great emphasis on the secondary road systems, to make sure that we can catch up with the primary road systems that have been the emphasis now since the mid-1980s.

In drawing my comments to a close, Mr. Speaker, I see nothing in this Budget that is any different than the last fourteen years as this government has attempted, I guess, to win the people over with promises of false hope.

AN HON. MEMBER: Empty promises.

MR. HEDDERSON: Empty promises is perhaps the term I should use. I don't have to go any further than the empty promises of school reform, because that is what is closest to my heart. Let me tell you that all you need do -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: By leave, Mr. Speaker? Just a minute to clue up.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HEDDERSON: As I have pointed out, I just want to go on the record as saying that the Budget, as I see it, holds very little promise for the future. I cannot see it making up for fourteen years of neglect on the part of this government.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: I am delighted, Mr. Speaker, to stand in this House this evening and respond to the Budget. It was a budget about people and what this government wants to do for people.

I just want to highlight some of the key features of this Budget. We talked about a brighter future for those in need, and that is very important, Mr. Speaker. This Budget provides an additional $1.1 million to enhance the Newfoundland and Labrador Seniors' Benefit, bringing the total amount to our seniors under this program to $7.7 million annually. Benefits amount for 2003 will increase to $350 per year for eligible single seniors -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: - and $700 per year for eligible married seniors. That tells me a lot. That tells me that this is a government who cares about people. We recognize the plight of seniors and we are doing something about it, to the best of our fiscal ability.

Beginning this year, the 2003 taxation year, the provincial non-refundable credit for persons with disabilities will be increased from $4,200 to $5,000 -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: - and, Mr. Speaker, a new disability supplement of $2,353 will be introduced for people under eighteen years of age.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: In addition to those incentives, we are providing $500,000 to the Kids Eat Smart Foundation, to assist them with providing breakfast, lunch and healthy nutritious snacks, all around our Province.

We are looking at all sectors of our society in providing for Budget 2003. I stood here today in this House and I talked about, this is a budget for education. I am very proud of the fact that we have listened to our young people who are out there today, young people who are in school, in post-secondary education, and those looking to get a job. I can tell young people out there who may be watching tonight, the future was never brighter for those interested in getting a job and staying here in Newfoundland and Labrador and contributing to our economy - the things that this government is now doing in Budget 2003.

There have been several new initiatives for post-secondary education, and I think the most telling one started last summer with the total revamp of our student loan package.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: We realize, Mr. Speaker, that we want our young people to have an education that is accessible and one that is affordable. We listened to young people, and young people told us many things. We decided we would revamp our student aid package and try to entertain the request that was made by our young people.

I think the most important one here is the fact that a young person can receive an undergraduate degree in this Province and borrow from the Newfoundland and Labrador student loan package, and they have a chance to get that total loan written off - have a free loan, in other words, from the Newfoundland and Labrador portion of their student loan. If they can finish their degree in eight semesters - in fact, we will even give them two semesters grace period - they can still receive the total forgiveness of their Newfoundland and Labrador portion of their student loan.

Last week I received an e-mail from a young couple who had left Newfoundland and Labrador. Sometimes you do not see the effect the fishery has on different parts of our Province. These were not people who were directly involved in our fishery, but they lived in a community where the fishery had closed and, as a result, directly and indirectly, it made a bad situation for a lot of people - businesses had decreased and businesses were closed - and they ended up going to Ontario.

As a result of going to Ontario, they had to sell their home which they owned in Newfoundland and Labrador. They ended up buying one in Ontario, which was more expensive. Daycare was so expensive that they could not afford to send their children to daycare. As a result, the wife had to stay home and look after their children, and they talked about the student loan. They were saying that the Newfoundland and Labrador student loan was so much more flexible than the Canada Student Loan.

With the Newfoundland and Labrador portion of the student loan, we are providing interest relief; interest relief for those people who are experiencing difficulty in making monthly payments on their student loans. Do you know something? That is something that the federal government does not provide through the Canada Student Loan. We are now extending our interest relief from eighteen to thirty months, if that is the requirement and people actually need it. We have an improved application process for that, so I was kind of astounded to see that we are light years ahead when it comes to different portions of our student loan. We have flexibility, we handle it ourselves. Most of the guidelines, I know all of the guidelines for the Canada Student Loan, are entrenched. There is absolutely no flexibility.

These are the kinds of occurrences that you do not readily see when there is a close out of a fishery. These are the types of professionals that are sometimes caught between living in a small community where they once were employed, and the fact that they are not any more, and having to pull up stakes and go to Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, this was, by all accounts, an education budget. There were so many new incentives for our young people. I said today, when I stood in this House, that the future never looked brighter, more brighter than it does today. We had the most people working last year ever recorded since we have been keeping statistics. I said that even our public service workforce that hires year-round and seasonally between 30,000 and 40,000 individuals, depending on the time of the year - we have an aging workforce, as you will see, right across Canada, so we have an opportunity right there for our young people. Our average public servant is between forty-five and forty-seven years old. Our nurses are younger, and we are pleased about that, but generally speaking our public service are in the mid-40s. Within ten years we are going to have a mass exodus of older workers leaving the public service, so we will have to fill those positions. Right away, right before us, we see that. We also look at the fact that our trades in our Province, we have a big project underway right now in Labrador, the Voisey's Bay project. We are going to need hundreds of workers this year alone and into the future. Of course, we recognize that even there we have a workforce that are in their mid-40s. All of this combined, we have a great opportunity for our young people.

We also recognized in this Budget, and we addressed it, that many times it is difficult for young people to get a meaningful co-operative work term in their professional sector. This year we provided a $3 million youth opportunity fund, so we could address that problem and young people, if they are in a certain sector in university or post-secondary education, will be able to get a meaningful work term that will enhance their educational experience.

We also recognize that it is very difficult for young people to attract and get that first-time job. You can have the best credentials going, but if you have no experience it is very difficult to actually get into the workforce. We are going to make that transition a little easier. Young people have told us that they are tired of sending out resumes and many employers would like to take them on but sometimes they don't have that first-time experience. We have recognized that and part of the $3 million opportunity fund will go towards letting young people get into a job situation, and we will be subsidizing part of their salary through their employers.

Things are turning around. When you look in my district of Grand Falls-Buchans, four years ago there was an information technology institutional open called EXCITE. It is wonderful to walk through that institution today. You can see lots of young people, and not necessarily young people but all ages, who had been on the mainland working. They are not all from Grand Falls-Windsor. They are from all over our Province, and they are actually working out of that EXCITE building in Grand Falls-Windsor. That is a proud moment when you walk through that building. You can ask them where they are from, they are from all over.

It is happening because people are moving back. We have a new industry there now. The biggest complaint that our mayor had - I don't know if it was a complaint, I think he was proud of it - he actually had to change garbage collection day. What a wonderful complaint, to have to change garbage day, because last year there were almost, I think, close to eighty new homes built in Grand Falls-Windsor. This year we have applications for building permits of over eighty again.

Good things are happening in Grand Falls-Buchans. There is a feeling that all partners are working together, all levels of governments. Municipal, provincial and federal governments are working together and the results of it can be found. There is a very, very positive attitude in Grand Falls-Buchans. Things are happening and people are glad to be living there. You know, business breathes business. As soon as someone sets up an office or a new place of business, there is a lot of excitement that takes place and other people will follow suit. For every job you have in an area you probably have two or three indirect jobs that contribute to that. A lot of these things are geared towards our young people.

We have also heard from young people, and those a little bit older, who are out in the workforce today. They want a break on paying back their student loan. We are listening to them and we are reacting positively. What we have heard: How can you address this? Well, we have a concept in mind this year. We are going to sit down with stakeholders within the next two or three weeks and we are going to work it out. We are going to provide a tax credit for those people who are paying on the principal on their student loans that they have had for years. We are going to be able to make it easier for young people to live and work here and pay back their student loans faster because we will be giving them a tax credit. The users themselves, the stakeholders who work with us everyday, are going to be among the stakeholder groups who are actually going to design this policy. We want to look after people and that is what all this budget is about.

Twenty-six million dollars of this budget is allocated for health care equipment, and $20 million is provided for medical and diagnostic equipment, such as X-ray units, ultrasound units, and nuclear medicine. This is an interesting part, Madam Speaker. A second MRI will be purchased after government consults with the medical community and health boards with respect to the type, fixed or mobile, and location for this equipment.

Well, this is very interesting. Some months ago in this House we all stood and agreed upon a resolution that the second MRI, which would be brought to this Province, would be, most likely, a mobile unit because it would serve the greatest number of people for the lowest cost. We looked at the fact that three health care boards were in agreement with that at the time: Central East, Central West and Western. What a wonderful idea it was to have a mobile MRI so it could travel from Gander, Grand Falls-Windsor and on to Corner Brook and back again, and look after a catchment area of 200,000 people. The Leader of the Opposition agreed with all of us in the House, yes, that was a good idea. But when he spoke to The Western Star on May 5, he said - I do not have that article here with me tonight but I remember it quite well: Yes, indeed, I do want an MRI in my own district and I wanted that right from the start. So, I would call that a flip-flop. If you agreed to something here in the House and then when questioned in your district you go on another tangent, I would call that a bit of flip-flop.

Madam Speaker, this Budget, Budget 2003, is all about people. Two-point-one million dollars committed to Memorial University Opportunities Fund to facilitate innovative teaching, research and scholarships. This brings our total commitment to date, to Memorial University, to $26.4 million.

Madam Speaker, there are so many good things in this Budget, Budget 2003. Education, health and some people say you have a deficit of almost $300 million. Well, I have no problem standing on my feet when I know where that deficit came from. I know where the deficit came from and everybody here in this House knows where the deficit came from. When I was elected in 1996, $900 million a year went to health care. Today, 2003, we have a budget of $1.4 billion for health care. Now, do you think the feds contributed to that? No, they did not. I am glad members of the House recognize this, but if I have to stand on my feet and defend a budget that we put into health care so people could have the attention of health care, I have no hesitation in standing on my feet and defending a budget when we have a deficit of $300 million, and we put $500 million extra in health care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: I think any of us would mortgage our souls to look after the people who are most important to us. We have a plan, Madam Speaker, our economy is growing so well that we already have a plan. We know that that deficit, with the way our economy is growing, will be reduced in four years. We are not concerned about that, and all the bond rating agencies confirm just that.

We just heard today in petitions, members opposite standing on their feet and asking for money day after day. Everybody has their own issue that they want money attracted to. Everybody wants roads fixed up, they want new schools, new equipment, but you do not want a deficit. Is that right? You want all of these things but you do not want a deficit, or do you want a bigger deficit? That is what I ask you. I tell you what is important. Leadership is shown when you are able to provide the most important things for the people of this Province. That has been demonstrated in Budget 2003 and every budget that this government has been a part of.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand here tonight and support this budget. It is a budget about people and it is a budget about our future. Madam Speaker, this is a budget that we can all be proud of to stand up here tonight and support.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER (M. Hodder): The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I listened with great interest as the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education talked about the future. She talked about the future, that it never looked brighter than it is today -according to her, I say to the minister opposite. I say it is so bright that maybe we will have to wear shades. She is not living in the same world that we are living in. Certainly, she is not living in the same world that most people in Newfoundland and Labrador are forced to live in after fourteen years of this government.

Let's talk about that future. Let's talk about the present. Let's talk about the present, that the minister gets up and says looks brighter than it ever does and ever did, Madam Speaker. The highest out-migration in the country, that is the record of this government. The highest out-migration after fourteen years in this country. Over 20,000 children go to school in this Province every morning hungry. That is the record of the members opposite, Madam Speaker, after fourteen years of government.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. MANNING: Over 20,000 children go to school in this Province every morning hungry. That is a record to be proud of. That is a record of standing on your feet and saying that the future is so bright. Yes, that is some record.

Social assistance caseloads in this Province, Madam Speaker, 51 per cent. Fifty-one per cent of new applicants on the social assistance caseload were between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, and she had the nerve to stand up in this House, Madam Speaker, and talk about they are doing for the youth of this Province, when over 50 per cent of them had to turn to social assistance last year to get through, Madam Speaker.

The highest unemployment rate in Canada, there is the record of fourteen years of Liberal administration in this Province. The highest deficit in the country, Madam Speaker. The highest deficit in the country. The largest Cabinet that we have in the country, according to the number of seats that we have. The largest cash deficit in ten years, $213 million of a cash deficit in the last fiscal year. That is the record of fourteen years of Liberal administration, I say to the Minister of Education, and I will get to you in a minute.

Fifty to sixty acute care beds in this Province, fifty to sixty acute care beds being used by patients that are medically discharged who are waiting for a nursing home placement. That is the record of fourteen years of Liberal administration in this government. That is a proud record. You want to wear shades, I say to the minister opposite. You want to wear shades for anybody to look you in the eyes and ask you a question, Madam Speaker.

I will tell you the record, Madam Speaker, of this government since 1989, with regard to health care: 1,400 hospital beds closed in this Province since 1989, thanks to this Administration; 1,400 closed in this Province since 1989. That is a record to be proud of, I say to the members opposite. That is a record to stand on your feet and talk about what you have done in the past fourteen years. One hundred beds a year closed down under this Administration.

The Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education gets on her feet and talks about tuition fees, and talks about what they have done for tuition fees over the past couple of years. Since 1989, the fourteen year record is clear for anybody to see, that tuition fees have increased by 300 per cent in this Province since 1989; 300 per cent. For the past couple of years, the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education is on her feet applauding because we have reduced them by 25 per cent. Well, 300 per cent minus 25 per cent still leaves you with a 275 per cent increase in the past fourteen years. That is something to be proud of, I say to the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

Then we have travel, Madam Speaker. If there was ever an advertisement for Aeroplan, it is on the opposite side of the House: travel for Cabinet ministers and spouses. We have the former Minister of Education, who could not visit half the schools in this Province, and she can visit them in China and Australia at taxpayers' expense, I say, Madam Speaker. Hundreds of thousands of dollars.

We have advertising of this government, $30,000 a week, to promote: Good Things are happening in Newfoundland and Labrador. Thirty thousands dollars a week to promote Premier Grimes to the eyes of the people, and what did the people say when the time came? I have a paper here last year during the by-election, May 15, 2002, prior to the call of the by-election in the good District of Bonavista North. The Premier said, and it quoted: I think it would be a legitimate question to ask, when that is over, depending on the outcome, whether or not that is some kind of measure of approval or disapproval of my leadership.

That is what he said, it would the only test since last year at this time. I think it would be a legitimate question to ask, when that is over - referring to the by-election in Bonavista North - depending on the outcome, whether or not that is some kind of measure of approval or disapproval of my leadership.

What happened in Bonavista North? A resounding victory for the Member of Bonavista North on this side of the House, a resounding victory that sent a message about the leadership in this Province and sent a message about the leadership of Premier Grimes and his government and what the people thought about that. According to Grimes, a more accurate test of his leadership will be the provincial by-election in Tulk's former seat of Bonavista North.

We all know what happened in Bonavista North. We all know the message that was sent. That is what happened over there. That is the proof of the leadership that we have in this Province, Madam Speaker.

We have $30,000 a week - Good Things are happening in Newfoundland and Labrador - $30,000 a week, Madam Speaker. There are families in this Province that are living much, much below that for the whole year, and we have the government and Premier Grimes out promoting himself at $30,000 a week.

Then we have, recently, here is one of the ads. Look, $30,000 a week to have the smiling Premier looking out across the people and letting the people of the Province see it. Thirty-thousand dollars a week for this. I say to the members opposite, you stand on your feet and talk about the Liberal record of fourteen years. Shame on you, I say, over there. Shame on you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Just recently, Madam Speaker, World Report: Province spends more than $125,000 on two ads.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. MANNING: One hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars on two ads, Madam Speaker. What do they say? The Deputy Minister for Industry confirmed the bill was $79,800 for both ads.

That is U.S. They should have maybe waited until the dollar got better. That works out to about $127,000 Canadian, and what do the people at the Department of Tourism say? It is business oriented. That was the main focus of the interviews, said the public relations officer for the department. So, it is not a big deal for our department. If something is business oriented tourism-wise, you are not going to derive a lot from it. However, the $63,000, half-page, full colour ad in World Report was a proverbial drop in the bucket for the department.

A drop in the bucket - $125,000. That is the attitude, a drop in the bucket of $125,000 expense for an ad that the Department of Tourism said was not even worth the time to put it in. One-hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars. That is type of attitude, Madam Speaker. It is not the expenditure of money that we are concerned about on this side of the House. It is the management of the people's taxes in this Province.

What do we have then, Madam Speaker? Last year we had the Auditor General - it came out in the Auditor General's report - what did she say? We have a problem, she said, with the management of the finances of this Province, the worst in the country.

Why, we say to ourselves, is the management of the Province's dollars the worst in the country? Let's talk about a couple of things, I say to the members opposite. I see that the Minister of Mines and Energy is very attentive, and he should be. The Auditor General is very concerned about the expenditure of money because government - now, this might be difficult to believe - is insuring vehicles that do not exist.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. MANNING: Government is insuring vehicles that do not exist. Would you ever believe in 100 years that someone would go out and insure a vehicle, or in this case insure many vehicles, that did not even exist? They do not even exist and they are out insuring them. Then we are wondering, Madam Speaker, why we are in a deficit situation. Then we wonder why the minister - the future minister - the Member for Ferryland has to stand on his feet for twelve-and-a-half hours and talk to the people across the way about the finances of this Province. He could stay on his feet until July, I say to members opposite, when you have a government out insuring vehicles that do not even exist. You think that is bad, Madam Speaker, you think that is rough, out insuring vehicles that do not exist. They also insured vehicles twice.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. MANNING: They insured the same vehicles twice. They must insure the vehicle on their way out of town and then insure it on the way back because they were insuring the vehicle twice. Then we are wondering.

I say to the Government House Leader - I see he is listening very attentively, because I think it is important. We are wondering why we are in the mess we are in, in this Province, when we have government insuring vehicles that do not exist and the ones that do exist we are insuring them twice. So maybe we are covering up for the ones that do not exist.

Then we have, in another case, $100,000 worth of art missing. Madam Speaker, here we have members - $100,000 worth of art. I am just wondering where all the art is - $100,000 worth of art missing. So, what do we do now? We are going home on Friday evening, grab a picture off the wall and bring it home? Is that what they are doing on that side of the House? One hundred thousand dollars worth of art missing. These are in the Auditor General's report. A major, major concern, Madam Speaker.

Then we have situations where we raised the concerns of the former Premier. The former Premier and the former Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development - just last week, two weeks ago now, I had to try to get a computer for a young fellow in my district who has dyslexia. He had some problems in school, so his mom called me and said to me: Is there anyway you could find someone within St. John's, someone within government, somebody within somewhere to see if you can find a computer to help my son with his school work? He has dyslexia and he needs some help with his school work.

Through the efforts of our office we were successful enough in finding a company in Mount Pearl that was willing to donate a used computer to this young fellow in my district to help him out with his school work. I went out and picked up the used computer and brought it to that young fellow with dyslexia. He was absolutely delighted.

Here we have a situation where a mother had to phone up the member and say: Can you help me get a laptop or can you help me get a computer to help my child with his education? When the former Premier went out with two laptops and a computer on top of that, Madam Speaker. Time and time again we have to stand in this House and look for things for the people of the Province.

I say to the minister, it is not the expenditure of money that we are concerned about on this side of the House. It is not the expenditure of money that the people in the Province are concerned about, Madam Speaker, it is the management of the money. It is the management of the finances of this Province. For the past number of years, time and time again, we have seen from the Auditor General's report the need for proper management of our finances and we certainly have not seen that in the past fourteen years.

We had the minister on her feet talking about the future is so bright, Madam Speaker. Well, if we look back over the past fourteen years and we look at the record of this government there are a lot of questions and a lot of concerns that need to be raised. Certainly, what we have heard over the past couple of days in the House, member after member get up on their feet. We heard it this morning on a radio broadcast, about members opposite standing on their feet with prepared speeches. They are coming in, and it is all prepared. It is all prepared according to the radio. I am just saying what I was quoted.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I say this to the Minister of Education: Stay calm. According to the report on the radio this morning, members opposite are coming in with prepared speeches. Their plan of attack, their strategy, Madam Speaker. They got their orders in caucus to come in - I thought there were only a few people who caught the disease on that side of the House, but over the past week or so I see that everybody has caught it. Everybody got a serious case of Dannylitis. We cannot help it here on this side. Everybody on that side got a severe case of Dannylitis. Now they are on their feet and trying to do their best to discredit our leader and everything else. It is not working, I say to members opposite. It is not working and the polls will show that it is not working, and we will continue to lay it before the people of the Province, what we see as the concerns that people have.

Certainly, in the case of education - we touched on a few and the minister was on her feet saying this was an education budget. An education budget. I just spoke that time about my office having to track down a laptop computer for a child who is developmentally disabled and he needed something, Madam Speaker, and I had to go, and all set to go, to find something. Then we had the minister with the gall to stand on her feet and say this is an education budget.

We have a major concern that has been raised here in the House over the past couple of weeks, I have raised several petitions, in regard to roads in the Province. Once again, we have a situation where we do not have a federal-provincial roads program. We have a $23 million roads program in this Province this year. In the past couple of years we heard different Ministers of Finance on their feet talking about the largest roads program in the Province's history; the largest roads program in Confederation. I remember when Premier Tobin was here. My God, I thought we were going to get run over with steamers and rollers the way he was talking on that side of the House. We were back and forth - the largest roads program.

What are we finding now this year? We are spending the last of the Trunk Roads Agreement. We are spending the last of the Roads for Rail Agreement. All agreements that were signed under a Tory federal government, I say to members opposite, when John Crosbie was in power in Ottawa. Those agreements were signed and we are still spending it. Now, we cannot get the crowd opposite to go to Ottawa with a plan to deal with a followup to the provincial roads program. They are void of a plan. They have already gone up. They went up with a power point presentation that was laughed off. The MP for Labrador said he had a better presentation from the community of Pinsent Arm for a road.

Then we have a situation here where we are in desperate need of roads throughout this Province. I am sure the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is aware of the need for roads in this Province, but we do not have a federal-provincial agreement. We have $23 million. My understanding is that $5 million of that $23 million has to be spent on maintenance. That leaves us with $18 million, at somewhere around the cost of $75,000 per kilometre to do. I would say we have to look across the water and look for federal help in the Province here.

We sent the former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the Minister of Labour now, up to Ottawa with his power point presentation and they sent him home. They sent him home with nothing because it was a shame what he went up with. It was juvenile. The Member for Labrador said he had a better presentation for the community of Pinsent Arm than he had from the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation at the time, now the Minister of Labour, in regards to a federal-provincial agreement.

Madam Speaker, there are areas in my district that needs work, just like other districts need it, and we certainly have to find a way of getting those funds. What we need is a plan to address that concern and not a power point presentation by the former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

If I could go back for a minute to health care, Madam Speaker. The minister stood on her feet and talked about what they have done for health care in this Province over fourteen years. I just mentioned a few moments ago about the fact that there are1,400 beds closed up in this Province since 1989.

I have a situation in my district where I have an elderly couple who are looking for an hour-and-a-half of home care per day. I have been told they are very sick. They have major medical problems. An hour-and-a-half home care per day, and I have been told that the budget is expended. There is nothing they can do. They have to wait; an hour-and-a-half a day. At the same time, we have spent $30,000 a week on advertising for: Good Things are Happening in Newfoundland and Labrador to promote the Premier. We have the same government spending $125,000 on two ads in a foreign paper, Madam Speaker, and at the same time we have people out looking for an hour-and-a-half of home care.

Someone mentioned to me the other day that the health care system is sicker than the patients in this Province, and I tend to agree, Madam Speaker, because for the simple reason of the lack of management. It all comes back to the lack of management. It all comes back to leadership. It all comes back to the lack thereof, leadership and lack of management with this government over the past fourteen years that has put us in this situation that we are in, Madam Speaker.

We have to ask ourselves, and time and time again we have to ask ourselves, is this the type of government that we want to lead us into the next decade? I say not. The people of the Province say not.

I say to the Member for Bay of Islands, who is not sure whether he wants the MRI stationary or on wheels, time will tell when he will get it straight on that one. I think we have to get back to, if we could, a brighter future for those in need.

I can remember back in 1996, when the members opposite - and most of them are still there, Madam Speaker - talked about a brighter tomorrow. A brighter tomorrow, that was on the front page as the slogan of their election ad, a brighter tomorrow. I would say to the members opposite that you have failed on that account also. You go out and ask the people of this Province, throughout the areas of this Province, do they think they are better off today than they were in 1996, Madam Speaker? Do they think that the government opposite delivered on the promise of a better tomorrow?

Now, they are up talking about a brighter future. So, we have a better tomorrow one year, a brighter future the next year, and we still have the largest out-migration in Canada. Over 50,000 people in ten years have left this Province, Madam Speaker, and that is the brighter tomorrow. That is the better future. That is the government with a plan. That is the government with a vision, Madam Speaker.

I disagree 100 per cent with what the members opposite think with regard to creating a brighter future and a better tomorrow. People, Madam Speaker, are waiting for the opportunity. They are waiting for the opportunity for the report card to be laid in front of them, of the members opposite. They are waiting for the opportunity for the report card of the Liberal administration for fourteen years; a tired Administration, Madam Speaker, a tired Administration after fourteen years. They are waiting for those people opposite to lay their report card in front of them whenever the time comes, whether it is days, whether it is weeks, whether it is months. The Premier says it is going to be some time in 2003. Lay it in front of them so they can mark pass or fail and I think, Madam Speaker, certainly after going through the past fourteen years, after living through what this government has done to the people of this Province in the past fourteen years in health care, in education, in social services, in finance, that we have the worst financial record of a government in this country - the worst financial record of a government in this country - and then we have a minister standing on her feet and saying that the future is so bright we have to wear shades.

Madam Speaker, the people in the Province are very concerned about what the future is, especially when we are talking about a Budget that has ballooned by $2 billion in two years. Two billion dollars in less than three years, our long–term Budget has gone up.

We have a situation which I touched on earlier, $213 million on current account. Millions of dollars spent in legal costs. Millions of dollars wasted. Millions of dollars spent taking the ministers and their spouses all over God's country, million of dollars, and people out there looking for basic home care, basic social services, basic roads, basic needs of every day, and we cannot find the money to do that. Why can't we find the money to do that? It is because of the mismanagement of the past fourteen years of the people on the opposite side of the House.

The time is up, I say to the member opposite, the time is up for you to lay your report card in front of the people in this Province so the people can say if you have passed or failed.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: I think we all know what the answer will be, and I say sit down.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would just like to rise to raise a few points on the Budget Speech, or the general Budget Speech, and talk about some of the things that we have been discussing over the last number of weeks since the Budget has come out.

Madam Speaker, a lot of members opposite have referred to it, as my colleague on this side of the House referred to this, as the education budget. They seem to be all jumping over themselves on Budget day to refer to this as an education budget. Let me talk about some of the problems in the education system today, Madam Speaker.

When we look at our budget, our budget for education is enormous. The education budget takes up a considerable amount of the Province's budget. In fact, Madam Speaker, the education budget is $590 million for one department of government, a very important part of government, perhaps one of the most important parts of government, because the whole purpose of education, aside from giving people an opportunity to develop their talents and skills and training to be better citizens, is, in fact, to be the great equalizer in our society. If everybody has an equal opportunity to get an education, an equal opportunity to learn and become productive and useful members of society, build a better life for themselves and for their communities, then that can overcome a lot, Madam Speaker, a lot of hardship and a lot of background that might not be very conducive to having a very positive life.

We see a very basic problem, Madam Speaker, when we look at the kind of money we are spending on education, just the K-12 system, $590 million, of which is excess of $400 million goes for teachers' salaries and benefits, including substitute teachers. That is an enormous amount of money, and a needed amount of money.

MR. REID: What would you do, role back their wages?

MR. HARRIS: If the Minister of Education wants to roll back wages, that is fine.

It is a needed amount of money, Madam Speaker.

MR. REID: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education, on a point of order.

MR. REID: I can't have -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I can't have the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi besmirching my name here tonight. I did not say that we wanted to roll back their salaries. I think that is what you meant. You have been standing in the House now for two weeks talking about too much money going into teachers' salaries in this Province. We support the raise we gave the teachers of this Province and we will continue to support the teachers of this Province.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

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

MR. HARRIS: Obviously, Madam Speaker, the Minister of Education hasn't been listening. I said it is a lot of money, it is money that is needed and deserved. We need that to have very good quality teachers teaching the students of our Province. That is not the point.

The Minister of Education wants to get off on a tangent, trying to misrepresent what I have been saying. The minister is normally not a bad fellow. I don't know what is wrong with him tonight. He is normally not a bad fellow, he is reasonable. He must have had something sour for supper, Madam Speaker.

I want to get to a very important point. The Member for Placentia & St. Mary's raised this point, Madam Speaker, about the number of children who go to school hungry every day; in excess of 20,000 children a day going to school hungry. This is my point. The Minister of Education knows this well because he listened to the debate the other day and he did not support a motion to ensure that children in this Province can go to school with full bellies and learn, from the amount of money we are spending on teachers' education and teachers' salaries. That is the point that needs to be made, Madam Speaker, that we are spending in excess of $400 million to provide teachers to teach school and we know that 25 per cent of the children are going to school hungry. We have had study after study quoted in this House, some even commissioned by the government, Madam Speaker, to demonstrate that we have a serious problem in this Province. When children are improperly fed, have improper nutrition, and go to school hungry, they cannot learn and take full advantage of what is going on in the classroom. That is the point, Madam Speaker, and this is an education budget. Yes, it is a very good budget in the sense of the amount of money that has been spent - $590 million, over $400 million of which goes for teachers' salaries.

My point is this, Madam Speaker: If we can pay that much for teachers' salaries, and obviously we can and should, we can certainly find the money to ensure that money that goes in teachers' salaries is not wasted on 25 per cent of the students who cannot take full advantage of the educational opportunities that our school system is there to offer to our children. That is something, Madam Speaker, that I think, if you really wanted to have an education budget in this Province, if you really wanted to say we believe that every child in this Province deserves to have a full education and opportunity to learn in our schools, we would ensure that there was a school meal program in every school in Newfoundland and Labrador so that every child would be able to take advantage of that.

We had a debate last week about the St. John's school lunch program - they do not call it the St. John's school lunch program, but it is the St. John's school lunch program - it deals with twelve schools. They needed $32,000 to finish their program for the month of June. They cut out the program for June, so the 16,000 students who get a hot meal every day from the school meal program in St. John's, that serves twelve schools, will not be getting that for the month of June. They did that because they ran out of money, Madam Speaker. They ran out of money from their budget of in excess of $640,000. Of that budget, about 12 per cent comes from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Twelve per cent, $75,000, comes from there. Another 48 per cent comes from donations, from money that is raised, and another 40 per cent comes from parents who are able to contribute to the meals for their children.

That is the situation in St. John's, the school meal program that is there. It is only there for twelve schools, but the way the numbers work out, those who can afford to pay, pay, and that works out to about 40 per cent of the meals that are actually paid for by parents in whole or in part. The rest of the money has to be raised, either through private donations or through a modest subsidy from the government of 12 per cent. That is where you have a lot of big companies, a lot of supermarkets, a lot of corporate sponsors who are willing, for their own corporate citizenship reasons, for public relations reasons, and for genuine reasons of support for the children of the area, they have a proper school lunch program which is stigma free. That program has been going on for fifteen years. It started off with one school and they developed a stigma free way of delivering this program.

Madam Speaker, even - and I say even - in the City of St. John's, which we know by most statistics is the most well off place in Newfoundland and Labrador, perhaps, aside from Labrador West in terms of salaries, but in terms of the general population, the largest community that is pretty well off in terms of unemployment rates, in terms of per capita income in these sort of situations, we still have a situation where there is insufficient money able to be raised to support this program.

It is worse, far worse, Madam Speaker, in many parts of this Province where the need is perhaps greater. The need is perhaps greater because the economics are, in fact, worse. The incomes are lower. There isn't the community capacity to provide the donations. There isn't the organizational support of organizations like the Kiwanis Club and the Lions Club which still exist in lots of places, Madam Speaker. We do have a situation where it is an anomaly across this Province, where we have so many children unable to learn properly from school by not having access to a school meal program. That is not the full answer, Madam Speaker, to child poverty, but it is something that can be done as part of our educational program.

It is not a problem in other places, Madam Speaker. In France, as a matter of course, people go to school and at lunch time they sit down to their meal, teachers, students, the whole works, then they have their recreational break and then they go back to the afternoon of school, as a matter of course, as part of the delivery of the school system. There is no reason why we shouldn't do it here. Yes, it will cost money, Madam Speaker, but that money is money well spent, money that is needed to be spent, in order to ensure that children have a healthy diet and an opportunity to learn the things that the school system is supposed to provide for them.

I did say that it was brought up by the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, and he was one of the Opposition members who, in fact, supported my amendment to ensure that the school lunch program was going to be universal. I do have to say, Madam Speaker, that members on the government side of the House voted entirely against that motion, did not support the idea or even the principle of making the school lunch program a universal program for every school in the Province, and members on this side of the House, as well, joined in opposing that motion. In fact, there were only three or four voices in support of the idea of ensuring that every school child in this Province has the advantage of a school meal program. That is one very, very important matter that has to be raised.

The Education budget, as well, Madam Speaker, didn't do anything to deal with the problems that we have in the student debt loads that people in this Province have. Over the past ten years we have seen an increase in student debt requirements for post-secondary education, going from an average of about $7,000 or $8,000 in 1989 to, by the mid-1990s, about $25,000 for a four-year degree program. This is a very considerable burden on individual students. We transferred, Madam Speaker, the obligation by society to provide an education to the individuals and downloaded that to the point that students who go to post-secondary education here in the Province come away with such a large debt that their alternatives are narrow to the point where many of them are, in fact, forced to leave this Province to get the highest possible paying job that they can in order to pay down a student loan rather than staying and working in this Province and contributing to this Province.

I see the Member for Gander smiling and writing notes. Perhaps she is going to join in the speech a little later on. I will recognize that this Administration has done some things to bring about changes in that. The Member for Gander, when she was Minister of Education, in fact did those things. That needs to be recognized. On a go-forward basis, Madam Speaker, we had a better system than we had three years ago, than we had last year. We have a better system because it provides for opportunities for remission of student loans on a very timely basis, on the basis of academic performance, and it gives the student an opportunity and an incentive to complete a program quickly and have less of a debt burden coming out the other end. That is a very good thing, but we have about ten years of students, Madam Speaker, with an albatross of debt hanging around their neck in many cases, which has prevented them from going forward in their own lives. Some of those debts come from the public college. Many, and perhaps more, come from the private colleges which have provided programs in this Province; in many cases bringing students into programs that they were not prepared for, into programs that were under designed, Madam Speaker, that did not really offer them any prospects afterwards. Very expensive programs in a very short period of time, taking advantage of students' desire to have a quick fix to their educational needs. They have huge debts, Madam Speaker, and in many cases nothing to show for it at all.

Many of these students, Madam Speaker, ironically, during the course of this whole period of time, lost their right to go bankrupt thanks to the Government of Canada. The Liberal government in Ottawa changed the rules of the bankruptcy legislation to say that somebody who goes bankrupt, who has a debt that they cannot manage, of $30,000 or $40,000 or $50,000 or $60,000 that they cannot move, they cannot go anywhere, they cannot do anything, they can go bankrupt but they still have that debt; that that debt was, in fact, exempt from the bankruptcy laws for a period of ten years.

That is what has happened to a large number of students in this Province as a result of two kinds of policies: Number one, the policy of this Province to load up the student debt and get out of the grants program; and, secondly, to have their - they did not have them do it, but at the same time this was happening their federal colleagues were making it impossible for students who had made the mistake, or had been sucked in by a private college, or had gotten in way over their heads, to even be able to start afresh and go to a proper educational institution and move forward.

These are significant problems that have happened in our Province and this government has not really addressed those, and that is something that has to be addressed as soon as it can possibly be done.

I see, Madam Speaker, that I do not have a lot of time left to talk about a lot of the issues that come out of the Budget. There is always an enormous number of issues coming out of the Budget, and we talked on this debate about the general economic policy of the government. We have a very big deficit, we have noticed. That has been talked about in this House and outside, and that does have an effect on limiting the options that government might choose, and it may be an excuse that people might use not to support something like a school lunch program.

I want to say two things about that. I do not think we are getting enough revenue from our resources. Now, everybody says that. The government will say that, Opposition members will say that, they say it on Open Lines, but I want to underscore it just a little bit on the basis of sort of an extrapolation and building on what I said in a press release a week or so ago talking about the Terra Nova project, just one of those projects that we have off our shores, where, in the first three months of this year, 14.1 million barrels of oil were produced. That 14.1 million barrels of oil was actually worth $671 million, and these are figures that come form industry, Madam Speaker. They are very reliable figures from quarterly reports of companies doing business in our offshore. I do not want to blame any one particular company, if they happened to release the information from which we can extrapolate these figures.

It is very interesting that the $671 million worth of oil cost $47 million to produce. The production costs were $3.35 a barrel. The actual value of the crude produced at Terra Nova was $47.51 a barrel. The operating costs were $3.35 per barrel and the royalties that were paid to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador were forty-six cents a barrel, for a total of $6.5 million.

On $671 million, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador received revenues of $6.5 million in royalties. Now, just to rub it in, there is a claw back, of course, under the equalization formula of 30 per cent of that which takes another $2 million off that, leaving us with $4.5 million of the $671 million for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the reality of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) barrel.

MR. HARRIS: That is per barrel. Forty-six cents a barrel.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The net of that, I guess, 30 per cent of forty-six cents a barrel would be taken off. So, 70 per cent of forty-six, thirty-five cents, I guess, a barrel we will get. Something like thirty-five cents a barrel.

I want to compare that, Madam Speaker. We say that this is the revenue that we are getting per barrel. We often wonder, what are they getting in Alberta? What do they get in other places? I happen to have - the same company has a quarterly report, and they report on a per barrel basis what they are getting in revenues per barrel from Western Canada oil, and what they are paying in royalties, and what they are getting in the South China Sea, and what they are paying in royalties. What we have, interestingly enough, Western Canada, light crude, the same $47.9 per barrel, their operating costs, $10 a barrel, three times as much. The royalties, what do you think Madam Speaker? The royalties for light crude in Western Canada, $9.95 a barrel. What is the problem? Are the operating costs high? No. The operating costs are three times as high in Western Canada for light crude, but the royalties are $9.95 a barrel. For medium crude, $37 a barrel they get. Their operating costs are $9.24 a barrel; again, three times what ours are. The royalties are $6.83. For heavy oil, the heavy oil, I guess, they have a heavy oil upgrader in Westminister, very expensive to produce, $10.02 operating costs. They only get, sales revenue, $33 a barrel for it, $33.17, but the royalties there are $4.12 a barrel. You might say, well, this is offshore oil. This is offshore oil and it is very expensive out there. The operating costs do not show that, Madam Speaker, but maybe the capital costs are it.

This same company has operations in the South China Sea and they have, in the three months ending March 31, the sales revenue per barrel, $48.41. They are getting more per barrel for that oil. Their operating costs there are lower than ours, $2.06 a barrel instead of $3.35. What are the royalties? Four dollars a barrel. In the South China Sea, far, far away from Canada, operating in an ocean environment, they are paying $4 a barrel in royalties. They are paying Newfoundland and Labrador forty-six cents a barrel. What is wrong with this picture? Are we fools? Why would we enter into an agreement to get forty-six cents a barrel in royalties when in Western Canada they are getting nine dollars or eight dollars or six dollars? Who negotiated this deal for the Terra Nova project, to allow us to be made fools of? We wonder why, Madam Speaker, members opposite vote against the idea of having a universal school lunch program, because the Minister of Education says we cannot afford it, we are doing what we can. Well, we might be doing what we can, Madam Speaker, but we could certainly be doing a hell of a lot better.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: I am sorry to hear that my time is up, Madam Speaker, because this is a very important topic. Could I have leave for a few more minutes?

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: Leave to clue up.

MR. HARRIS: I have been given leave to clue up.

I have gone out of my way, Madam Speaker, to point this out and to give some examples because it is not simply a matter of us getting our fair share from our oil, because we are not. We are getting one-tenth of what they are getting in the South China Sea. We are getting about one-fourteenth of what the average royalty is for Western Canada for various kinds of crude, and we are getting about one-fifteenth or one-twentieth of what they are getting for light crude out there, similar to the light crude at Terra Nova in terms of royalties. There is something very, very wrong with that. Until and unless we tackle that problem in this Province and improve the situation in our revenues, we are going to be - we can argue all we want about equalization, we can argue all we want about how we are being treated by Ottawa, but we have to look after our own house too and we have to clean up our own act and make sure that we are getting the revenues we deserve so that we can provide the services that our people need.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Farewell speech.

MR. K. AYLWARD: I am afraid it is, again. It is for the listening pleasure of the Opposition, as a matter of fact, and the House of Assembly.

MS S. OSBORNE: Are you going out in a blaze of glory?

MR. K. AYLWARD: No. In a blaze of glory is always the best to get along too but the thing is, lately there have been blazes of glory in Atlantic Canada, over in New Brunswick in particular, you know, if you look at what is happening with the federal government and how it is dealing with us in Atlantic Canada.

When I look at the Budget, Madam Speaker - I was just listening to the Leader of the New Democratic Party. He makes a very good point when it comes to the oil revenues that we are trying to keep in this Province. When you look back at the former government, before 1989 - and this is not a criticism in any sense. What it is is the reality of governing Newfoundland and Labrador, if the straightjacket is on you, that the federal government has tied around us. If it is going to be on all of us in the future, we have a problem on our hands. That is what we are facing now.

The government previous to 1989 had difficulties dealing with Ottawa in trying to figure out jurisdiction for the offshore, going to court on it, years spent trying to get a better deal for us and ended up signing the Atlantic Accord. I have to say, I have a copy of the Atlantic Accord. I have raised it here a few times and it really references again what the Leader of the New Democratic Party talked about this evening. I am just going to read this in for the record because I have sent this over to our Department of Mines and Energy and the minister. I have also given it to the Minister of Finance. I have asked them to get the Justice Department to look at legal opinion to deal with Ottawa on the Atlantic Accord because I think it is time we did that too.

I will read you this. This is the hon. Jean Chrétien on the occasion of his visit to St. John's in April of 1984, when he spoke here as Minister of Mines and Energy. It is a speech - just for the record. I will send copies around if anybody would like it. Just to quote you a couple of thoughts that he gave here when he was minister. He is now the Prime Minister of Canada: I think many people in this Province do not appreciate just how generous the federal government has been in its offer. This was part of what he said: to start with, when would the provincial government be expected to share some of these revenues - we are talking Newfoundland and Labrador - with other Canadians? Not until the Newfoundland and Labrador government's fiscal capacity reached 110 per cent of the national average with an adjustment for regional unemployment that would now raise this to about 125 per cent. In relative terms, this would mean that the Newfoundland government would not be asked to share any revenue until it was the second richest province in Canada; second only to Alberta. About 40 per cent richer than Ontario and twice as rich as you and your neighbors in Atlantic Canada are today. Hibernia development, or even two Hibernias, would probably not provide enough revenue to reach the trigger for broader sharing, leaving almost all offshore revenue with the provincial government.

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Well, what happened was - we get tied up with equalization. We got an equalization formula that has kept us from realizing what that commitment is supposed to be.

We have had presentations from our Minister of Finance and our Premier for the last number of years trying to fix this problem, and we are wrestling with a deficit today. The only reason we are wrestling with a deficit, Madam Speaker, is because we cannot get the federal government to agree to the words and the terms that they said they were going to give us. So, no wonder people are getting pretty poisoned out there. No wonder they are getting kind of upset. No wonder they are saying: Maybe. What are we supposed to do, say: Well, you go ahead and break all your contracts you want with Newfoundland and Labrador, Ottawa. It is Okay, you go ahead. We will go into deficit spending. We will go and borrow the money that our children and grandchildren are going to have to pay back because you are up there in Ottawa deciding: Well, we know we said it. We know we put in agreements, like Atlantic Accords, with whoever was in power at the time. We know we said it but we changed our minds. The bureaucrats in Ottawa - well, they said we could not do it that way. Even though we committed to doing it and even though today the Prime Minister of Canada, our Leader of the Liberal Party in Canada, has these words on the record. No, Sir, they do not even recognize it. Some of them still think, in the Cabinet of Canada, that we are doing alright with these revenues.

I had a meeting with one federal minister, about six months ago, and I raised this whole issue with him. He said: Gee, minister, you are getting the lion's share of the revenue. I looked at him - he is a federal cabinet minister outside this Province - and said: You don't know what you are talking about.

We have an education job to do, folks. I have to tell you, when it comes to Ottawa and the Globe and Mail, and a few others there, the National Post - I sent this over to our Department of Finance. I asked the Department of Justice to have a look at it. I would hope that we, as a people, will decide to take this one to court, too. We have a few cases in court, but what the heck! You have to do something about what the federal government is doing to this place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Madam Speaker, all of us are trying to make this place a better place. We are all working on things. We have an educated workforce. We have educated politicians. We have educated bureaucrats. Now, when you bring up the Churchill Falls deal, everybody says: But you cannot deal with that, you signed a contract. A contract is a contract. You cannot deal with that. Oh, we are supposed to be okay with getting nailed into the ground. They are making over a billion dollars a year. They blocked us for twenty years from going after a new deal until 1997, the federal government, and they had no choice on this - but Quebec had no choice either. Quebec had to agree in 1997 because of NAFTA. We are allowed because of wielding rights. We are allowed to wield our electricity through, and it is (inaudible) established. All because of NAFTA, and that is the only reason. But for about twenty years they blocked us from developing in Quebec, and the federal government never bothered to do anything about it.

We are supposed to go along with it because we have seven seats, folks. We have seven seats in this Confederation. It doesn't matter what assets you have, it doesn't matter what great resources you bring, like a 200-mile limit and so on. That doesn't matter. All that matters is that you have seven seats. You go away, don't go troubling us up here in Ottawa, we will get around to you later now. Hey, Quebec, you come on in, you come say hello. Hey, Mr. Ontario, you come say hello to us. Not a problem at all. Hey, you down there in Newfoundland and Labrador with all those resources, yes, we know we said you were supposed to be the principle beneficiary, yes, we said you would be richer than Ontario, but, no, no, no, we didn't really mean that, even though it is in words and we committed it in public in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, we know we said it, but we really didn't mean it.

The thing is: No wonder people are getting poisoned. No wonder they are wondering about whether we are getting anywhere in Confederation. You know, what we are trying to say, and you are trying to do it in every diplomatic way you have, to Ottawa - my gosh, how many different types of ways to we say it, folks? I say the courts is another way and we should start going there on substantial financial issues.

Referencing this one here, I want to reference a letter - and I have a copy of it here - that a gentleman I know very well sent off to the Prime Minister. This gentleman is really an outstanding Newfoundlander, Mr. Bill Callahan. Bill Callahan has been fighting for this issue for a lot of years, actually, the former journalist and so on. He wrote the Prime Minister in February of 2000 about the 8.5 per cent in Hibernia, the Hibernia share, which they should just transfer over. That is a no-brainer for Ottawa. That could fix our deficit here right now and give us some ownership in the offshore.

Bill Callahan wrote an excellent three-page letter, with all the details and the history and everything else, to the Prime Minister, who committed this words. He writes in the letter, February, 2000 - anybody who would like a copy, I will provide it. Anyway, April 11, 2000, the Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien, writes him back.

Thanking you, Bill, for your letter of February 14 regarding offshore oil development, particularly with regard to the Hibernia project. I appreciate the time you have taken to inform me of your views on this matter and wish to assure you I have made careful note of your comments.

The government is currently reviewing its options regarding the Hibernia project and I will ask Minister Goodale to get back to you.

Well, Minister Goodale got back to him. Let me just tell you what he said, because it really sums it up very well. This all relates to our budget. This is May 24 of 2000.

Dear Mr. Callahan,

The PMO's office has forwarded me a copy of your letter of February 14 concerning the possible acquisition of the Government of Canada's interest in the Hibernia Development project by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As you are aware, the sale of the Government of Canada's 8.5 per cent interest in the project is under review. This interest is managed by the Canada Hibernia Holding Corporation, a subsidiary of the Canada Development Investment Corporation, a Crown corporation reporting to the Minister of Finance.

In December of 1999, CDIC, their Crown corporation, appointed the Alliance of Schroders & Company and Waterhouse Securities to act as its financial advisor. Should the Province of Newfoundland be interested in bidding for the Government of Canada's interest, I would suggest that you contact them to buy it.

Now, Madam Speaker, you have to say to yourself - I thank Mr. Bill Callahan for trying, let me tell you, because he is always at it and he is keeping at it. It tells you the sanctimonious and the kind of: Oh, it is Newfoundland and Labrador, and even though we said it and, yes, we signed the contract, and yes, you know, it is equalization and we are supposed to let you get your head start and everything, they do not really mean it. That is the problem. Here we are, as politicians, trying to explain to the people of this Province, why is it that we have these resources around us and we do not have the revenues. Well, there is a very good reason. Because every time we do a deal with somebody, 85 per cent or 90 per cent of it they are clawing it back. We have to decide, at some point, if we are going to accept that in the future.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at it - I have the Terms of Union and I want to read another part of this because this is very relevant today. Natural Resources, Terms of Union, we signed on to this contract now.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Butler): On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hate to interrupt the minister's excellent speech, and I hope the members will indulge him for a couple of extra minutes to make up for this point of order, which really isn't a point of order, but I am sure the former minister would want the members of the House to know that Alberta, for example, did not even own the oil and gas resources under the ground in Alberta until 1930 when the Government of Canada transferred the oil and gas resources, that were then belong to Canada, to the Province of Alberta in 1930 by the Dominion Lands Act. So, there is actually precedent for the Government of Canada transferring ownership of resources to a province, like Alberta, which they did in 1930. In fact, in vast parts of Northern Quebec, most of the resources of water power now owned by the Government of Quebec were also transferred to Quebec by the people of Canada, by the Government of Canada, in various times in the 1890s and the early 1900s. So there is lots of precedent for the Government of Canada doing the very thing that Mr. Callaghan is asking them to do, that we have asked them to do, that others have asked them to do, and that I hope the Royal Commission will also point out that they perhaps should have an obligation to do.

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: I thank the Leader of the New Democratic Party for that overview, because that is the fact. As a matter of fact, just out of the blue, I called up Peter Lougheed, the former Premier of Alberta, about a year ago. I just called him and asked him if he would call me back and just talk about this issue, and he did. He called me back within a couple of hours, actually, and, you know, we have some people out there who really want to help this Province and are in a position to do so. He pointed that out to me, as a matter of fact, that issue that you just raised. He said: Really, it comes down to political will. It takes political will. This would not affect the balance sheet of Canada at all. What it would do, in a sense, it would help it a great deal because this Province would have a chance to grow and to expand and have its revenues. Really, there is a precedent for it. It can be done. It just takes the political clout in Ottawa, and the willpower to do it.

Just to read in, referencing what you just said, Natural Resources, 37 in our Terms of Union, "All lands, mines, minerals..." - now, minerals could be what we brought into Confederation. So, if it is a 200-mile limit, whatever is underneath. There is a whole interpretation to this. - "...and royalties belonging to Newfoundland at the date of Union, and all sums then due or payable for such lands, mines, minerals, or royalties, shall belong to the Province of Newfoundland, subject to any other trusts existing in respect thereof, and to any interest other than that of the Province in the same."

I mean, when you look at what we have and we bring it forward, and we brought it in, and this was in the contract here, and then we signed a number of agreements, and commitments have been made to the people of this Province, you have to say to yourself, how far down the line do you go, you know, where we are now here with a deficit budget, which really - the only reason we have a deficit budget is because Ottawa has decided we are having a deficit budget, really. That is the reality. Really, we should have a surplus budget and we should have a Heritage Fund like Alberta, but right now, because of the constrainments of Ottawa, we have a problem.

When I look at our Budget, I am amazed at such a good Budget we brought in, the Budgets we have brought in. I am amazed we have been able to bring these Budgets forward and to get our economy generating like it has, new employment numbers that we have been able to go and do.

You look at when we joined Confederation. Defense bases - $300 million worth of assets we brought in, in 1947 dollars. Here today, I have the numbers from the year 1999-2000, and there was $883 million in the year 2000; $883 million in Nova Scotia being spent over 10,000 regular services personnel, 3,300 civilian and reserves. In Newfoundland, a net expenditure in Newfoundland was $64 million. As a matter of fact, they spend $100 million, but they get $50-odd million back because of Labrador - our former minister for Labrador, the Member for Lake Melville. They get $50-odd million. They spend $100 million and they get $50-odd million back, so their net expenditure is about $60 million. In British Columbia, though, because that is the coastal state, and normally you have, for defense forces, to protect you, they are spending over $600 million.

The question is - defense forces is another part of a contract that they brought into Canada, we brought into Canada, and what we are saying is, you look around and there is defense, there is ports and harbours, you have minerals, you are dealing with your fisheries resource now where we are going forward with joint management. What choice do we have? We have to get some sort of say because they do not seem to care about the outcome of their decisions. Guess what? What is the penalty? What are the bureaucrats in Ottawa going to do, drive down the Rideau Canal when they make the decision on their way home? They do not have to live with the results of the decision. This House of Assembly has to live with that result. Democracy in this Province is this House of Assembly and our municipal politicians, because they are on the ground all the time. They have to face these decisions.

I say at this point, folks, we have some serious issues with Ottawa. When you are dealing with a deficit, and you are trying to create an economy and a future for young people in the Province, we, I think, have to come to some conclusions and a strategy about how to deal with it. I think part of that strategy is going with the legal strategy, which I think is one way to go, and we have to find a way to get leverage. We have to find a way to get leverage.

I am going to finish up with one other comment because this one keeps me going for a while. I read the National Post. I do not know if anybody read it on Saturday, but if you had the pleasure to read this, I am going to read a little paragraph to you. It says: That's enough Grimes.

It goes on and he starts off talking about the Premier and so on. "In Alberta, Ralph Klein's vague griping about Ottawa is nothing new. But Roger Grimes' recent outbursts came as a surprise. On Monday, the Newfoundland Premier disgracefully suggested he would hinder the federal government's efforts to prosecute fishermen violating a new cod-fishing ban. Then on Thursday, he upped the ante by calling for the renegotiation of the Terms of the Union, the document that formally declared Newfoundland and Labrador a province of Canada in 1949. "It's not limited only to the fishery," he said. "There's a deep-rooted feeling ... that we are not respected in Canada, that our views are not given full thought."

"This is an odd complaint coming from a province that annually receives about $3-billion more from Ottawa than it pays out. Moreover, Mr. Grimes should be careful what he asks for: If the rest of Canada agreed to "renegotiation", wealthy provinces would no doubt agitate to cut off the eastern welfare spigot." That is what the National Post said on Saturday. That is shameful.

I tell you, some time in the next couple of days, we should move a motion in this House or send a message to the honourable National Post. I called today looking for who wrote that. I have not gotten a call back yet. I asked: Who was the author was of that? Because that is not going to be allowed to stand. They do not even know their numbers. They will not even bother to call anybody to ask what the numbers are. That fact is, we are paying more in than we are getting out. The bottom line is, look at the attitude of a national newspaper. They allowed that on their main editorial pages. That is shocking, as far as I am concerned, and it should not be allowed to stand, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: We, in this Province, could show Ottawa and Toronto something about diplomacy, I can tell you that, given the runaround we have been getting in trying to develop our economy and putting together a budget. The Minister of Finance has to be a magician to put together a budget and she has done a great job.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It gives me great delight to speak on the Budget here tonight. I want to congratulate the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East for speaking so passionately and wrapping himself in the flag. It is certainly good to see. It is about time, I say to the member opposite. I want to personally congratulate him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I feel he must be outside the box now and can say whatever he likes, and it is certainly good to see. Over the last number of weeks, that I have been here, I have seen member after member opposite get up, and the first thing they did was refer to their notes and take a rap at our leader, the Leader of the Official Opposition. That was the prepared text. That was the strategy, hit the leader. Not only that, the media is picking up on this now. You look in The Telegram you will find it. You look at the evening news tonight. Everybody is saying: that is the strategy of the government, to take a run at the Leader of the Opposition.

The other night the Member for Port de Grave said that the member should come clean. It is absolutely ridiculous. We all here are governed by the Commission of Members' Interests. I have to put in how much I owe. Some people can put in how much they make or how much they got. Mr. Speaker, the Commission of Members' Interests certainly states quite clearly that if anybody is in fault, he will certainly point it out.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but refer to it. I spoke to it the other night in Concurrence, and that is a press release I received the other day. It starts off with: Three outstanding business leaders will join the ranks of the Newfoundland and Labrador Business Hall of Fame. Mr. Williams will be inducted as a laureate into the Newfoundland and Labrador Business Hall of Fame. It goes on to name some of these people who are involved in this Business Hall of Fame. We have Robert C. Anthony; Henry Collingwood; Chester Dawe; Craig Dobbin; Albert Hickman. All business leaders, people who have created tens of thousands of man hours and woman hours for people in this Province and they are certainly to be saluted. I think for the Leader of the Opposition to be placed with all these other laureates is certainly a remarkable achievement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, as well, I listened intently the other day when the Member for Gander stood up and tried to portray the argument that somehow the Leader of the Opposition and our party were against women. Now, I do not know where she came up with that. I have no idea whatsoever, but it gives me a great opportunity to talk about women in our party, I say to the Member for Gander.

I will first point out that the last two presidents of our party were women; which brings me to Kathy Dunderdale, who just finished up as president and is now a candidate in Virginia Waters - as the current Member for Virginia Waters, I am sure, is quite aware. She is a great lady. She is a former President of the Federation of Municipalities. She is also a former mayor of a rural town.

Then we have two other ladies, two nurses: Kathy Goudie in Humber Valley and Joan Cleary in Bellevue. I hear the Member for Bellevue singing out. He is quite familiar with her; very worried. Every time she knocks on a door he runs behind her. She has hit every door in the Bellevue District. Two women who are used to taking their lunch bag to work, working twelve hour shifts as nurses in this Province. Two people who care for individuals around this Province, and they are certainly to be saluted. These are the kind of women in our party, I say to members opposite.

Then we have Elizabeth Marshall. I hear all too often: the Marshall plan. The Marshall plan. For members opposite, the Marshall plan was not that bad a deal. Anyone who knows anything about the Marshall plan, it was one of the best economic developers ever in Europe that took place after the Second World War, I say to members opposite. So, the Marshall plan is not a bad thing, and we are going to see the Marshall plan. I can assure members opposite, we will see the Marshall plan. A former Auditor General in this Province who knows more about the finances of this Province than the current Minister of Finance, I say to members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Then we have Dianne Whalen, the Mayor of Paradise, the current candidate for Conception Bay East & Bell Island. A woman who is a mayor of one of the fastest growing towns, not only in Newfoundland, but in all of Atlantic Canada. So, I mean, these are very credible women in our party.

Then I hear Charlene Johnson. Charlene Johnson is running in Trinity-Bay de Verde District. A woman who has two degrees and is currently working on her doctorate in environmental science. These are the kind of women that our party is attracting. These are the kind of women that we want in our party, that we have always had in our party. Just to add a caveat to that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind hon. members opposite that in my recent election in 2003, 75 per cent of my campaign team were women. Seventy-five per cent of them were women.

I will just give you a little history on the contribution that women have made to the elections in CBS. In 1996, Mr. Speaker, 52 per cent of the people in Conception Bay South decided, with the help of women, with most of our campaign team women, that they had enough of the foolishness. We heard the expression at the time, all fluff and no stuff. Well, 52 per cent of the people in my district, our district at the time, saw through this all fluff and voted for the stuff, and nine other seats throughout this great Province did the very same thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: In 1996, the pundits said: Forget about it, you won't win a seat; but, because of women in the CBS district we won it as well as nine other seats throughout this Province.

In 1999, the same thing. Forget it. You are hardly going to win a seat. You are not going to win a seat. These same 75 per cent of our campaign team who were women delivered, in CBS, over 60 per cent of the vote, Mr. Speaker, 60 per cent of the vote. We went on in that election to win fourteen seats. Fourteen seats, when they said it could not be done. The White Knight from Ottawa was going to wipe us all under the curtains; but we had news for them, and the women of our party had news for them.

In 2002, I heard a lot about a record of achievement in the by-election in Conception Bay South. The record of achievement, that was the stone. We saw stuff like this, $30,000 a week, a big picture of the Premier, great record of achievements. Good things are happening in Newfoundland and Labrador, I say to the members opposite, good things are happening. Those 75 per cent women saw through the fluff and delivered 83 per cent in that district, Mr. Speaker. Eighty-three per cent voted for the PC Party in that election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Now, Mr. Speaker, if you look on this side of the House, we have nineteen seats. We started in 1996 with nine; we now have nineteen seats on this side of the House. I say to members opposite: Good things are starting to happen here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: There is an interesting trend, Mr. Speaker, a very interesting trend since 1996, from nine to nineteen. I say to members opposite, that trend is about to continue.

Mr. Speaker, I hear a lot, too, about mixed messages. I hear people getting up, shouting and bawling back and forth at our side of the House. I would like to point out something that happened just last week in The Telegram and it certainly shows the mixed messages that we are getting from members opposite.

First of all, we have McCurdy unsure of Grimes' intent. We have the President of the Fisheries' Union, who is still unsure of what Mr. Grimes is doing. He is coming out and saying: Go ahead, fish away, do what you want. We will look after you, we will protect you. However, Mr. Speaker, we have the Justice Minister saying: I don't care if it is the Premier who says something, or Joe Blow in Joe Batt's Arm; whoever breaks the law in this Province, the laws will be upheld.

I salute the Minister of Justice. We have to do those kinds of things. If not, anarchy would rule, Mr. Speaker. However, in that very same article we hear: Although fisheries prosecutions are a federal matter, there is usually co-operation between the two departments. Grimes has suggested Justice officials will not be co-operative in this case.

Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely ridiculous. Here we have the Premier of this Province insisting that this kind of thing go on, that we will protect them, when he knows full well, Mr. Speaker, that he certainly cannot protect the people of this Province if they break the law. I ask the Justice Minister to certainly keep reminding him of that.

In that same paper, Mr. Speaker, on the editorial page, one of the quotes there was: On the face of it, Grimes' comments were either ill thought out or blatant electioneering.

Everywhere I went this past weekend, that is what people were telling me. What is he doing? What is he, electioneering, telling people to go out and fish illegally? It is insane, Mr. Speaker. It is insane. It is obvious blatant electioneering.

In that same article, Mr. Speaker, the only problem is that there is a fine balance between being a clarion and a clown, and I wonder sometimes if he is leaning towards the latter, I have to admit.

It was very interesting last week when I received a copy of a letter from a cousin of the members opposite, the Liberal Member for Labrador. Mr. Speaker, initially that was the only thing that the Premier could do. What he decided, the only route he had was to ask his cousins in Ottawa to resign. They should resign, in protest. The members opposite still believe that they should resign in protest. That really struck me as odd because - and in this letter pointed out some interesting things about members opposite from Labrador.

He suggested, should the Liberal MHAs also have resigned over the issue of IOC pellet plant investment in Sept-Iles instead of Labrador City? Obviously, what happened there? The pellet plant, there was a Liberal member actually paid the price for that. My colleague down here from Labrador West is the result of that. We did not see any members opposite resigning then. We did not see any Liberal members resign; no, we did not.

We did not see any of them resign when they attempted to drain the remaining funds of the Labrador Transportation Initiative to look after the provincial deficit, Mr. Speaker. We did not see that happening. They stayed in their seats. Nobody resigned. They stayed as they were. We did not see members opposite resign when they tried to ram through the Labrador Hydro development with no guarantees of economic development, long-term employment or return on investment to the Labrador communities affected by this project. Nobody resigned. Nobody said a word, Mr. Speaker, not a word.

It wasn't that long ago that I remember a fellow down in New York, speaking to business meetings down there, who made some awfully strange comments, Mr. Speaker. I didn't see him resign either, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was that?

MR. FRENCH: I am not quite sure who that was, but I am sure if members opposite checked the local paper they would be easily reminded of the flippant remarks, Mr. Speaker - the flippant remarks - made by members opposite.

He also goes on to say in that letter, Mr. Speaker, the lack of co-operation he has had with this government, and the fact that none of them have been involved in trying to further the cause of this Province. There is no wonder, Mr. Speaker, there is no lands agreement in this Province. There is no wonder there is no economic developments project. There is no infrastructure project as well, Mr. Speaker, no joint infrastructure programs in this Province, currently. It is absolutely ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. George's- Stephenville East just got up and made a very passionate speech, and I salute him on it. Obviously, we need a change. We have to have a change here. They are just not listening. They are not pushing the right buttons in Ottawa. Their federal cousins are up there and they are not doing anything with it. It is time for a change, Mr. Speaker, certainly time for a change.

We see the closure of the Gander weather office. I might add, in this letter, if I could, I have tried to alert provincial interest to issues that are still, as they say, below the radar. Now, can you imagine? Here we have an MP in Ottawa who is trying to let the provincial people know, their provincial Liberal cousins in Newfoundland, that the weather station could be closing in Gander. You better get on this.

Port Harmon: Look what happened in Port Harmon. The member spoke about it a couple of weeks ago. I remember sitting here and the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East spoke passionately on this, Mr. Speaker. I respect what he said, and he was right in what he said, but they are just not listening.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we see the closure of the fishery, the final closure of the fishery. Absolutely ridiculous!

I want to remind the Member for Humber East about Incinerator Road in Foxtrap in the district that I live in. The man is quite familiar with it. He has had pictures sent to him. He has had a number of letters written to him. He has had letters from school councils, Mr. Speaker. The decision was supposed to be made on the April 3. He still delayed this. I don't know what the reason is. I just wish he would make the right decision. I refer again to the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East who did make the right decision on a previous application that was put before Environment for that road.

Currently, Mr. Speaker, there is an application in by a company called St. John's Salvage. What they plan to do is relocate a scrap metal yard. Now, if anybody visited this scrap metal yard, they obviously have to move it. It is in the middle of a residential area and it certainly has to be moved. Why take an environmental hazard from one area, or potential environmental hazard, and move it to a place that we know, for a fact, is an environmental catastrophe?

Mr. Speaker, if I could just tell you some of the things that are on in Incinerator Road in Foxtrap. The Member for Topsail is well aware of the situation there, and anybody who visited that site would certainly understand what is happening there. Works, Services and Transportation has a depot there with huge salt sheds. You can imagine, Mr. Speaker, the runoff. When the salt gets wet and the rain hits the salt, obviously it is not good. The water with the salt product in it runs into streams and runs into the wetlands up there. It is something to be cognizant of. As well, Mr. Speaker, we have several pits where sand is being washed away, all kinds of excavation activity. That is the sort of thing that doesn't do the environment any favours either, I say to the Speaker.

As well, Mr. Speaker, we have the former landfill site in there. I have been told a number of times, don't mention the former landfill site. It is going to cost a million dollars to clean that up. It might even cost a bit more than a million dollars to clean it up. I am sure that is what they said about the St. John's Harbour, and now that is a $90 million thing that they have had to create. For the sake of a million or two million dollars, with the help of the provincial government opposite, we could clean up the current site.

The old dump site that I remember quite well on Legion Road in Kelligrews is a beautiful site. It has been dealt with. We certainly have to deal with this site. The teepee incinerator still stands there today. We know we can't totally clean up this site. Let's face it, there has been years and years of garbage put there, but surely God, we can do something to do up that area compared to what it is today. Mr. Speaker, you drive past it now and there are piles of garbage just thrown out on the ground. Nothing done.

A company called Rothsay has a rendering plant there. I say to the member opposite, the smell from that plant, at the right times of the summer, if you can go out and sit down on certain patios in Conception Bay South and barbeque and eat it, I will certainly buy the Minister of Environment a steak. If he will come up at the right time, I will set up the barbeque in by the pit. I will cook it and if he can eat it, he is a fine man, I say to members opposite. He is a good man if he can stick there in that smell and eat that, he is a fine man.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we have Party's Waste Management, that I personally believe has done major, major damage to that area. Anybody who is from Foxtrap, who has visited Incinerator Road, will tell you the exact same thing I am telling you here now. There is raw sewerage on the ground. There is raw sewerage that went out into the wetlands area. It is totally contaminated. There has been stuff issued from the Department of Environment of this Province that have not been followed through on. The mess is still there. As well, Mr. Speaker, you can see the skim of oil over the whole area.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: A skim of oil. I will remind the minister that I have copies of correspondence. I have had e-mails from members opposite, from members' staff opposite, that indicate I made that report and it should be checked. I say to the minister opposite, there is a letter on the way explaining all of that, with dates and the whole works. He should get it checked out. It is worth checking.

As well, Mr. Speaker, we have PCBs stored in there. We have a biomedical waste management facility that stores biomedical waste in there. This is what currently exists in there. Aside from the plant that they want to put in there, this is what we currently have. Now, it is fine to have it all in there, but what does it affect, is the question? We have a large residential area. We have a huge residential area starting up in that area and they do not want to be near all this environmental stuff, Mr. Speaker.

We have farms within one kilometre, I say to the member opposite. Within one kilometre of these facilities we have a farm. This farm - and I have letters from farmers and so does the minister. The minister has all kinds of letters from local farmers. Basically, they are experiencing acid rain on their crops. These people do not think that that is in Newfoundland. They do not believe that is in Newfoundland.

The Minister of Environment sits there and laughs. Well, I say to the Minister of Environment, come up and meet with the farmers. Come up and go down by their crops; and if a rat don't lug him off he will be alright.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FRENCH: If the rats don't get him, he will be doing fine.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have a few moments in the Budget Debate to talk about some of the things that we have done. Very interesting, Mr. Speaker. The person across the floor, the Member for Conception Bay South, just began his address to the Assembly and to the people across the Province, who are watching, by saying to us as members over here that whenever you get up to speak your main motive, first of all, is to discredit the leader. I could not believe what I was hearing. He made three or four attempts -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LANGDON: - I am telling you. The thing is that people out there heard it, we heard it, bringing up all kinds of smear tactics against the Premier. The thing about it is, it can work both ways.

Earlier tonight I was listening to the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's and he was talking about things in government that we have not done right. Things where we have probably wasted some dollars and things like that. I want to set the record straight for the next couple of minutes, Mr. Speaker, there was a lot of hullabaloo in the House a little while ago where people were talking about where the former Premier had in his possession some government furniture and for a few days people were not able to find it. Eventually, I think it is all back with government now.

Let me just say this to you, Mr. Speaker, I wonder where this furniture is? A Gibbard mahogany diningroom set, included a table, ten chairs, a server and a china cabinet that the former, former Premier, Mr. Peckford paid for, for $1,500 that the people of the Province paid $12,000 to $15,000 to buy. I wonder about the Gibbard bedroom set, including a king side bed, a bureau, framed mirror, highboy, two end tables and a wine stand that they paid $500 for that the taxpayers of the Province paid $4,675 for. I can keep on going down through.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the former, former Premier of the Province, only a few days ago - I saw him in the paper when he was saying that this Premier had a political agenda; that he was going to use the fish particular situation now to go to the polls to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to convince the people that he was the right leader. Now, Mr. Speaker, can you imagine?

I have a memory that God gave me, and I am glad that I have, when he was a Premier how he would rant and rave to have political issues with his political cousins in Ottawa at the time to make an issue. I remember the bus instance when the former member for Placentia West was there and he said: Mr. Premier, these people are here to greet you. They are all friends of yours. He opened up the door and they were angry teachers who had been out on strike. No, Mr. Premier get back on the bus. They are mad at you. It is people that do not have short memories, it works both ways, Mr. Speaker, and I can find -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: Pardon?

We can find many, many examples of that. That, Mr. Speaker, carries about - the Lower Churchill, we think about the former, former Premier Moores when he was going to build a tunnel across the Straits of Bell Isle and use more Robin Hood flour than Manny's Bakery had used in twenty-five years to blow up the site on each side of the Straits of Bell Isle.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: That is the policy that they have.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: That is on the table again now. I understand that.

Mr. Speaker, let me go back and talk about one of the issues that has been dominating. I can talk about a lot of others that are dominating over the last number of days. My colleague from Stephenville East talked about the arrogance of the media in Ottawa, and the federal government, toward our plight. One of the things that really irritates anybody from this Province, no doubt, is when they say, for example, that they acquaint us with Quebec. Now, everybody in the country knows what Quebec separatists have been doing for years and years and years. They wanted to have a national government in the Province of Quebec. They do not even call their Premier, Premier. It is Prime Minister. They do not call it the House of Assembly. It is their National Chamber. They look at themselves as being nationalists. That is not what we are about. That is not what we are about. We are looking for a federal government, regardless of the stripe, to look at us as a people and look at the resources that we have, and, at the end of the day, give us a fair shake for it.

Now, he talked also about the National Post. I read the National Post this morning. I do not usually read it down through, but I just saw an article about what Andrew Coyne wrote, a prominent Canadian writer. He talked about the system in Canada not being functional. He calls it a dysfunctional democracy, and he goes on to talk about it. Here is the telling part that really irritates and gets under your gall, so to speak, and this is what he said: Where I differ from the devolutionist is not over the legitimacy of regional grievances, though we have become past masters in this country of nourishing these, but their unquestioning acceptance of the Premier's favourite remedy, more power for the provinces. Take the fishery. There is no doubt that the federal government had disastrously mismanaged the fishery over the years, where the short-term interests of the fishing and related industries and even shorter-term interests of elected politicians were put ahead of the long-term sustainability of the fish stocks.

Then he goes on to talk about: The provincial government, did the affected provinces ever dissent from this course? Did Newfoundland, in particular, ever call upon Ottawa to stop using unemployment insurance to supplement the incomes of seasonal workers, a practice that has kept many more people in the fishery than could be supported on the stocks alone?

Now, that is the arrogance. Anybody who has ever attended any ministers' meetings across the country will see that is a Central Canada scene. They penalize us. They criticize us. They try to degrade us and somehow recognize that we are not equal status in Canada, there is something wrong with us. That, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, somehow we are inferior to people in Western Canada or the central government. Do you know what? It is really degrading. How many times do you see them talking about, for example, the people who work in Northern Manitoba or in Northern Saskatchewan, or in the territories or in Prince Edward Island? They have a seasonal fishery there. What about those people? They do not draw EI, do they? They are somehow different from us? What about in Nova Scotia? They do not have any short-term seasonal workers either, do they? They work all year long building highways and bridges. They do not have unemployment insurance? What happens to the seasonal worker in Ontario who works at the roads during the summer and builds bridges? They don't draw unemployment insurance, do they, during the winter? No, no, no, it is just the Newfoundlanders. Give me a break.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: (Inaudible) all of Atlantic Canada.

MR. LANGDON: My colleague from Labrador West says there are more people from Montreal drawing EI than all of Atlantic Canadians together. I would not be surprised at that. Here is the situation. He is insinuating that if we were to have joint management of the fisheries, along with the government in Ottawa, that somehow we would allow our people to go and fish until not one of them is there anymore, complete wasteland, complete Sahara Desert, and then go back to the people in Ottawa, the government in Ottawa, and say: Give us money because we have overfished.

I mean, what an attitude! What an attitude towards our people, and there is no wonder that the Premier has taken the task to do it. I can tell you, the situation of the leader here, our leader, in the last number of days, the Premier of the Province, in the last number of weeks, saw that attitude. He had been at the first Ministers' Conference and he saw it, and we saw it here when he went to Minister Anderson, along with the Member for Gander, and said: Would you rethink your plan to close out the Gander Weather Office? He said: I will look at that. Before the Premier got back to Newfoundland, on the plane to his office, there was a letter from Minister Anderson saying: I have reconsidered. I am not going to change my mind. We are still going to close the office.

Can you imagine the audacity of the federal Member of Parliament of Canada to treat us that way? Look at the situation with what happened in Stephenville, when they wanted to divestiture the Port Harmon situation. We knew quite well, and basically his attitude is: Well, if you do not like it, take us to court. That is the attitude that you get from these people, and we have heard it over and over and over again.

We talk about, as a part of the Budget, we had a deficit this year of about $280 million. Just think about it. I heard the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi the other day explaining it in his speaking at the Budget Speech in very bold terms. He said this: A barrel of oil probably costs about $25, and, out of the $25, what was Newfoundland's share? Forty-six cents a barrel. Can you imagine? Then we have the Prime Minister - my colleague from Stephenville East talked about it earlier tonight in his speech - where the Prime Minister of Canada said, in this Accord, we will make sure that we withdraw none of the income from the revenue in your natural resources until you become an equal province, or a province with equal status to the rest of them across the country. Guess what is happening?

Using a quote again from the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, he said: We make about $6 million a year from the revenue on the Hibernia oil field out here, and out of that $6 million they draw back another 70 per cent of it, leaving us with 4 per cent.

They have the audacity, then, to say to us somehow that we are out there with our hands out and we are paupers and we want them to give and give and give, and the fact that we received about $3 billion from them in equalization payments. He did not say that over the last number of years we have gone from getting 60 per cent of our budget from the federal government down to about 40 per cent. We have grown our provincial economy by 20 per cent, and that is where the Minister of Finance was coming from, that over the next four years, with prudent management and expanding of our own economy, we will be able to have a balanced budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: That is what it is about. You talk about spending money wisely. Just think about it, we just had a credit rating confirmed of an A credit rating again. So, if the Minister of Finance was not doing her job - and the Leader of the Opposition said this is a particular article that was in, I think, The Telegram, this is what he said: Our current Minister of Finance will go down in history as the most unsustainable, least accountable, confrontational Finance Minister in the history of our Province.

Just think about that. Think about that, what he just said. What has the Finance Minister done? It was under her directorship and the Premier that we got the A rating, the first time in seventy years, reconfirmed again only recently. That is leadership. That is what it is about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: If that was not happening then it would not do.

Mr. Speaker, one of the easiest things in the world to do is to criticize. One of the easiest things to do is to say I can deliver if you have not been there. It is a big difference and it takes vision, it takes initiative, it takes goodwill, to be able to plan and to do things.

I think about, in my own situation, as the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and I have said this in the House a number of times but it is worth repeating, Mr. Speaker, because we do have a lot of small municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador. Many of them need infrastructure, water and sewer. I still have people in my area today, in my district, that do not have running water. I still have people in my district that we are giving money to this year as a part of the budgetary process so that the water that they have can be chlorinated and come off the boil order. We are hoping that will happen.

I read, by the way, only a few days ago, some of the notes that were passed to me on the Northern Peninsula. I think it was six communities that were on the boil order and now they are off. They are managing all of their systems by having one person who is trained to look after the six. That is what that is about.

Getting back to the smaller municipalities, Mr. Speaker, I met with one this morning. I am meeting with them all the time, and as many as I possible can. Those small municipalities, we are looking at water and sewer. To put in a phase of water and sewer in a town like Sunnyside, in the district of the Minister of Labour, Bellevue, it would cost about $1 million to put in a new system and connect up probably not half of the people in that particular community. You know what? This government - and that is why sometimes when we look at what the federal government does, it is a Canada-Newfoundland infrastructure program, Mr. Speaker. It is one-third, one-third, one-third. One-third picked up by the federal government, one-third by the Province, and it is supposed to be one-third by the municipality. Do you know what we have done? We have done it in a lot of districts, in Opposition districts as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: It has happened in many of the districts across the Province. I think of the Member for Baie Verte, in Burlington, one of the communities that comes to mind. As a provincial government, do you know what we did so that those communities can pay for their infrastructure? This provincial government has picked up 60 per cent, 70 per cent, 75 per cent, 80 per cent, 85 per cent, and in some instances 90 per cent, of their particular portion that they would have to pay. Otherwise, the people out in the Province would not have drinking water and they would have to bring the water into buckets or whatever the case might be.

This government recognized that, this minister, and it was started by the predecessor, the Member for St. John's Centre, who convinced government, and has continued to do, where we have a variable formula where those particular communities can have water and sewer and so on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: That is what it is about, being able to recognize.

I want to go back to leadership again, of the Premier. The thing about it is, we hear a lot of things and we say a lot of things, but it is worth repeating. When we think of our own leader here, the Premier, from Grand Falls-Windsor, and I think of the situation where he grew up as a young fellow in Grand Falls. He grew up in a family of fourteen children, where he says that many times he never had an opportunity to sit in the first sitting at the table at suppertime; it was the second one. It was there that he helped his mother to clean the dishes many, many times. He said: I never had a pair of skates unless I had paper from Grand Falls mill poked up in the nose of them so that skates would not fall off my feet. That is the person who was able to look at that situation. His mom stayed at home, like many others. His dad worked in the mill, and the family, many of them, have done very, very well. I do not know them all but I know a number of them as preachers within the Pentecostal system and I know, like the Premier here, have looked at that situation, taken it and went to university. Do you know what? He was able to go to university like me, and I have said it here many, many times, the Member for Bellevue, because we recognize how important - Joey Smallwood did - the education system was.

I was able to go because I got free tuition. I was able to go because I got $100 a month living allowance while I was going, so that when I went, when I decided to go to university, I was able to go; not because my parents were able to back me but I had a government who cared.

This is what is happening here. This is where the Premier is coming from. He recognizes that, regardless of your stature in life, regardless of where you come from a socio-economic background, that everybody should have the right to go to university. I believe that, and I think that over the next number of years we will see more that is being done. We recognize where we have reduced the tuition at Memorial University year over year. Now we have the lowest in the country.

We think about where this government has said to the students who have loans out there, this government will pay off 100 per cent of your personal loan, of your student loan, once you have been able to do your courses at MUN, take the full course and graduate. In the Budget we decided to go even further than that and help to pay off some of the money by introducing a deduction through income tax for the young people who are going to university. That is recognizing where you are going. That is recognizing what is up. That is a plan. That is what it is about, you are planning for the young people across this particular Province. There are many, many other things, of course, that we can do as well, when we look at what has been happening.

Getting back to the Premier: The thing is he recognizes, as a I said a few moments ago, the need for what is happening in Ottawa. He is at the right place at the right time, a person with a passion, a person knowing what has to be done for the ordinary Newfoundlander and Labradorian out there in many of the small rural communities across the Province. He identifies with their plight, identifies with the situation that is happening with them now.

When we talk about the federal government - it was said on both sides of the House only a little while ago, when the SARS situation was in Toronto and it was a serious situation. The federal government instantly came to their aid and extended EI without even a waiting period. We have fisher people here in Newfoundland and Labrador who have been out of work, no money, for the last five or six weeks. It is criminal to keep these people there with no money. The people in Ottawa know that. The federal government knows that. It is not like the particular fund is in difficulty. It has a surplus of probably $20 billion or more.

AN HON. MEMBER: Forty-three billion.

MR. LANGDON: Forty-three billion, and this somehow says to us that we cannot get any. When we see articles like that by Andrew Coyne, it represents the Canadian mentality. It represents Canada as a whole, from British Columbia, I should say, to Halifax because sometimes they think that we don't even exist. Do you know what? We do exist. I am telling you that this time the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have found their resolve and they are just not going to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Do you know what? We are not going to go away this time. We are not going to go away because we recognize that along with us every person in Newfoundland and Labrador, including the fisher people out there who are affected, that somehow they have really said to us: We want you to fight for us and we will stand with you and we will stand behind you and make sure that this is corrected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: This is what it is about.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. LANGDON: Just a minute?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. LANGDON: No leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member has asked for leave? Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. LANGDON: I just want to thank the hon. Opposition House Leader for giving leave.

Mr. Speaker, I was in my own district over the weekend and I met with the executive of the local FFAW there, Eric Day the President, Mike Whittle, Gloria Pierce, Eric Skinner and the Mayor of Harbour Breton. We talked about this situation here. Do you know what? In the Town of Harbour Breton, even though they have done very well this year, the closure of the fishery of the Northeast Coast and the Gulf will mean anywhere between eight to twelve weeks work for the 300 people who are in that plant. It is unsettling for them. I met with them on the weekend and I am going to work with them to find out from the company if there is a way they can find a way to mitigate some of that loss, because it is important and we see it.

The thing about it which is really, again, galling to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, is that the minister does have a way out, and let's hope that he does reconsider, find a way so that the people can fish the resource, not to plunder it, as I heard David Suzuki talk about today, but to follow the guidance of the resource council of Canada: fish it legitimately, fish is as conservationists, and be able to give the people who want to get out of the industry a break so that those who can stay in can catch the reduced quota that is there for them to do so.

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.

I am pleased to rise at this time for a few minutes and participate in this important debate that we have been engaged in over the last number of days, and I guess for that matter, the last several weeks, Mr. Speaker, as it relates to a Budget that was presented to the people of this Province several weeks ago.

Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province have certainly had an opportunity over the past number of weeks to listen to this debate as members, both the government side opposite and members on this side representing both the Official Opposition and the NDP, make reference to debate in either support of or against either all or some or features of what we found in the Budget that was delivered by the Minister of Finance several weeks ago.

Mr. Speaker, it is with interest that I listened to much of what was being done, from a couple of points of view, I guess, Mr. Speaker. Number one, in terms of how obviously it impacts upon the people that I represent in the District of St. John's East; and secondly, I guess, how it impacts upon the people of the Province generally throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. I guess, thirdly, from the point of view of a critic area that I now have some responsibility over, namely the Department of Education.

Before I get into my comments, Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to note, and I think sometimes when we talk about budgets we forget, perhaps, the ingredients of a budget, or exactly where does the money come from and where does the money go. In an addendum that was given out as a part of the Budget package, Mr. Speaker, we see, as a part of Budget Highlights, clearly a list of where the money comes from in terms of a summary of current revenues that allows not only this government but indeed any government to do what it is doing in terms of the presentation of a budget, and to allow, I suppose, or to give an opportunity to the people of the Province to assess and to draw their own conclusions as to how a budgetary process works and whether it was successful or not.

We see, for example, when we look at the percentages, Mr. Speaker, that in terms of where money comes from, some 17.5 per cent of all revenues come from personal income tax of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; almost 15 per cent from sales tax; 3.5 per cent, approximately, from gasoline tax; 2.8 per cent from the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation; 2.3 per cent from tobacco taxes, 3.1 per cent from corporate income taxes; and 16.2 per cent from other provincial sources. It is interesting to see, Mr. Speaker, that the balance is made up from equalization payments and other federal sources totalling some 37.5 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, it is with that revenue that, of course, is received by the Province of Newfoundland, when not only this government but any government has to make its decisions as to how that money is allocated, and presumably allocated to serve the interests of the people of this Province. Health, by far the largest, is 30.8 per cent; education, 20.4 per cent; debt charges and other financial expenses, some 13.8 per cent. When you think of that, thirteen point eight cents of every dollar in this Province goes towards the servicing of debt and other charges. Social welfare, 14.0 per cent; 3.6 per cent for natural resources; agriculture, trade, industry and tourism and general government costs, some 7.2 per cent; protection to persons and property, namely our police forces and so on, 4.5 per cent; and 3 per cent transportation and communications, obviously totalling 100 per cent.

Any budgetary process, number one, as a simple accounting procedure, there has to be a mechanism by which monies are received and then, of course, monies are paid out. It is important, I think, that we put that in some context and we understand fully the types of numbers and the types of percentages, Mr. Speaker, that we are talking about as part of any budgetary process.

Mr. Speaker, in giving some thought today, I guess, as to what I would speak to tonight for a few minutes, as I participate in this Budget Debate, obviously I want to focus in on education and some of the concerns that we certainly see, as the Official Opposition, and myself as critic, some of the concerns that have been raised to me personally, some issues that are presented to us as members of the Opposition caucus.

I think it is important that we bring out for the public and we describe for the people of the Province the kinds of concerns that are raised not only by ourselves, perhaps, certainly brought to our attention as Opposition members, but brought by other stakeholders in education, whether they be parents, whether they be teachers, whether they be members of school councils, whether they be members of the professional teachers' association, the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association, or indeed other individuals. I want to spend some time, in a few moments, speaking to those issues and concerns that have been presented to us by other third parties; because it is easy, I guess, to politicize a debate like this, because if we stand up here and if I stand up as critic and make allegations and accusations that come from me only, obviously the response by members opposite, and perhaps quite appropriately the response, is that the nature of that debate and the nature of what is being said is purely political. But when what is being said is representative, Mr. Speaker, of what is being presented to us by the legitimate third parties, by concerned citizens of this Province who have a vested interest in the education of the young people of this Province, that, I think, allows us to present it in a different light and it is from that point of view that I plan to do so.

Before I even embark upon a discussion on some of the educational concerns, Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to note that when reviewing the Estimates, not in the Education Department, but in a completely different department, namely the Justice Department, how much of the Estimates and how much of the work that is done in a Department of Justice is geared towards, presumably, what is in the best interest of young people. So, obviously, the same people who receive educational services are the same people who, very often, receive services from a completely different department, namely the Department of Justice. For example, Legal Information Management and how that relates to young people; Support Enforcement, a direct example. We see an expenditure here of approximately $1.2 million on Support Enforcement. What is Support Enforcement? It is an agency, Mr. Speaker, that is set up and developed to help in the administration of and the distribution of monies from parents or spouses, who have separated, largely on issues of support and maintenance for young people, for young children.

We see the issue of legal aid, and I want to refer to that briefly. I will just skip that for a moment. The court system itself and the administration of justice in this Province. Clearly, our provincial courts, one arm of the provincial court is directed to youth services and the administration of justice for the youth of this Province, known simply as Youth Court in St. John's, but, of course, our other provincial courts throughout the Province, the judge assumes the role of a Youth Court Judge when matters relating to youth come forward.

Issues of appeal from provincial courts go to the Trial Division. Again, obviously dealing directly with issues relating to young people.

The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, for example, and the protection of the public and the services that our two police forces, namely the RNC and the RCMP, obviously dealing in issues that relate specifically and directly related to what is in the interest of young people or what serves young people, is our youth secure custody system found at Whitbourne. In fact, we see an allocation of some $6 million, approximately, for the youth secure custody system and the services that it offers for the young people of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, I refer briefly to the issue of legal aid. It is interesting to note that the legal aid office - and, of course, the offices are dispersed throughout the Province - deals with, not only adult matters, but deals with young offender criminal legal aid matters as well. Of course, legal aid services are provided for those individuals who otherwise are not eligible to retain private council and who meet a certain means test so that these services can be provided in times of need when young people are confronted with issues relating to the criminal justice system.

Legal aid, of course, in addition to dealing with criminal matters will deal sometimes, although rarely, with some civil matters but largely with family law matters dealing again with divorce, separation, issues of custody, access and support.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note - and I think this is a statistic that is worthy of some note and worthy of some attention - when in the report for the fiscal year, April 2001 and ending in March 2002, we see a breakdown of completed cases. In fact, interestingly, in the Province there was a total of 4,776 cases that were brought forward, or at least were the subject matter that was brought forward and represented by council of the Newfoundland Legal Aid Commission.

Mr. Speaker, the statistic that is most startling is in a graph which is found in the annual report that is presented by the Legal Aid Commission and it talks about a summary of charges and problems on completed cases. Under one section, Mr. Speaker, a section under young offender, under legal aid - in other words the legal aid officers in this Province, and they are scattered throughout all of Newfoundland and Labrador. Legal aid solicitors and legal aid offices were involved in charges and problems for young offenders - in other words, dealing with youth matters - a total of 1,955 times. Almost 2,000 cases dealing with young offenders in our Province. That is just the legal aid office, Mr. Speaker. That does not include those young people who may well be represented by private council and it furthermore does not include, obviously, those young people who perhaps are not represented by anybody and go to court on their own. Perhaps their parents present and a young person, for whatever reason, decides not to have council of any kind and presents their case.

We know we have a number almost approaching 2,000 represented by Legal Aid solicitors. We perhaps, I would venture to say, have an equal number represented by private council, and perhaps many more who represent themselves. Therefore, before we get into issues of education, it is important to know that we have a lot of young people in our Province who have serious problems, who require help, who require guidance, who require assistance from a variety of agencies in our Province so that hopefully in due course and in the future we will not see the kind of numbers that we see so easily when reflecting upon how young people come into conflict and clash with the criminal justice system of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, on that point, before I get into the education issue, it is interesting to note that the Public Legal Information Association of Newfoundland recently released what I thought was a very well prepared document. It is called For the Record. What it does, it draws the distinction between what was once known as the Young Offenders Act and what is now known as the Youth Criminal Justice Act. In fact, we have a new piece of federal legislation called the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which is now enforced. In fact, I believe it came in force on April 1 of this year, 2003, and it is an interesting document because, as I have just indicated, it talks about different concepts of sentencing, it talks about the spirit and purpose of the new legislation, and it gives some guidance, I guess, to not only court officials and judges but certainly the public at large as to what is at stake when young people come in conflict with the criminal justice system.

Mr. Speaker, obviously we now have to, I think, really, clearly, look at some of the features of this Budget, the so-called education budget that has been referred to by members opposite on a repeated bases and certainly by members on this side of the House. We have to look at what this Budget really means for young people in this Province. We have to look at this Budget in terms of how the interests of young people are being protected as they pursue their educational pursuits and as they involved themselves by their beginning with Kindergarten, up to and including Grade 12 in the educational system in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated just a few moments ago, it is not necessarily just the Opposition that has seen and observed issues and problems as it relates to what is happening in our education system today, but these are concerns and issues that have been raised by a variety of sources, a variety of stakeholders: parents, educators, school administrators, specialists in the field, members of school councils, the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association. What I would like to do is share with members opposite some of the concerns that have been spelled out by those individuals.

I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, although obviously as the Minister of Education has said a few times and there are times when I agree with him, there are also good things happening in education. There are good things happening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: But, Mr. Speaker, there are also a series of issues that obviously the people of this Province have recognized that need redress, that need some explanation, and that need, I guess, the ear of members opposite, need the ear of the minister opposite, to ensure that improvements can be made as it relates to the welfare and the educational welfare of our young people. But it is clear, Mr. Speaker, before I continue, that I have heard enough. I have heard enough from others, I have heard enough from members of this side of the House, I have heard enough from the Minister of Education, to know that there are a number of shortcomings and there are a number of areas where clearly this Budget, in a variety of areas, has not met the needs of the young people of this Province.

Before proceeding, Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do at this time is to move an amendment. Mr. Speaker, what this amendment does is, it shows the people of the Province that on this side of the House, members on this side of the House, we fail to accept what is being repeated on a daily basis by members opposite. We fail to accept much of what is being said by members opposite when they stand in this House and repeatedly, on a daily basis, Mr. Speaker, want to espouse what they view as being a budget that, of course, is the budget of all budgets, and there is nothing better that could have been done or explored or pursued in terms of what is in the best interests of the people of our Province.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, what I would now like to do is to present a motion of non-confidence of a Budget that was introduced in this House several weeks ago. A Budget, Mr. Speaker, that we feel is not answering the many issues and concerns as it relates to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. For the record, Mr. Speaker, before I share a copy with Mr. Speaker and the Table Officers, I would just like to read into the record the following amendment.

To Move the following amendment:

That all of the words after the word "that" be struck and replaced with the following: "this House acknowledge and condemn the government's failure: to represent accurately the Province's fiscal situation; to manage competently the Province's treasury; to protect adequately the Province's resource wealth; to secure soundly the Province's social programs; to invest wisely in the Province's youth; to maintain properly the Province's infrastructure; to contract capably with the Province's investors; to fight aggressively for the Province's best interests; to answer candidly to the Province's people; to listen attentively to the people's concerns; to administer accountably the Province's departments and agencies; to plan prudently for the Province's growth; to respond creatively to the desperate need for jobs; or to discharge effectively any of its other fiduciary responsibilities."

This particular amendment, Mr. Speaker, is seconded by my colleague, the Member for St. John's South, and I would know ask the Chair to rule whether or not this amendment is in order.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has spoken with the Table Officers and this motion, this amendment to the Budget, is in order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Chair for its ruling, and I will now take this opportunity to continue my few words on the amendment and refer specifically, as I indicated in my few words previous to that, to the issue of education, an area, Mr. Speaker, that obviously is very important; because again what members opposite have done is labelled this Budget as the education budget. In fact, in most of the writings and in pretty well all of the press releases that were put forward by members opposite on the day of and the day following the presentation of this Budget it was labelled an education budget.

Mr. Speaker, what are some of the citizens of this Province saying in response to what has been labelled as an education budget? It is interesting that, just a little while ago, I and some of my colleagues had the opportunity to meet with the Learning Disabilities Association of Newfoundland and Labrador when what they did was share with us the national definition of learning disabilities and how, certainly on part of that particular organization, it was felt that this Budget fell short and did not represent the needs of those young people who require special attention, and indeed those young people who have specific learning disabilities. It was interesting, throughout the course of that discussion, Mr. Speaker, that they shared with us the, I guess, most common disabilities that, as an association, they have to deal with on a daily basis: oral language, for example, listening, speaking and understanding; reading, written language, whether that be spelling and written expression; mathematics, that includes the skills of computation and problem solving. These are the types of disabilities that many young people face on a day to day basis. The concern, just days after the release of this Budget, Mr. Speaker, of the Learning Disabilities Association of this Province was that cuts would have to be made. In fact, cuts were made, Mr. Speaker. I know in at least one board, in the Avalon East Board, cuts were made that would affect young people with these types of disabilities. Of course, this was an association who were quick to say that unfortunately this is not necessarily an education budget when we see, perhaps, most vulnerable young people within the system, those who have a weakness, those who have this type of disability, and their programs simply not being available to the extent that they should be.

Mr. Speaker, shortly after that we hear, and we certainly heard in the media, when school councils - I remember one time before speaking in this House saying, perhaps one of the most positive results and consequences of education reform in this Province was the creation of school councils in this Province. Indeed, school councils have made a very positive impact and a very positive contribution. The letters that I have, I am sure the minister opposite has, perhaps, the same copies, of representatives of school councils, the chairs of a variety of school councils in our Province, who speak out on issues of education. That is a good thing, Mr. Speaker, because it is the parents who have become intimately involved with the welfare and the education of their children in the Province. School councils are not afraid to speak out.

We see an example of that when, just days after we see the representative body, namely the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of School Councils, saying: We are extremely concerned. At this stage in our evolution we need a more current, a more balanced and a more comprehensive approach to providing resources to schools, and we are not seeing that kind of an approach. They also say - and I will only refer to another brief part of it, Mr. Speaker - a simplistic approach that is based on a pure application of a formula, talking about the teaching formula, the application of teachers with respect to the teaching positions in the Province, a simplistic approach that is based on a pure application of formula and then a judgement being made on how much, in a financial sense, must we take out to balance our books, they continue and they say, is simply old fashioned thinking.

It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I did say it, I say to the hon. minister, but I said it after -

MR. E. BYRNE: Say it again.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I will say it again. I said it after it was said by the representative body of school councils in the Province.

It is interesting to note a couple of things in that comment: The fact that school councils are now willing and are most pleased to speak out on critical issues as it relates to education in this Province; and also, Mr. Speaker, it shows as well that they are, in many cases, dead on. When they recognize and identify the issues they are not afraid to speak out and they are speaking out from the heart, because they know.

What are school councils? Just remember, they are representatives of the school system in its entirety, school administrators, teachers, volunteers, parents and community representatives. Who better would know what is happening in our school system throughout Newfoundland and Labrador than those very types of individuals? Mr. Speaker, the Federation of School Councils have had important things to say. I think it is important that we continue to listen to what they are saying on a regular basis.

Mr. Speaker, an interesting letter - and I know this is an issue that was raised in the House of Assembly shortly after the Budget was released actually, an issue of class size. We often discuss it, we often hear it. The minister often defends it. As Opposition members, we often raise it. Parents are concerned about it. It was only this week a parent in Mount Pearl really thought it was somewhat ridiculous when government continues to flaunt the concept and the idea of a pupil/teacher ratio in this Province of some 12.5 per cent or 13 per cent - whatever the actual ratio is, one to 12.5 per cent, I believe.

Mr. Speaker, we know, and the minister has indeed indicated, that there are examples of classrooms in this Province where, yes, we have maybe five, or seven, or nine. Also, we are confronted with circumstances where there are many classrooms with indeed well above thirty, well above thirty-five, and in some cases, well above forty. The point being made is that it has been espoused by a variety of educators in this Province, including directors of school boards and including representatives of the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Where they have brought forward and introduced the concept of putting a cap on the number of students in a particular class. Beginning perhaps with the primary grade and eventually leading up to the elementary, junior high and high school levels. I do not know what that number should be. The educational researchers would perhaps have a much better idea, but maybe a number like fifteen in the primary grade; twenty in elementary and junior high; twenty-five in high school. These are some numbers that just come to mind.

The point being, Mr. Speaker, is that what the educators in this Province, what the professionals, what the experts and what the representatives of teachers, namely the NLTA, what they are saying in this Province today - and have said it since this Budget was released several weeks ago - is that the concept of placing a cap, in other words a maximum number of students at different grade levels, ought to be seriously considered. What that would do is, once and for all, perhaps deal with this issue of where, in certain circumstances, the class sizes are just not workable. Effective teaching and effective learning cannot take place. It is a concept that obviously is hoped that members opposite will consider. We will certainly consider it because effective learning and effective teaching is what presumably is in every ones best interest to ensure that educational opportunity is being used to its best advantage.

Mr. Speaker, an issue of busing, if I may. I can remember years ago, first when I was elected, we had petitions - almost on a daily basis - on the issue of bus monitors. Well, the issue has raised itself once again and perhaps the issue may be more important today than it has ever been. It may be more important today than it has ever been, why? Because so many small schools in our smaller communities are closing, therefore it is necessary, obviously, to bus young people from community A to community B. In many cases, over very difficult roads, difficult road situations, long distances, long distances on the Trans-Canada Highway. Here we have a bus driver with maybe a group of eighteen, twenty, twenty-five, twenty-eight young children, primary school age children, on a bus without any guidance or help or supervision, just the bus driver, who, obviously, has to keep his or her eyes on the road. What happens if something happens, Mr. Speaker, if a child becomes sick or there is some activity that takes place on the bus or if there is an accident, or for some reason or other, the bus driver has to exit the bus to deal with an issue outside, whatever the situation might be? The problem is that the issue of bus monitors has never been seriously addressed by this government. It is an issue in the interest of safety and in the interest of the protection of young people in the event of something happening that is unexpected and, obviously, unwanted. In that event, that sort of regime, if it were in place, would give parents some solace and some security of knowing that when their children leave in the morning that there is some protection and some safeguard put in place to assure that, in the event of something unexpected happening, there would be some way to deal with it.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note, as well, that another third party, namely the Avalon East School Board which is the largest school board in the Province, represents approximately one-third of all school children in Newfoundland and Labrador. They, too, have come out recently and have made the comment and have made the recommendation to this government that a formula change has to be put in place as it relates to teacher allocation to insure that programs are maintained and just not arbitrarily dismissed and withdrawn because of an adherence to a formula that, according, again, to many educators, is outdated and no longer applies in the real world. So, again, the largest school board - and this view, by the way, is not only a view of the largest school board but, in fact, I have letters here, in particular from School District #5, where there are four or five school councils again who have brought forward the same suggestion, basically saying to this government that the present formula does not work, that there has to be an attempt to deal with the creative change in the way that teachers are allocated in order to preserve the best possible programming for the young people of our Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I accept the fact that there is a challenge. I respect the fact that this is a challenge. We are dealing with declining pupil enrolment. We are dealing with schools that are, obviously, spread apart from one another geographically, and the whole business of pupil transportation and distance becomes a factor. There are challenges that confront many boards in this Province today. What it requires - and I remember the Minister of Education saying this once, and I compliment him for saying it, and that is he will sit down - in fact, if I am not mistaken, I believe the Premier also said that in response to concerns raised by, I believe, the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association, that the Premier and his minister would sit down to deal with issues. Well, the time has come, Mr. Speaker, when they have to sit down. The minister and his officials must sit down with the directors of our school boards, with the supervisors of our school boards, with the parents of those children who attend those particular schools to see what can be done to develop a fair formula of teacher allocation and at the same time, preserve a programming regime to ensure that educational opportunity is afforded to every single student in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, there is much more I want to say but I understand in speaking with my colleague that there is an agreement in place to deal now with some legislative matters. If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, I will adjourn my discussion at this time to allow that agreement to continue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, it is agreed that we move Motion 8, Bill 10, a bill entitled, An Act to Amend the Expropriation Act. We did that first reading today. It has been agreed by all sides that we now move that to second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before we do that, I want to have an understanding of what we doing here. The hon. Member for St. Johns' East had an hour. I understand he has adjourned that debate, that he has not concluded that debate and it is in agreement that he will still have the remaining time out of his hour but we are moving on to Motion 10.

I wonder if the hon. minister could tell me which - we are reading Order 8, is it?

MR. LUSH: Order 8, Mr. Speaker, Bill10, An Act to Amend the Expropriation Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 9, An Act To Revise The Law About The Practice Of Optometry. Is that the one?

MR. LUSH: No, Mr. Speaker, Motion 8, Bill 10.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 8, okay, I am sorry.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act to Amend The Expropriation Act." (Bill 10)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The purpose of this bill is to permit the expropriation of land in Labrador for the purpose of creating a reserve under the Indian Act. The bill will also help us clarify and allow us to expropriate other lands that may be required by the federal government for other purposes; in particular, that of creating a national park.

The main purpose behind the bill is to allow us to move to the announcement of a second reserve. Natuashish or Sango Bay is already in the process of becoming a reserve and will very shortly.

The federal government would also like to make Sheshatshiu an Indian reserve for the purposes of allowing them, one: the opportunity to have greater expenditures within their area; and two, to give them greater control over the various issues in their community that they wish control over.

The bill will allow the provincial government to act as agents for the federal government for the purposes of expropriating land. In the area of Sheshatshiu, after the research that was carried out, there is probably a couple of hundred, either direct claims on land or actual registered deeds to land. The federal government has agreed to pay for all expenditures that are required and all costs that are required. So the provincial government is actually working as agents for the federal government. In order to do that, in order to carry out the wishes that the federal government may have at the end of the day in creating this reserve, which I believe is very important to the Community of Sheshatshiu, that is the reason for the bill coming forward, for the purposes of giving the federal government an opportunity to work with the people of Sheshatshiu for the purposes of creating a reserve.

I will have some other comments when there is an opportunity to close the debate.

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

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

It is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Expropriation Act. I believe it was a couple of days ago the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs spoke to me about the importance and the significance of this particular piece of legislation. My understanding of what we are doing is - and this piece of legislation essentially does - it helps facilitate the process that, in order words, will speed it up somewhat and removes an obstacle towards -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, it is an example of how cooperative we can be in this House when it comes to federal-provincial relations. If only they were so cooperative, I say to members opposite.

The importance and significance of the bill is understood by the Official Opposition. This is just - in the spirit of that - in order to help facilitate the interests of the people in Labrador and in particular, the interests of the people that this bill addresses.

Mr. Speaker, we have no problem in supporting the bill in second reading. We move second reading of the bill as well.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to say a few words in support of the legislation, Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Expropriation Act.

The legislation, of course, as the minister has said, is designed to provide an expropriation to facilitate the creation of a reserve under the Indian Act. We are dealing, of course, with all kinds of anachronisms here. I mean, the Indian Act refers to people who are no longer referred to as Indians. We are dealing with land over which perhaps there is Aboriginal title in the first place. There are all sorts of anomalies that we discussed here, but from a legal perspective and a practical perspective as opposed to a philosophical one, I think this legislation performs its useful purpose because it allows to ensure that a clear title is obtained, certainly, from those people who would have had title under the common law or under some deal or grant from the government, to insure that it went back to the government, in this case the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, who would then transfer it to the Government of Canada who would then create a reserve. So, it kind of a three or four step process, but I think that this legislation is useful and necessary in order to facilitate the process of the establishing of a reserve, which is what the Innu of Labrador want to see happen, and certainly I would be anxious to do anything that I could, or that we could as a party, to facilitate that process and to ensure that it goes smoothly.

It also seems reasonable to include as - one of the purposes of the Expropriation Act is to allow the expropriation of land for the purpose of transferring to the Crown, and right of Canada, for the purpose of the creation of a national park or a national historic site established under the Canada National Parks Act to be possible as well, so that would be also a legitimate purpose for the expropriation of privately held land.

At second reading, which is approval in principle, I wish to support wholeheartedly Bill 10 presented by the Minister for Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. If the hon. the minister speaks now he will close debate.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the NDP for their understanding of the intent of this bill, and how important it is to the people of Sheshatshiu. I want to thank them for allowing us to facilitate the process to allow the federal government to work with us to acquire the land.

It is a significant move forward for the people of Sheshatshiu and I think it is just another example of how, as was said earlier, we here in the Province have no problem in working with the federal government to accomplish their goals in this Province, and yet another example of how all parties in this House can move forward and work together to meet the needs of a group of people in Labrador, in this specific case, and I want to thank all parties in the House for their co-operation in facilitating this bill tonight.

Thank you.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Expropriation Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. ( Bill 10)

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 5, Mr. Speaker.

In the same circumstance with Bill 8, we have agreed to move it to second reading. Motion 5, Bill 12.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000." (Bill 12)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill 12 was introduced in the last sitting of the House, in the spring, as Bill 17, and got approval, really, from the Official Opposition. The NDP had some problems with the process, with the ticketing. We then went back over the summer months and dealt with the City of St. John's, the City of Mount Pearl, the federation, and with the Department of Justice and so on, and was able to put into this bill a process, I think, that will satisfy everybody.

Once a ticket has been issued by the municipality, the process would follow that, if the person did not pay the bill - the other bill, Bill 17, was not clear as to the process which had to be followed. We have now put that process in. It is a summons that the person would have.

Mr. Speaker, I have talked to the Opposition House Leader, and I have talked to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and I think that this particular bill, which has been on the books for a long, long time, can officially be done for the municipalities this time around.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House note that we did have some discussion on this bill in the previous session and the intent of the bill is, I believe, in agreement to all members of the House now. In particular, it will facilitate an easier process within the City of Corner Brook, the City of Mount Pearl, the City of St. John's, and in fact in all municipalities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. It would allow the cities and towns of the Province to issue violation notices and tickets for certain offences and infractions that the minister and the councils may agree should be governed by regulation.

Mr. Speaker, we now note that there is an appeal process that can be controlled, or can be put in place, where people feel they need to have a second look, or have an independent person make that second look. We on this side of the House, having given note that we had agreed to this particular bill in the previous session, note that perhaps the cities and towns of this Province would be better able to govern their communities if this bill was passed.

With that said, we will give our approval on this side of the House for a speedy passage.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to say a few words at second reading on Bill 12.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. member. I wonder if hon. members would allow the member to speak so that the Chair could hear.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate your intervention. I was having a little trouble hearing myself.

MR. SULLIVAN: You're not missing much (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The hon. Member for Ferryland says that I am not missing much if I cannot hear myself. Anyway, I will soldier on in any event.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible) your army or just yourself?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: It must be the hour of the night that causes the Minister of Finance to be ‘pickish'.

I will say to the Minister of Finance, though, that I do take some pride in the fact that I was able to point out to the House, when this legislation was introduced the last time, that it was in contravention of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in that it violated the presumption of innocence.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, they do not mind that.

MR. HARRIS: The Member for Ferryland says they do not mind that. I think they did mind it, once it was pointed out to them, Mr. Speaker, because it was a serious thing to introduce legislation that would provide that a person is guilty until proven innocent, and, in fact, on an appeal, would have to prove themselves innocent in order to overcome a charge that they violated a bylaw.

So, I want to thank the minister and his officials for taking the criticisms to heart. They were not just mine; they were supported by the Member for Lewisporte when he and I discussed it, and the Member for St. John's East, who is also a lawyer. I think the public generally understands and appreciates the concept of the presumption of innocence. We now have a system which provides for a violation notice being issued. A person then has the choice of either paying the ticket, as it were, or not paying it, waiting for a summons to come, if they want to challenge it. Then it has to go to court on the ordinary fare, and the city, in this case the City of Corner Brook, Mount Pearl, or St. John's, would have to actually prove that a person had committed the offence in the normal course of events.

So we now have a system that does that, and I am certainly satisfied that the procedure here has overcome the difficulty that we pointed out in the past. There is one question of wording which is not a matter for second reading. The minister and I have discussed it and if it needs to be changed, it can be changed at Committee.

In principle I support the legislation. I want to thank the minister for his cooperation in seeing that the difficulties were, in fact, fixed and the scheme of the act is now changed so that we have something that conforms to the Charter of Rights, but at the same time makes it easy and practical for a bylaw enforcement to take place by the three cities and the municipalities that are governed by it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the member for Waterford Valley and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi for giving approval in principle to this. It has been, as I said, a request of the municipalities for a long, long time and I am very pleased that in this session we should be able to give them that piece of legislation to enable them to do their work even more efficiently and effectively with the municipalities than in the past.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 12)

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

MR. LUSH: Order 5, Mr. Speaker, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act.' (Bill 5)

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act." (Bill 5)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, this bill put forward to the Income Tax Act really corrects a loophole in the current tax, whereby businesses who currently do not manufacture in the Province but often sell in the Province have been able to get a tax credit, and it was never meant for that.

What this does now is it in no way impacts or restricts the availability of manufacturing or processing credits for those people and those companies in the Province that actually manufacture in the Province, but it protects their own interests, it secures that people must manufacture and process in the Province if they are to avail of the tax credit.

Again, this is something we are pleased to introduce to amend the Income Tax Act which will close the loophole and continue to secure the tax credit for those who are manufacturing and processing in the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I never thought they would get back to a finance bill. I was getting withdrawal symptoms here this past few days in getting an opportunity to have a few comments on this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I have an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to comment on some of the particular things.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I have another hour, actually, on this bill. I have an hour, and do you know what? I think I am going to keep you because I would not want the Premier to go to sleep too early tonight because I heard on the news that Danny Dumersque is still on the loose in this Province. He cannot go asleep tonight, I would say. He cannot go to sleep.

This particular bill is closing a loophole the minister said. I would say it is about time.

MR. NOEL: Tell us about the Dumersque story. What is going on there?

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Mines and Energy does not know about the Dumersque story. Well, there are two stories on him. There is one story back in 1996, I can tell you, because I spoke in the House at the time when he was a member for - it was then called Eagle River.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible) his way over here then.

MR. SULLIVAN: I could tell the minister a long story on that one, I can tell you.

The Member for Eagle River, when he ran against the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair today, he headed south to Florida. He was in Florida, the election was called, he decided he was going to stay there for a while. He got a good suntan. When he came back in the dead of winter, in February, in Southern Labrador, he went around - can you imagine? - knocking on the doors in Southern Labrador asking people to vote for them. He was sunburned from spending so much time in the south and he did not even come back for the election time. He lost, of course, and the Member now for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

The other one that the Minister of Mines and Energy does not know about - don't you remember, I ask him? - on Danny Dumersque that the Premier could not sleep when John Efford wanted to hire him as an Executive Assistant. He could not sleep knowing that he was employed there. That is the Danny Dumersque one. I think the minister knows about that. He should know quite well. He knows quite well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I want to comment, Mr. Speaker, on a few points on this bill. I support the basic aspects of the bill that is going to allow companies that manufacture and work in this Province be the sole beneficiaries of this particular break, not companies who do a portion of their business outside the Province. They get the benefits by manufacturing elsewhere. I am surprised it stayed on the books so long. That we are allowing companies here to benefit by doing, under this particular bill, on the Manufacturing and Processing Tax Credit, for a company that is not doing business here in our Province.

Why would we let an Ontario company or a Quebec company that may do 10 per cent of their business in this Province, get 100 per cent of the credit under this particular aspect? That is, I guess, one of the reasons why finally the loophole is getting closed in this particular one. That means we should, of course, have extra revenues now in the Treasury because of this, marginal as they may be, that can be used to deal with a whole host of other problems, Mr. Speaker, here in our Province. I want to talk about some of them and some other particular aspects there.

Under the corporate income tax, of course, there is basically 14 per cent that is the general provincial rate. I think the minister probably made reference to some of that. A company that does manufacturing here, processing in this Province, can get a credit, basically, and would only have to pay 5 per cent on that. There are companies that do manufacturing in our Province but do some in other provinces also. The way this was structured before these companies were getting the benefit by doing processing elsewhere.

MR. NOEL: Sure we know all that. That is why (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is really encouraging companies to do business outside our Province.

The minister said - if they knew all this, why didn't we see the bill last year? Why didn't we see it the year before and the year before that? Well, the minister is going to have to listen now because I have an hour of time in which I want to talk about taxes and finances and extra revenue and how it impacts on our Province. I am entitled to it.

I could have spoken on any of the bills here tonight, those two previous bills, but I decided, for expediency, not to speak on those bills. I am entitled as critic to speak, and I am not sure if anyone else wants to speak on this bill, but I am certainly going to take advantage of the time that is allowed for me to do that. In fact, I was very generous on the two previous bills. I could have stood and denied leave, because we moved from a motion in the first reading today that needs unanimous consent of this House, to do the first two bills. We agreed with that and the House Leader agreed with that. We allowed the two bills that were just passed here tonight that would have needed unanimous consent of this House, because they were only done in motions today, Notice of Motion, it is my understanding.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: He never would have known that, if you didn't tell him.

MR. SULLIVAN: Who wouldn't?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker did know it because I made reference to it when the bill was called.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right. If they are (inaudible) maybe I will take a little bit of time. I want to talk about another area that impacts - because of the extra revenue we should get now by not giving this credit. Why don't we deal with an issue today - and maybe members received a copy, but this is a letter that went to the Minister of Education today - sorry, May 8 is the date of the letter. I received it today. This is a letter that was sent from the Learning Resource Council to the minister of this Province. Maybe the critic in education might have received it, I am not sure, and our Youth and Post-Secondary Education, but it goes on to say:

"As you are aware, the NLTA Learning Resources Council is extremely concerned with the continuous decline in learning resources (teacher-librarian) positions in Newfoundland and Labrador. In many parts of the Province, teacher-librarians have been in danger of extinction for a number of years."

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I know the cameras are off. It is not going to make a difference. If I have to say something, I say to the Premier, off or on, it does not matter to me. I am going to make my particular points in this House, I am entitled to, and the official record of this House is Hansard and I am going to make the points. Maybe he is implying that we should not get up and speak if the camera is not on us. Is that the implication?

Well, this letter is very hard-hitting. It says, "In many parts of this Province, teacher-librarians have been in danger of extinction for a number of years." Here is a Province that is out promoting Read and Succeed. It goes on to say, "In spite of this, teacher-librarians, one of the main players in the implementation of this philosophy, are only allocated on the basis of one for every 1,000 students. That means perhaps no more than one school in this Province qualifies for a full-time teacher-librarian and some of the smaller school districts only receive three to four teacher-librarians to serve the entire district.

It is somewhat ironic, at a time when there is so much emphasis on literacy that the school library and the teacher librarian are given so little consideration.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Was that only the manufacturing and processing act?

MR. SULLIVAN: This is talking about revenues that we get by not giving breaks to outside, that can be used to fill this particular need, I say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: That is how it is under that. It is revenues on a tax bill. We can talk about revenues and expenditures under government under the one umbrella, and the Minister of Finance should know these things. If she doesn't, she should talk to the House Leader, or somebody, who can explain how the system and how irrelevancy - I might add, I explained irrelevancy at the beginning, if the minister was paying attention to it.

It goes to mention, "Research - and this is a very interesting article, and our education critic has read it - from comprehensive studies has proven that students in schools with well-funded, well-stocked libraries run by professionally trained and qualified teacher-librarians who collaborate with teachers on curriculum, score from 10 per cent to 25 per cent higher on standardized tests than their peers in schools with poorly resourced libraries."

That is an interesting statistic. Well resourced libraries scored 10 per cent to 25 per cent better. So, why wouldn't we want well resource libraries in our Province? More importantly, too, there is no sense in having a well resource library if you do not have the teachers and the access to those well resource libraries in the Province that can be used for the benefits of the students.

I remember way back in school when I used to hear people say - a particular school, I will not mention - and a beautiful library. Unbelievable, but you could not use it. It looked beautiful, but you could not touch the books and you could not do this and that.

Now what we are doing, we are turning the clock back. I know in a major school in my district this year, they have removed a half unit of a librarian in one of the schools in my district coming September. A half unit was removed from the library in the school, which means that part of the day now will have nobody there to assist students and give them direction in using those resources. It is a shame.

Why don't you use the money that you are going to get from this bill to do that and solve this problem there, by not giving it to companies? Oh, no, I think we must be afraid of success. We are half afraid they might do 10 per cent to 25 per cent better. We are half afraid they might be able to compete better with people from other provinces as a result.

This article goes on to mention another very important point. It said, "...where student use of resources, such as the school library, computers and Internet, is relatively high, mean reading scores tend to be higher, even when other factors are discounted." It goes on to say, "Teacher- librarians in the 21^st century play a critical role in the learning process." An example here, it says, Teacher-librarians "...work with classroom teachers to ensure that the information literacy skills which enable students to find, evaluate, use and present information are taught in a meaningful way."

It is not just in a library. The person tries to relate that to classroom teachers, to how to use the library, more efficient information, research, and finding and using the library to their advantage. They develop collections of resources. It goes on to mention resources: books, magazines, encyclopedias, maps, posters, computer software, videos. All of these things are resources in a library that support resource based curriculum. It said, they teach literacy skills. That is important today, to teach those skills. They provide access to newer technologies in our school system today.

Canada's National Librarian, Roch Carrier, states, "A room full of resources is not enough - students need to learn how to find information, to choose and to apply information. Good teacher-librarians are dedicated to developing students' skills, but also to developing in them a love of lifelong learning." McDonald 2003.

What better way to educate our young people today than having librarians, resources, available for students in our system? We went through periods of time when we did not have a library book. We would go down on a weekend and sign out a book from a library, and take it home and read. Today, libraries have been expanded with computer software, with new technologies, and now we are cutting back on resources, librarians and so on in the school system. I know in my district there is a cutback on librarians in the school system. When you take 160 teachers out of the school system today, they have to be cut somewhere. Where are they cutting them? They are cutting them in libraries, learning resources. They are cutting back in music, for instance, in the system. I know one particular school in my district, they have almost eliminated the whole program for band, only a few hours left out of almost a half unit. There is very little left. So, they are decisions being made today not looking at the best interests of the long-term future of these children.

It goes on to mention, "We fear that if the teacher-allocation formula is not changed to reflect programs needs, our students will have an unfair disadvantage."

In the concluding paragraph from Heather Godden, who is President of the NLTA Learning Resource Council, she goes on to say to the Minister of Education, "You have indicated in your public statements that you would be willing to talk with various groups concerning this issue. Our Executive would be very happy to discuss this matter with you at your convenience. To arrange a meeting, please contact me..." - and so on.

I am wondering if the minister has made arrangements. Has he made arrangements to contact the Learning Resource Council so we can prepare our students and be able to restore our system back. I mean, here we are, in the Twenty-First Century now, and we are cutting back on library and resources in our system when it is more important to be competitive, to use new technologies, to prepare students better, and when statistics show, results show, that these people of well-stocked libraries score 10 per cent to 25 per cent higher on standardized test than their peers in schools that do not have well-resourced libraries, that is a very startling statistic in our system. Now we are going to ignore probably one of the most important indicators in the learning process in our schools.

Accompanied with this - I know I received a copy, and I guess all members probably did, and it went to the minister, the letter requesting a meeting to deal with this issue there, it goes on to mention what research shows. It is summed up here. It says: Research shows that test scores tend to be higher for all types of schools where: there is a teacher librarian, where teacher-librarians spend more time delivering information, literacy instructions to students, collaborating with teachers on instructional units, providing professional development for teachers, and where students visit the school library more frequently.

These are areas where scores tend to be higher for all types of schools where the library is open for longer hours. I know in one school in my district they are cut back by 50 per cent in availability - where the library has a co-operative relationship with the public library; where it provides on-line access to the information via the Internet and the World Wide Web; where it has a policy regarding selection and reconsideration of books and other materials.

It says, reading research shows that voluntary free reading is the best predictor of success in reading comprehension, vocabulary growth, spelling ability, grammatical usage and writing skills. Access to school libraries results in more voluntary reading by students. Reading research shows having a teacher-librarian makes a difference in the amount of voluntary free reading that is done.

The final one mentioned here under reading research shows larger school library collections and longer hours increase both circulation and the amount read.

It goes on to say then, how a teacher-librarian can make a difference. How it can? By keeping resource centres open longer, teacher-librarian. I know in one school it is cut 50 per cent because of 160 teachers being taken out of the system.

Collaborating with teachers on resource based units of instruction, which incorporates information literary skills; delivering more information and literacy instructions to students; selecting resources which support the curriculum and the needs and interests of students, and also makes a difference in building a stronger relationship with outside agencies like public library; providing more professional development for teachers, and the final one: assist in early literacy programs through help with home-reading programs and the selection of materials appropriate for young readers.

So, there are some very interesting points made here by the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association Learning Resource Council. It is a very strongly worded letter that has gone to the minister here to deal with a major problem that is going to have a detrimental effect on the ability of young people in our Province to get a better education and to be able to achieve as well as research has shown. I don't doubt for a moment that the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association, their research, their reference here and the sources and so on that are quoted there, that these are indeed very accurate and I think very important.

We talk about this government and their budget. We talked about a budget that showed a cash deficit this year of $212.685 million and that is not counting capital expenditures under other entities. When you add these other entities to it, under different school construction and other areas, that is another $73.9 million on top of that. That shows a total cash deficit of budgetary requirements totaling $286,585,000, and that has been our largest cash deficit - excluding capital expenditures - in ten years.

We have been told by our leaders here, the Premier and minister, we can better afford to pay the mortgage today, and we have had the largest deficit in ten years. It is increasing dramatically. Four times on a cash basis over last year. When you look at, on an accrual basis, we have $666 million. It is a tremendous amount of debt. Our total budgetary requirement this year is $286.685 million and we have a non-budgetary requirement, too, of $291.681 million under statutory. Our total borrowing requirements, on this basis, comes to $578.266 million.

PREMIER GRIMES: What was that you talked about today?

MR. SULLIVAN: The Premier is wondering what I talked about today. Here is what I talked about. I will tell the Premier if he would like to hear it. When you move to an accrual basis you have to include tangible capital assets carried on that accrual basis. I asked the minister -

PREMIER GRIMES: (Inaudible) tangible?

MR. SULLIVAN: I am going to explain in a second. Don't get carried away, I say to the Premier, just wait, take your time.

Under tangible capital assets, certain -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No. It is not just tangible capital assets. On the accrual basis, you only looked at the net additions of tangible capital assets. Now, under that heading you have to allow for a per cent of depreciation. I asked the minister what depreciation rate, basically, did they use. What did they use on depreciation under tangible capital assets. She ran back to the department two weeks ago and hasn't come back with an answer. I hope she comes back with an answer because when we get into the Estimates and get back into the Executive Council Consolidated Revenue Fund I am going to want to have an answer. How do we know the true deficit is $666 million if you can't stand in this House and explain - I have a copy of the Budget here and I will make reference to it. I am going to expect an answer. When I get an answer to some of these basic, fundamental questions, then I might be prepared to sit down.

The Premier avoid (inaudible) that are of an abnormal nature. The Premier wanted to know, the Minister of Finance didn't want to know, I can tell you. She didn't want to know. She almost wore out the carpet running up and down the halls of the Finance Department trying to get answers and explain, and we still haven't heard it. I am going to wait for statement three, the minister to stand in the House and explain: Why are the net additions of tangible capital assets during the year $55 million and the depreciation on them of $1 million? Why is depreciation only about 1.85 per cent? Now the Premier does not want to understand this tangible capital assets. He is not interest in that. Tangible capital assets is not an exciting subject out there. I will get back to it, in due course, because I understand we have another ten hours on the Estimates here in the House, on Executive Council, Legislature, and all of these things yet to deal with, in addition to an opportunity to address some of it in a non-confidence motion.

Of course, I have an hour on the refinance bill and there are several of them. I am going to keep raising it until I get an answer. It is as simple as that. I think we deserve to get an answer from the Finance Minister when they tell us we are doing a budget on an accrual basis and they cannot stand in this House and explain how it is done on an accrual basis. They cannot substantiate the figures I asked. There is something wrong. Why? Do we have the right figures? She cannot explain them. I am not doubting the figures, but we have no explanation to substantiate the figures given by this minister in the House. I think we deserve to get them.

Why is depreciation on certain capital assets only 1.85 per cent? What asset do you have that only depreciates? So much for tangible capital assets for the short-term. We will get back to it in due course. When you look at the accrual basis here, $666 million. Now the Minister of Finance, on page 5 in the Budget, said on Budget Day: Over the next four years - not this year now, starting next year - we are going to balance the Budget by cutting $300 million over four years. Beginning next year, for the next four years, after the election by the Premier who believes in fixed terms; who believes we should have four-year terms and wants to wait for five years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want to pass the resolution tonight?

MR. SULLIVAN: What resolution?

AN HON. MEMBER: About fixed terms.

MR. SULLIVAN: Fixed terms? The fixed term he is talking about, I think, is six years or seven years. He did not specify.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You would love to make it six years, I say.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) six years.

MR. SULLIVAN: You would love to make it six years. I think there should be four-year terms. I am a strong believer of four-year terms. I have said that in the past. I am on the public record on that issue in the past.

For the minister who could not - all he could do was a power point presentation. Now he is looking to have an agreement etched here. For who? Lawrence O'Brien said from Pinsent Arm - was it Pinsent Arm who had a far more sophisticated - it made the minister's presentation look like nothing, basically, and they got what they wanted. You have to be organized. You have to have a plan. You have to go in with a plan. He knows what is going on, I can tell you. The Member for Labrador knows what is going on up there federally, a lot more than I can say for the minister who was Works, Services and Transportation at that time.

Now, we look at the Budget here. Our cash deficit - and one of the basic things this government has done is manipulate figures at year-end. Here is what they manipulated this year: $88.3 million in this budget. There is $88.3 million manipulated in this budget. Last year they budgeted for deferred revenue of $60 million that should have gone in last year's budget and taken as revenue. They did not take it and carried to this year. That $60 million would have made our deficit $60 million higher.

When you look at Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, $10 million was budgeted last year but they did not take it, and manipulated year-end to take it this year. That is one thing, repeated the Auditor General, right to the current one, the previous ones have indicated, that they are trying to get whatever cash result they want. So, that is one aspect. Ten million from Housing.

They took $10 million from the Liquor Corporation in deferred revenue that was budgeted last year and carried this year again; manipulated another $10 million. They manipulated GIPCo, the Gull Island Power Company Limited, $3 million they budgeted but did not take and, of course, they manipulated $37 million in sinking funds. That is $60 million just on those items alone. What else did they do? They also took three years supplementary CHST. They took it all this year when one-third should have been next year and one-third the year after. So they took all the money and put it into this year's budget what should have been over a three year period. That came to $28.3 million extra. When you add all of that up, Madam Speaker, that is $88.3 million they manipulated this year on a cash basis. If you took that $88 million and added it to the $286 million on a cash basis, when you look at capital, our deficit on a cash basis then would have been another $88 million. That would bring it up to over $375 million.

So there is a structural deficit built in of $88.3 million that they are going to have to pay the price on next year. In other words, we are misreporting actual revenues and expenditures in the year they occur, and that it wrong, that is not proper. It should be done properly and it should be done fairly, and this government has not done it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to my colleague, yes, I have a copy of this here, actually, the whole detail of this one, very interesting ones. I might even get to that a little later now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I have read that before. I did not get to it this year, yet, but I have it all here too, in due course.

MR. MANNING: Say what Lawrence O'Brien said about (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I do not want to aggravate them any further, but my colleague for Placentia & St. Mary's wants to know what Lawrence O'Brien said about this government. I will tell him what he said. He told the Premier to get a former proposal on the Phase III into the federal government. I told him to give me and my colleagues something to support, something to run with.

In other words, Phase III, they did not have anything into their colleagues, did not submit anything into the federal. Lawrence O'Brien said: Put something in we can support. I reiterated this in a letter to Premier Grimes and his ministers on March 11. The delegation from Happy Valley-Goose Bay who were in Ottawa in mid-March pressed the same points on Minister McLean and Barrett and their departments. It is almost April now and there is still no proposal. There is only a page of a power point presentation.

Here is what he said about the Member for Bellevue, who was the minister then: There was only one page of a power point presentation. I got in more detail a more professional presentation from the community of Pinsent Arm in support of a road in their community than I got from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador for Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway.

That is what he said.

AN HON. MEMBER: Loyola, that is a rather condescending attitude towards the people of Pinsent Arm, don't you think?

MR. SULLIVAN: I am quoting Lawrence O'Brien. You will have to deal with Lawrence O'Brien.

I think that is a compliment, to tell the people in Pinsent Arm that they were far more detailed in their presentation than the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador with a $4 billion budget and their resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: People in a small isolated community have far more expertise than this government could put together with a $4 billion budget. That is a shame on this government. It is a reflection.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: For a minister who is (inaudible) by the literary council -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Labour.

MR. BARRETT: I have sat here now for a couple of sessions of this House listening to the tripe from the opposite side talking about a presentation and a proposal that the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs and myself presented to Minister Collenette. We listened to the Official Opposition get up and talk, and quote from the hon. Member for Labrador, talking about the presentation.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) point of order.

MR. BARRETT: We are trying to correct something here.

MADAM SPEAKER: I will ask the member to get to his point.

MR. BARRETT: The Member for Labrador was never at the meeting. As a matter of fact, Minister Collenette said if the Minister of Labrador was there, there would never have been a meeting.

Minister Collenette did not want the Member for Labrador at the meeting, and he is up there quoting a letter from the Member for Labrador saying that we did a power point presentation. He did not even know what happened. He could not even get into the meeting. He is the federal member and he was not even allowed in the meeting.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: I am sick of listening to that foolishness by the hon. Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

All I can say is that the member who just stood and could only give a one page power point presentation, that was so simplistic in nature they did not even take him serious in Ottawa, no wonder he feels threatened here this evening. No wonder he feels threatened, to jump up and try to put forth a defense here.

I will just repeat it, in case he missed it, in case he missed what Lawrence said about him. Here is what Lawrence said: I told him to give me and my colleagues something to support, to run with. I reiterated this in a letter to Premier Grimes and his minister on March 11. The delegation from Happy Valley-Goose Bay who were here in mid-March presented the same points on Minister McLean and their departments. It is almost April now and there is no proposal.

The federal member said: Give us the proposal on Phase III of the Labrador Highway that we can work with. We have not gotten one. They have not given us one.

He went on to say -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is what Lawrence O'Brien said. I am quoting from it. I will table it if you want it tabled. He said: I got a more detailed and a more professional presentation from the community of Pinsent Arm in support of a road to their community than I have from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador for Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway.

That is what Lawrence O'Brien said about that presentation that this minister gave. He went on to say: If the Province doles out tens of millions of dollars on the basis of a power point slide show, is it any wonder they are so far in debt and they have to steal from the Labrador Transportation Fund?

That is what Lawrence O'Brien said. Can you imagine?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) ear from listening to you.

MR. SULLIVAN: If that is the case, there will be many more before I am finished. If that is the case, there will be many more to come.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: You have only seen the jar; you haven't seen the garden yet, I say.

Maybe I will take about the Minister of Education. I think he missed that - he was in a conversation at the time - a very scathing letter to the Minister of Education on May 8, 2003, and they are looking for a meeting with the minister. I do not know if he has granted it yet.

MR. REID: Who from?

MR. SULLIVAN: Who from? He does not even know who he received it from.

They are telling you that teacher-librarians are in danger of extinction this year by taking teachers out of the system.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: At least the view is better when you turn it that way.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Not a bit.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Mobile? How many do I have in my school? How many at Mobile? I did not go to Mobile. I did not teach in Mobile. He is all mixed up. You are in the wrong part of the district. You are confused.

I can tell you one thing: in a school in my district this year they are sliced 50 per cent. The library teacher is cut to half time in one of the schools in the district. The band is almost wiped out in music this year in one particular school in my district, because of 160 teachers cut back in the Province; thirty-six cut back in the Avalon East School Board. This is basically what is happening, I might add. The minister should know about that. That is fact. We have been told that. The minister either does not listen or he does not want to listen. There is none so deaf as those who do not wish to hear. I will not repeat it. Hansard will show it, for the record.

Another letter - I don't know, this is tougher than the last one. Maybe I will go through this one. This is pretty current, May 1, to the Premier of the Province. It says: Hi, Roger.

That is what it says, I am just reading a letter. I will table it if I need to. It says: I categorically reject the call you made on Friday, through the news media and in writing, for my resignation from the federal Liberal caucus. By the standard you laid down on Friday, your Labrador MHAs ought to have resigned in 1996 when it was decided to place the smelter for Labrador nickel in Argentia, Newfoundland.

AN HON. MEMBER: He read that the other day to us.

MR. SULLIVAN: So that means I can't now? Where is the law that says I can't?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister has to learn. Just because you read it once - they tell you at school to keep repeating, repeating, repeating and you will remember it, the more often you repeat it. Why do you have your ads on so often: Good things are happening in Newfoundland and Labrador? Because you want to fool the people.

I will read it again. It says: By that standard -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: We got them excited anyway. I hope when my hour is up somebody else might want to join in for the rest of the night because this bill is too important to let go in a short period of time. It is too important.

Lawrence O'Brien said: By that standard, your Liberal MHAs ought to have resigned over the issue of the IOC pellet plant investment in Sept-Iles instead of Labrador City.

What did it cost them with that pellet plant? It cost them a seat in the House of Assembly because of that. That is right, and the Member for Labrador West will tell you that. The single biggest issue in that election was the pellet plant in Sept-Iles, Quebec. It was one of the biggest issues, I think, in that election there and one of the things that contributed, I would say, to the defeat of the Liberal member in the last election. Maybe the colleague -

AN HON. MEMBER: How many votes did the PC Party get?

MR. SULLIVAN: I do not know, but I do know who won. I see the man up to my right. The single biggest issue. Your Labrador MHAs ought to have -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: He will get an awful lot more than yours are going to get this time.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. SULLIVAN: A lot more than yours are going to get this time.

Your Labrador MHAs ought to have resigned when you attempted to drain the remaining funds in the Labrador Transportation Initiative to stave off a provincial deficit.

I say to my colleague, when you come back in a few minutes, bring back a lunch for everybody, too, will you please?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: This is a long letter here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read a page two.

MR. SULLIVAN: Page two? Okay, I will get to page two, the middle of page two. It said: 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 has been funded to the tune of almost ninety cents on the dollar.

Rather than attempt to engage elected fellow representatives on federal or provincial issues, your government prefers to shut us out of communications, meetings, exchange and communication, and any other efforts to advance the interests of our riding and our Province.

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 the Assembly, in the news media, and through the Royal Commission.

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.

He goes on to say: Premier, I have no intention to resign from a government which consistently outspends the provincial government in Labrador, in many areas of what are, in fact, provincial heads of responsibility. However, I will gladly cross the floor the day the provincial contributions pay for the completion of a paved highway across Labrador, from Labrador City to L'Anse-au-Clair that can be kept open in the depths of winter. I am proud to be part of a federal government which played a key role in allowing the Voisey's Bay project to proceed - and so on. He goes on to mention numerous other particular areas of concern in that particular letter.

Madam Speaker, on the literacy - and the minister was certainly wondering - I would hope that he would arrange a meeting with the Literacy Resource Council and deal with some of these pressing issues there on concerns that have been raised; because if we cut back on education - we have been told that this is an education budget. If it is an education budget, why are students getting cut back in their access to music? Why is there a reduction in music programs in schools in our Province? If it is an education budget, why, I might ask, are we losing librarians and our students getting less access to library resources in our Province? Why is this happening? If it is an education budget, why is this going on? It is not an education budget. It is strictly under the disguise of an education budget.

The very minister for post-secondary talks about tuition and tells us we have the lowest tuition in the country. Every Quebecer can go to university in Quebec for little over half the cost of a Newfoundlander and Labradorian to go to a university in our Province. Every Quebecer can go to a college in Quebec with zero tuition; not the same as here in our Province.

The minister has the audacity then - the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans - to stand and tell us that it is the lowest in the country, and play with words. Then: we are not comparing apples and apples. Apples and apples is a student in Quebec going to university in Quebec and a student in this Province going to university in this Province. When you compare it, it was over $3,000 for tuition. It was over $3,000 at one point. It is cut back now to about $2,700, a little under $2,600, without counting mandatory fees. That drives it way higher and we are right up there.

In Quebec, $1,680. It does not matter if you go to McGill, Laval, or wherever you go, or Ecoli Polytechnique. Wherever you go in Quebec it is the same basic rate that you pay; far, far lower than the money you pay in this Province. Still we try to brainwash people of the Province, telling them they can get an education cheaper than people in some other provinces. A lot of students go to university in Quebec and a lot of Quebecers go to university there. They pay significantly less than they do here in our Province and significantly greater access. People have to go to university here at great costs. They come in from Labrador and the south coast, and other parts of this Province, and have to come into St. John's. In Quebec there are more universities, there is greater access. There are big costs incurred here, Madam Speaker, in getting an education. They have made moves in this budget to deny some basic learning principles, access to learning resources in libraries around our Province. Where are they going to cut? When a teacher cannot be available in a library, a librarian, it is cutting access and they cannot get access to learning resources.

In spite of statistics, the minister received a letter and they quoted that it is 10 per cent to 25 per cent higher on standardized tests for people who have accessed these resources in well-resourced schools than in more poorly resourced schools. These are very important factors, I might add.

Then the minister gets up and talks about GDP growth. Talk about GDP growth, and tell us what Moody's said. What Moody's said was a lot different than what the minister said that Moody's said. There is a big difference in the two of their statements, I might add.

Basically, we have numerous particular things when you look at the financial situation in our Province here. This Province led the country in GDP growth three out of the last five years. What did we lead in GDP growth? One of the biggest problems, back in 1989 when this government came into power personal disposable income was 82 per cent of our Gross Domestic Product. Today, it is only 59 per cent of Gross Domestic Product. So our Gross Domestic Product has gone up and we find that money in people's pockets. Personal disposable income has not gone up accordingly. That, I might add, is the true story. We have to look at, there is more to an economy than Gross Domestic Product. There are numerous factors. There is labour productivity; productivity per unit of input. Are our provincial revenues growing?

When you look at our GDP, back six years ago the federal and provincial revenues were 36 per cent of GDP. A year ago they were only 24 per cent of GDP. Our revenues were losing ground in the battle to garner a greater chunk of GDP equated in the jobs and revenues in the coffers of our Province. We are losing that battle. Why? Because of the economy rent on our Gross Domestic Product. The economic rent is going to the Eastern Seaboard of the United States and other parts of the country. We are not the beneficiaries of our own resource. We are not getting the benefits from that particular resource here. That reflects on the government here, in their inability to maximize opportunities for growth in our economy. It has not been done. They sit back and say: Look at all we are taking in from oil off our shores. But that is being siphoned away by Ottawa. It is a non-renewable resource. The time will come when that is not going to be there, and the nickel will not be there from Voisey's Bay. Every single non-renewable resource has a point where it becomes exhausted, and we have not recognized this. A non-renewable resource should be looked at as an asset. With 10 per cent gone, that asset should be depreciated by 10 per cent, the depreciation of that asset. At the end, when it is all gone, it has no value. It is not an asset any more. It is not an asset. Those non-renewable resources should be looked on as a depreciating asset, basically, and have an effect on the bottom line of our Province.

We have seen numerous changes here. We have talked about education. The Premier said he is going to beef up support staff, cleaner schools, janitorial and other work. Nine million dollars, I think, was the commitment. We had expected to see improvements in that. The Budget touched in on less than 30 per cent of what he promised; $2.5 million. We are still a long way up from a $9 million commitment and this was an education budget. An education budget, it took 160 teachers out of the Province and you call it an education budget. Oh, but that is fine; they are not going to lose their jobs.

With an education budget, teaching is not to create jobs. The role of education is to teach our youth and our students. That is their role. That is why there are teachers to teach our students. There are police officers because we need to enforce laws and protection of the public. We do not create police officers for jobs. The jobs are created because of the need to put that service there, and the same way in education. We do not create doctors and nurses and tell all these to create jobs. That is not the role. That is not the role of these people. The role of these people is to meet a social need for better health, so you hire people with those skills to provide better health. That is why there are jobs, as a result of the need, not because we need to create jobs. They are basically part of a whole social program and policies of government, and they are there to provide service to people.

If you want to create jobs, get out into manufacturing, the processing sector, and get out on the levels where the spinoffs can be great, the secondary processing areas. That is where government can play an important role in the process, and we have not been getting the share of our resources. We have thrown in the towel. We have sat back. We have not been strong enough in enforcing it through our C-NOPB. Through other agencies and things of government, we have not been doing our job.

This government thinks they are doing a fantastic job. Well, I do not think they are doing a fantastic job. The majority of people in this Province, in every single port, for the last two years, do not think they are doing a very good job. The gap has gotten wider in every one for the last four quarters. The gap has widened by what people think because people want a change from tired ways with no plans and no direction.

The minister stands in the House and tells us they are going to cut the budget by $300 million, we are going to eliminate it but cannot tell us how they are going to do it. The Toronto Dominion Bank said: We are going to take $75 million a year for four years - not this year of course now, after the election. Next year we will start it. That is like believing in fixed terms. We are going to have it - not now. We are going to have it after the next election. We will believe in everything after the next election but nothing before it. Believe in it all but do not do it. There is only one way to show what you believe and that is by practicing what you believe. That is the true proof. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, basically, not in what you say you are going to do but in what you do. That is the trademark, if you deliver on what you say you are going to do.

I remember, and I have referenced here, government put back in 1997 - they put through a three year plan to balance the budget. Where was it to? We look back each year and it got worse, progressively worse. We are to the point now where we have the biggest cash deficit in a decade. On an accrual basis it has skyrocketed; $179 million to $250-some million, to $350 million and then it went up to $400-some million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I can hear the Minister of Education over there squawking. He is over there squawking. Maybe he might want me to get back to education again, or maybe he wants to revisit the site of the Fogo hospital. Maybe that is what he wants, to revisit the site of the Fogo hospital. To the people down in Seldom, he said: I want it in the centre of the Island. I want it in Fogo. Down in Tilting he told them the centre of the Island. In Job Batt's Arm he said the centre of the Island. But down in Fogo, where there was 27 per cent, he quietly told them: I want it in Fogo. Then he went up to other areas of the Province. It was so close to the election that most people did not get a chance to respond to really know what he stood for. Where did he put it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's talk poultry here. Let's ask the minister responsible (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am still dealing with prose, I say to the minister. When I finish the prose we will get to poetry. I might even ask Madam Speaker to help me out when we get beyond the prose to get to the poetry because she is pretty good at poetry, I might add.

AN HON. MEMBER: Poultry, not poetry!

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, poultry! They get to poultry!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: I am sure she will write a few verses.

Madam Speaker, I figure the Minister of Education, all he wants to talk about is poetry and prose. I thought that would be more appropriate for the Minister of Education. All he wants to talk about, I think, is getting his feathers ruffled over there. He is talking about getting his feathers ruffled.

He rushes back to his seat now to interfere with my last three minutes left. He goes back to his seat.

MR. REID: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. REID: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member is misleading the House. It is not prose and poetry I am talking about. It is chicken and poultry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister there gets a little carried away, I might add. He is probably from a different flock altogether. He had his feathers ruffled there and he had to get up. He had his feathers ruffled, I might add. He should be talking about using our education system and our libraries; not to take teachers out of the system, not to remove opportunities, I might add, for students to get a better education.

Madam Speaker, I was talking about the role where this government has failed, and how they are always trying to put through and give the people the impression what a great job they are doing. Why, if the economy is so great, have we not had fantastic growth? Why, if things are so good, have 70,000 people left out Province, a net loss, since they came into power? Where are the jobs? They are telling us: Look at all the jobs we have.

We still have the highest unemployment rate in this country. We have the highest out-migration in this country. For years and years we were the only province that had a net out-migration. We have a government here that has lost its sense of direction, Madam Speaker. It has lost its sense; it has no plan for its people. A government that is on automatic pilot with no plans for its people is one that is doomed for failure, I might add, one who cannot live up to their statements.

A government in power should put forth a plan. That is their job, and at election time it is a responsibility for the Opposition to put on the line their plan, and that will happen, but the government in power that tells us we are going to cut $300 million on the budget -

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Madam Speaker, just half an hour to finish up?

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the leave.

I might add, a government has lost its sense of direction. The government does not know where it is heading.

Toronto-Dominion Bank, a renowned financial institution, says, this minister, this government, has told us they are going to cut $300 million and they have no plan. They do not know how they are going to do it. They have deep trouble. They have major problems. They are going to cut $300 million and do not know how they are going to do it. That is a major problem, and there are other institutions out there that have had very scathing remarks.

Here is what the BMO Financial Group said. The Bank of Montreal said: A deficit of this size combined with already high debt levels is not sustainable.

The Toronto Dominion Bank says: The government indicated that it would aim to eliminate its deficit gradually between fiscal years 2004-2005 and 2007-2008 by targeting a modest $75 million a year although it has provided no clear plan on how that goal would be achieved.

That is what the Toronto-Dominion Bank said.

CIBC went on to say: An enlarged deficit would put upward pressure on the Province's borrowing requirements.

What are the Province's borrowing requirements? They are $287 million budgetary requirements and non-budgetary requirements are $291.68 million. Our total borrowing requirements are $578 million in the Budget put forth this fiscal year. We know that they are going to be greater. We know it is going to be different, I might add.

Here is what Moody's said. I will get to Moody's next. Here is what Moody's said. I will tell you what the minister said that Moody's said. There is a difference in what Moody's said and what the minister said that Moody's said. In this House, back in May -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: If the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation would listen I will tell him exactly what Moody's said. He is not in a very good mood to hear what Moody's said. He is getting kind of moody over there, I might add. He doesn't even want to hear what Moody's said.

Here is what Moody's said. Moody's said -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: No, not at all. I am good for the night.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Good.

Madam Speaker, the minister stood in this House last May and said - here is how she misled the people in this Province, when she read this. She said - and I will quote her words: In announcing the upgrade today, Moody's noted the Province's strong economic growth, improved fiscal position -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: - and the resulting improvements in the key debt ratios, such as GDP. She said: Moody's also points to the level of fiscal support provided by the federal government.

Here is what Moody's said. Moody's said -

MR. WALSH: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, on a point of order.

MR. WALSH: I wonder, Madam Speaker, if the member would acknowledge what Moody's did in terms of our rating. Did Moody's up our rating or did they lower our rating? Better yet, just one question: Did Moody's lower our rating, yes or no?

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Madam Speaker, is this Question Period or what? Number one, the House Leader said you should not point, and he pointed. He said, you shouldn't be jabbing at the air and he jabbed at the air. He broke the basic ground rules. Yes or no?

Here is what Moody's said. I am going to tell you what Moody's said. They might not like to hear what Moody's said, but here is what they said. They said, "Today's Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island rating upgrades reflect, in part, our assessment that the federal government's stronger position lessens the likelihood of transfer reductions comparable in scope to those imposed in the mid-1990s. Moody's went on to say, "Our assessment that the provincial sector now operates in a more stable system of federal support prompts the rating upgrade to A3 for Newfoundland and Labrador." They said: While Newfoundland's credit position remains among the least robust in Canadian provinces, it is important to recognize the now reduced risk to its bondholders. They want on to say, Madam Speaker, that the Province now faces more difficult budget circumstances and is relying to a greater extent on non-recurring measures to enhance its short-term fiscal position. That is what Moody's said, Madam Speaker.

Here is what the Bank of Montreal said at the same time, Madam Speaker. The Bank of Montreal said, "Despite supercharged growth in three of the past four years, Newfoundland's fiscal position has become more precarious. The Province has incurred increasingly larger deficits in each of the past three years and the pattern is expected to continue." It went on to talk about the precarious fiscal position that this Province is in. "Clearly, the Bank of Montreal said, Newfoundland's fiscal situation is a cause for concern and could act as a drag on economic growth. With very high debt levels (estimated at 54.2 per cent of GDP as of March 31, 2002, the highest by far of all provinces) and the highest personal income taxes in the country, the Province is in a difficult situation."

Madam Speaker, this government, in one year, from last year to this year, has fallen from fourth place to eleventh place in a national study of budget performance. This government has gone down to the bottom of the barrel. I will just look at the areas of fiscal performance where the government has dropped. We looked at each one individually and then we looked at them collectively. Over the course of the night, then, I want to touch on some other areas pertaining to it.

This article said: On the big picture overall, Newfoundland holds the dubious distinction of, ranks last. Our Province ranks last on the overall performance of assessments dealing with budget performance. They are down to 36.6 per cent. New Brunswick, for example, is 53.3 per cent, Saskatchewan is 53.6 per cent. Alberta was first, 74.2 per cent, Madam Speaker, followed by Ontario, 65.1 per cent, followed by the federal government, 63.6 per cent, and others were all in excess of 50 per cent. Newfoundland was a dismal 36.6 per cent. It said, the top downward mover was Newfoundland, going downhill at an alarming rate. It has dropped a worrisome seven positions.

MR. NOEL: Madam Speaker, I withdraw leave

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

Leave has been withdrawn.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, we will go on for another few hours. Why not?

MADAM SPEAKER: Leave has been withdrawn.

MR. SULLIVAN: Madam Speaker, the top downward mover was Newfoundland, a drop of a worrisome seven positions, from fourth last year to eleven.

Under government spending -

MR. NOEL: I withdraw leave, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

Leave has been withdrawn.

MR. SULLIVAN: Who withdrew leave, Madam Speaker?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Mines and Energy withdrew leave. He doesn't want to hear about our Province's fiscal situation, what is happening.

We have a few more tax bills yet, another three or four. I will get an opportunity in second reading and committee. We can speak all day in committee, I guess.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

If the minister speaks now she will close the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, to set the record straight, this is a bill really to close a loophole to guarantee more income for the people of the Province so that only people who do manufacturing and processing in this Province can actually get the tax credit. I think anyone who would look at the Hansard diatribe would see that it is a very clear, succinct bill, an amendment to the Income Tax Act. The point is very strictly around manufacturing and processing, although any number of other issues were raised. Specifically, Madam Speaker, this piece of legislation is intended to allow the people of the Province to gain the most benefit from the people of the Province who actually do the manufacturing here. No other amendments to this component of manufacturing and processing is planned.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 5).

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Speaker, I move that the House on its rising do adjourn.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.