The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Members and visitors will note that the lights in the House today are not as bright as they usually are. I am advised that there is a technical difficulty which is currently being addressed by the appropriate personnel. Our apologies for any inconvenience that this problem may present to members or to visitors.

I am also pleased today to welcome to the gallery some students from the Keyin College, Human Resources Management Class, and their instructor Ms Paulette Sampson.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would now like to rule on a point of order raised last evening by the hon. Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace concerning the comments of the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

The two members have differing opinions about a particular set of facts. This is not a question of order but, as has been ruled in this House, it is a difference of opinion between two hon. members. As previous Speakers have ruled in accordance with §494 of Beauchesne 6^th Edition, "...statements by Members respecting themselves and particularly within their own knowledge must be accepted. It is not unparliamentary temperately to criticize statements made by Members as being contrary to the facts.... On rare occasions this may result in the House having to accept two contradictory accounts of the same incident."

As well at this time I wish to remind members that they are to show respect for one another and show tolerance for differing opinions. This means that each member is entitled to speak, and each member can expect a fair hearing whether or not other members agree with what they say or not.

To quote Speaker Parent of the Canadian House of Commons noted in Marleau and Montpetit, "Thus regardless of how dramatically our opinions may diverge or how passionately we hold to convictions that our political opponents do not share, civility must be respected."

Part of this respect is tolerance. Offensive or rude behaviour or unparliamentary language or conduct cannot be accepted. I ask all members on both sides of the House to reflect on the necessity for tolerance towards each other and for the institution of Parliament itself.

Statements by members today, we have statements from the following members that will be heard in this order: The Member for Bonavista North, the Member for Bay of Islands, the Member for Burin-Placentia West, the Member for Port de Grave, the Member for Humber Valley, and the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House today and offer congratulations to the Society of United Fishermen, Branch 53, in Badger's Quay. On Friday of this week, Branch 53 will be celebrating its 100^th Anniversary. The Society of United Fishermen, as most members probably know, is a fraternal organization that has served a very important purpose in the history and culture of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, over its long history, the organization has somewhat changed its focus to some extent from not only assisting its own members and their families but also helping all needy individuals throughout their communities and the Province. This is no doubt attributed to the changes in our society. Their major financial contribution each year to the Janeway Telethon is a prime example of this.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to offer my congratulations to the Society of United Fishermen in Badger's Quay, and I pay particular tribute to all of the men of that community and that area who have kept it going over the years, especially men such as Art Wicks, Cator Kean, Gilbert Knee and many others who have been actively involved for many, many years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Elizabeth Gallagher, Geoff Carnell, and Keith House for being inducted to the Newfoundland and Labrador Tennis Hall of Fame.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!

MR. JOYCE: Elizabeth Gallagher, the Sargent-at-Arms here in the House of Assembly, has been recognized for her determination in establishing the provincial tennis archives. She and her husband, Ray Gallagher, also received special recognition as they are to be retiring as Tennis Archivists.

Carnell is recognized for serving five years as President of the Riverdale Tennis Association and being appointed as Newfoundland's first to the Board of Directors of Tennis Canada. Carnell was also presented with the Tennis Distinguished Service award.

Keith House, the last 2003 inductee, has been recognized for his excellent help with building tennis in Mount Pearl for over thirty years. The induction ceremony was held on August 30 at the Bally Haly Golf and Curling Club.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in extending our congratulations to Elizabeth Gallagher, Geoff Carnell and Keith House for being the 2003 inductees to the Newfoundland and Labrador Tennis Hall of Fame for the individual achievements for tennis in and out of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure this afternoon to stand before this House to deliver an address to Mr. Wayne Vokey. Mr. Vokey is an educator, who was a colleague of mine in my previous profession, and is presently a patient at the Burin Peninsula Health Care Facility.

To describe Wayne, I enthusiastically use words such as animated, energetic, sincere, and most importantly, dedicated to the students that he teaches. Throughout our time working together, Mr. Vokey and I have built a mutual respect that continues to this day and, Mr. Speaker, it is a respect that I believe exists between himself and many of his students.

Mr. Speaker, I think it quite timely that I bring this address to a teacher such as Mr. Vokey. For in the educational scheme of things, while numerous matters related to education often dominate discussions, teachers such as Mr. Vokey come to remind us that it is not always money that makes education so relevant. More often than not, it is the interaction between teachers and students that leads to life long learning. Many of the most important lessons in education, and indeed in life, do not come from books - they come from the heart.

Mr. Vokey is a very dedicated teacher, one who deserves mention. On a recent visit to Mr. Vokey I saw a card given to him by a student who had gone through a family medical crisis. She wanted to return to Mr. Vokey some of the kindness he had shown her in her time of need. Due to an illness, it was now his time for a need for support and this student wanted to return the favour.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in wishing Mr. Vokey - Wayne - a speedy recovery, and we entrust his timely return to the classroom; to the medical staff of the Burin Placentia Heath Care Centre.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to celebrate the 106th birthday of Mrs. Elizabeth Bradbury of Coley's Point in the beautiful district of Port de Grave.

Born on January 20, 1898, Mrs. Bradbury has experienced three centuries of life and has been a shining example of excellent health the entire way through.

I recently had the opportunity to attend her birthday celebration at her home in Coley's Point, where she was surrounded by most of her family and many of her neighbours and friends.

Mr. Speaker, the family of Mrs. Bradbury includes seven children, sixteen grandchildren, twenty-one great-grandchildren and five great-great-grandchildren.

Though Mrs. Bradbury is now confined to her home, up until a few short years ago she insisted on being taken out daily to drive through the communities, to see the place where she was born.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating Mrs. Elizabeth Bradbury of Coley's Point on the occasion of her 106^th Birthday.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a resident of my district, Humber Valley, who is doing our Province proud on an international level.

On March 6, 2004 Deer Lake native Darren Langdon played in his 500^th National Hockey League game.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS GOUDIE: This is a feat that all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are proud of.

Darren is an inspiration to all young men and women in our Province, not only hockey players. He has shown through his hard work and dedication to the game of hockey that anything in life is achievable. He has played at all levels of hockey and never gave up until he became a full-time player in the NHL.

Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of coaching Darren in minor soccer and softball and his attitude is what I will always remember. He was a team player and always put others first; an attitude he is still known for today in the Montreal Canadiens dressing room.

Darren has a strong connection to home. He returns in his off season with his wife Jillian, oldest daughter Kennedy and triplets Drew, Brett and Brooke. He has played with four NHL teams and always takes care of people from home who travel to see him play, ensuring they have a great experience while visiting. He also regularly calls home while playing in the NHL to see how his beloved Deer Lake Red Wings are doing and looks forward to the day when he can return to his homeland of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the House of Assembly today to join me in congratulating Darren Langdon on playing in his 500th NHL game.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate Ms Sherrilynn Butt, a native of the great district of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, for recently being named Miss Congeniality at the Miss Universe Canada Pageant in Toronto this January.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Ms Butt is a flight attendant with Provincial Airlines and was crowned Miss Newfoundland and Labrador last September. Last month she competed with fifty other girls from across Canada as the sole representative of this Province. She was an excellent ambassador for Newfoundland and Labrador and being named Miss Congeniality reflects the friendliness and hospitality that is demonstrated by the people of our Province on many occasions.

The people of Cartwright-L'anse au Clair and her hometown of Red Bay are very proud of Sherrilynn. She is a young, successful woman whose views on humanity and Labrador have helped her achieve public recognition.

I will have the opportunity to congratulate her personally myself, Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, as she will be the guest speaker at the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company, AGM, in the Labrador Straits.

I would like, today, to ask all hon. members to join me in extending our congratulations to Ms Sherrilynn Butt of Red Bay.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed to the Statements by Ministers, I want to remind all hon. members that Statements by Members are supposed to be one minute in length. While the Speaker is very tolerant and while the Speaker does not wish to interrupt such presentations, as they are very important to the families who are involved, to the members, to the House and to the Province, however I would ask the members if they would keep in mind that while tolerance is accepted on this particular matter we should try to keep our statements within the allocated time.

Thank you very much.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I want to inform members of the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, and indeed the public of the Province, that the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board issued, earlier today, the 2004 Call for Bids. This Call for Bids is comprised of five parcels of land, located in the Jeanne d'Arc Basin and cover an area of approximately 270,000 hectares.

Late last year, as most members are aware, we had the most successful Land Sale in our history. Over $672 million was committed on eight parcels of land located in the Orphan Basin, three times more than our previous highest total bid. The most recent Call for Bids, in our view, is a sign that there is continued interest in the petroleum potential off our coast.

At a time when close to $1 billion has been committed over the next five years for exploration in our offshore, oil companies are maintaining their interest in the potential of our resources, Mr. Speaker. We have witnessed some key industry players make significant financial commitments to exploration. We encourage their continued interest. We also welcome new players, Mr. Speaker, to become involved in exploring our offshore area.

Further exploration is a critical component, I believe most members would be aware, to ensure that we build on the momentum of our oil and gas industry. Just as important as the next development for this Province is the next discovery, and exploration is the first critical step to this discovery.

Mr. Speaker, this government has made a commitment to the people of the Province, and indeed the Premier of the Province has made the commitment on behalf of all of us, and that is to secure meaningful benefits from the development of our natural resources, to do what we need, in other words to identify and further identify opportunities for future development. That is why I, as the minister, am encouraged on the heels of the 2003 land sale results, the C-NOPB is in a position to offer its new Call for Bids today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for an advance copy of his statement. It is indeed good news for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and indeed the offshore petroleum industry, that we have this announcement. I am glad also that the minister recognizes the good work that was performed by the staff of the Department of Natural Resources in the past, as well as the past Administration, because we just did not get to this point today. This has been an ongoing work for many, many years, and it is certainly nice to see that is being acknowledge by him here. It is through their efforts, his staff and now the new Administration, that we continue to see the exciting frontier that we have in our offshore be fully developed. I hope, indeed, we do have the right approach to get where we need to go.

I look forward to future announcements from this minister and this government concerning the activities in our offshore. I look forward, for example, to an update on where we stand on a conversion in the St. Lawrence Basin - we won the case last year - where we stand in regards to the conversion of the federal permits to exploration licences and how we are advancing on that. I look forward to what is being done -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I look forward to what is being done in terms of efforts to move Hebron-Ben Nevis forward, and I look forward to seeing our progress in negotiating a settlement with Quebec in the Gulf of St. Lawrence so that we can proceed on those very important frontiers as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure why this government is following the pattern of the previous government and persisting in calling these land sales when, in fact, the land is not being sold at all. In fact, it is commitment to do exploration. This money does not come to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

You know, I look forward to the time when we are actually selling this land, Mr. Speaker, and we are actually getting a significant return on our investment. In Terra Nova, for example, in 2003, one of the operators reported an operating profit of $32.99 per barrel - per barrel - on the Terra Nova crude, eighty one cents of which -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: - eighty-one cents of which comes in the form of royalties to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the question that I have to ask is: Who is the principle beneficiary of our offshore oil resources? We have some of the most profitable oil in all of Canada. It is the oil companies who are the major beneficiaries, Mr. Speaker, not the people of Newfoundland and Labrador or the Government of Canada. When we start doing something about that, Mr. Speaker, I will have cause for celebration.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to report on the tremendous response government has received to the employee suggestion initiative.

On February 10, 2004, government advised our front-line workers that they would have an opportunity to provide - anonymously - their ideas for savings, efficiencies and modernizing of government operations. Government established a toll-free telephone number and created a Web site through which employees could submit suggestions.

Mr. Speaker, during the pre-Budget consultations, many participants urged government to consult with those who directly deliver our programs and services. We wanted to ensure that our front-line employees had a chance to participate in the decision-making process as we prepared for program review and the Budget.

Without doubt, workers welcome the employee suggestion initiative. To date, over 900 submissions, containing thousands of suggestions, have been received. Employees have demonstrated a real concern for the fiscal affairs of our Province and the provision of public services. The suggestions cover a diverse range of topics. We have received input on the need to examine government policies on cell phones, vehicle use, purchasing, travel, and human resource management, to name just a few. Employees have also provided advice on expenditure reduction options, workplace efficiency, improvements to services for the public, and mechanisms to increase revenues.

I extend my thanks to all those who have taken the time to submit a suggestion. It would be impossible to list every one, but I want to assure our valued public service that we welcome their input. The toll-free line and on-line form will remain in effect until the end of March 2004, and I encourage employees to continue to forward suggestions to us.

Mr. Speaker, as stated in the Speech From the Throne, no government has all the answers. Good government is about developing solutions through constructive partnerships. I have instructed my officials to examine every suggestion and those that are prudent will be considered for implementation.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the hon. minister for providing me with a copy of the statement. I would say today, I wonder how can the public servants of this Province take the minister's words seriously? We are currently going through a process where the Premier and the minister unilaterally announced a wage freeze and pension reduction without consulting public servants, and now they expect public servants to believe that their opinions will be valuable.

It is interesting that this toll-free line was put into service five days after that infamous doom and gloom speech by our Premier and is now going to be taken out on March 30, on the eve of the expiration of the public service contract here in this Province.

I would suggest to the Minister of Finance, if you are going to put in a proper suggestion line to hear employees ideas and concerns, that it be an ongoing, not just a thirty-day wonder.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When I walked into the House this afternoon I thought that the minister had listened to a suggestion from an employee to turn off every second bulb in the House of Assembly as an economy measure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: There are probably a lot of lights that went out in this House of Assembly.

Seriously, Mr. Speaker, obviously employees have suggestions for efficiencies. I want to caution the Minister of Finance not to get too caught up in all this penney-pinching and savings because the Minister of Finance has an obligation to ensure that funds are available to ensure that the basic dignity of people in this Province are met. People on social assistance and income support have needs that are not being met.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: There is need for houses, there is a need for services, and that should be the kind of information that the minister is concentrating on, not just saving a few dollars here and there.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, as everyone knows I think, is Budget Day in Ottawa, and we are painfully aware that our Finance Minister for Newfoundland and Labrador has already had some bad, disappointing news with respect to equalization, and we share his sentiments with respect to that. We understand, as well, that our Premier is taking a lead on the possibility of increased offshore revenues for Newfoundland and Labrador. In light of the fact that in recent days the Finance Minister for Canada has announced an extra $120 million in equalization payments for his home Province of Saskatchewan, and the Prime Minister of Canada yesterday, on the eve of the Budget, announced $1 billion for the cattle industry - probably all good initiatives, probably the right thing to do - can the Premier give us any update as to possible expectations with respect to offshore oil revenue increases for Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question. At this particular point in time we have no firm commitments from the federal government.

As the Leader of the Opposition is well aware, we have been working diligently over the last four to five months, four-and-a-half months basically, to improve relationships with Ottawa, to build a relationship with the Prime Minister, to build a relationship with all the federal ministers who have come into the Province: Joe McGuire, Geoff Regan, Pierre Pettigrew, John Efford, and, of course, the Prime Minister himself. We are trying to work on the basis of collaboration and cooperation in order to achieve the goal, which is the approach - a very simple, a very straightforward approach - which we put forward to the federal government, and that is to obtain 100 per cent of the direct revenues, the provincial revenues, from oil and gas. That is our goal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have publicly congratulated the Premier on his stand and wish him every success in that particular approach. If we are not confident, Mr. Speaker, that we are likely to see a sign in the federal Budget today that we will have success on that front, even though other provinces have been given successful outcomes in advance of the Budget, does the Premier, and can he tell us whether or not he plans to try and seek an absolute firm, written commitment from the Prime Minister of Canada prior to the next election if it is not in the Budget today with respect to our rightful access to these offshore oil revenues? Because, I can tell you, we will certainly support that approach.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: Is the Premier going to try to take that as a next step if it is not there today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition for that question.

As the members opposite are aware, I have spent a considerable amount of time, as I said, over the last four-and-a-half months to build relationships with Ottawa, with the Prime Minister and with the federal ministers. As well, and equally important, we, as a government, felt it was important that I build relationships with the other premiers in order to get them onside. I felt it was very, very important that they are there with us so that we do not have a situation - for example, if there had to be a constitutional amendment or some other type of reform where some of the premiers were opposed to it. I individually canvassed those premiers. Of course, I have worked with them behind the scenes at the First Ministers' Conference, have talked with them about the issues, have spoken with them, tried to convince them on our argument, and I am proud to say that I have been very successful in obtaining the support of at least eleven out of twelve.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As well, the only outstanding premier is Premier Bernard Lord, who has said that he supports our goal to get 100 per cent of our revenues, even though he has some issues for New Brunswick itself.

In addition, I have written the leaders - the candidates, actually - for the Conservative Party. I also wrote the potential candidate for the Conservative Party who happened to be the Leader of the NDP Party at the time. I am still waiting for a response, but we do have that support. In answer to your question, I will be asking the Prime Minister for his position on that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think we are all glad to have that particular answer. Again, rest assured, you will have the support of the Official Opposition in all of these efforts.

Mr. Speaker, today as well, just to follow up on this issue with respect to revenues for Newfoundland and Labrador, there is an announcement that the Government of Canada is disposing of, or trying to dispose of, its shares in Petro Canada. That is separate from the 8.5 per cent share in the Hibernia project.

I am asking today, Mr. Speaker, does the Premier have any concern, now that the Government of Canada seems to be headed down a fast-track road of divesting of its interest in offshore oil and gas, that we may be in danger of missing an opportunity to get increased revenues for Newfoundland and Labrador from the 8.5 per cent of the Hibernia project as well? Because we do understand, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier has said we are trying to get the 100 per cent of revenues first -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: - and we will get to the 8.5 per cent later. Hopefully, later will not be too late.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that we do not miss an opportunity with regard to the 8.5 per cent of the Hibernia share. It is something that, of course, we espoused when we were in Opposition. It is something that is very important. We feel that if we have an ownership, at least a stake, in the offshore oil and gas, similar to other countries that actually have equity ownership in their offshore oil and gas, we feel that is important for the future of the Province.

I have made representation to the Prime Minister personally, when I had my first meeting with him in December. I was fortunate enough to be the first Premier who had a meeting with the Prime Minister. At that time, I did speak to him about the 100 per cent ownership. I spoke to him about the 8.5 per cent ownership on Hibernia. I spoke to him about custodial management. I spoke to him about 5-Wing Goose, and I spoke to him about the Lower Churchill.

My only concern, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, is that when I met with him I had a shopping list. Of course, as the Leader of the Opposition is aware, we do not want to go in all the time asking for everything, but every time I have spoken with him on offshore oil and gas -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

- I have actually mentioned the 8.5 per cent interest.

What I can tell the hon. Leader of the Opposition, though, is that we have been fortunate. We have gotten a solution for 5-Wing Goose, which I am very proud of, in conjunction with the Member for Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: As well, we already have an indication on custodial management that attempts are now being made for greater surveillance and security in our offshore with regard to our fishery, so that is an advance. I have an indication from the Prime Minister that he considers the Lower Churchill project to be very, very important. We do have an indication - Mr. Goodale has even indicated in the House, I think, as recently as last week - that we will have an answer on the 100 per cent solution for our revenues, and Hibernia is still in the top five of that list.

These are all there, they are all foremost. Again, I am always concerned about any issues, of course, that are important to the Province, but we are keeping them in his face.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, actually I would like to ask a different question, on another topic, of the Premier as well.

The Premier, Mr. Speaker, has repeatedly said that he will not negotiate in public, and he told the pensioners outside a local hotel that he could not talk about their issue any further, because that would be negotiating in public. Yet, he announced a wage freeze, which is important in negotiations, publicly, without any consultation even with his own Cabinet and caucus. He walked into a hotel and threatened 2,000 layoffs, if people did not accept a wage freeze - a public statement - and yesterday, after saying in this House that he would not negotiate publicly, he told the media outside, the biggest threat of all negotiations, that he would not rule out legislating workers back to work if he had to; which is, I think, negotiating in public.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Does he see any conflict and any contradiction in any of his public statements and his repeated commitment to not bargain in public?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I knew it was too good to be true, Mr. Speaker. It was going too well.

Mr. Speaker, my first response is, this was a question that was asked to me in a scrum yesterday, and I responded to that question. What I indicated was that we are trying to seek a solution. We are trying to put an end to this strike. This government does not want a strike at the end of this month. We are going to bargain at the table, to try to reach a solution to this problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I was then pressed on the question of legislation, pressed on two specific occasions. What I did indicate to the press is that, as leader of the Province, we have to keep all our options open, and health and public safety are the primary concern, so that is an option which I could not preclude.

If I may have a second, Mr. Speaker, I will use the words of the former Premier on three separate occasions, when he was in government as a minister and also when he was Premier of the Province.

On a CBC Morning Show: Premier Roger Grimes said he will consider using legislation to get some striking workers back to their jobs, if the health care system shows signs that it cannot cope. April 4, 2001 -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Because we have to understand and believe that these 19,000 workers are very valuable, and that it is more difficult to provide services without them than it is with them, then at some point we might need them back and we might have to legislate, but we are not contemplating it today.

A final quote, November 7, 1997: We promised teachers we would not legislate a change, that we wanted to negotiate a change, but if they are now saying flat out that we will not negotiate this issue, then we will have to re-examine whether or not it is in the best interest of everybody in the Province, including the teachers and all of the other taxpayers, that we might have to legislate some changes.

Those are the words of the Leader of the Opposition - hypocritical!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am shattered by the fierce personal attack on my character and integrity.

Mr. Speaker, it is not about the past. I said yesterday, and I have said before, and let me say it again, Mr. Speaker, the fact -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: You can tell when we are getting close to the sensitive matters, Mr. Speaker; the catcalls start again.

Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province, we understand, have made a judgement about the past and they voted for a new approach. Which of the new approaches is here, the commitment made when the current Premier was the Leader of the Opposition that he would not use legislation like former Liberal governments have done, or the one now where he walks out faced with a possible strike, that if there is one that he would have caused it single-handedly, Mr. Speaker. Now he is saying: If I have caused it, because I have bungled the whole thing from day one, then I might legislate them back to work, even though I promised them that I would not.

Which Premier is here today, the one who makes the commitments or the one who breaks the commitments? Mr. Speaker, that is what the people need to know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: If you want to talk about broken commitments, Mr. Speaker, here is a commitment that the hon. gentleman made to the people of this Province. He was over here and he was talking about being over there. December 8, 1999, "...if I were over there; and I will remind them again that I am never going over there."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: There is a little more, Mr. Speaker. "I may end up not being over here, but I will not be over there. You can rest assured of that." That was the commitment made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the Premier now to complete his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Now, having said that, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition that, if he is going to recite or make reference to a speech that I made to NAPE a couple of years ago, that he take it in the clear context in which it was given. When I talked about any question on collective agreements I talked about dealing with collective agreements that were actually in existence, in the middle of a collective agreement. If he would read them - we don't have the luxury of time for me to read these two paragraphs today. If he wants to read this, these paragraphs are available for the media and anybody else who wants to read them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to complete his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: They were taken in the context of collective agreements that were in existence, so don't put words in my mouth, Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am wilting under the barrage and the attack. Not only now is there a personal attack but I am being threatened, as we stand here in the people's House, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, it shows how serious this issue is taken by the current day Premier with the new approach. He would rather talk about the past and political banter than talk about being ten days away from potentially the biggest strike in the history of the Province, the biggest disruption of services which, if it happens - mark it down - he will have caused single-handedly.

Mr. Speaker, last question: The circumstance has been so bad since the exaggerated statements of the Premier on January 5, the statements about the billion dollars that he has to pay to the bank, that has been denied by his own Finance Minister, denied and refuted by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, absolutely refuted as being a false statement - he made it to the people of the Province, so bad in talking about not bargaining in public and then doing it that the media blackout that normally accompanies these talks -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The media blackout that would normally accompany these talks is not in place because the unions don't trust the Premier of the Province. Would he consider trying to salvage the people from a disruptive strike by putting a media blackout on himself for the sake of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Consistent with my answer to the first question that he asked me in this House, I will give him a simple answer. The answer is no.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today, Mr. Speaker, are for the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services.

Mr. Speaker, it is becoming obvious that this minister has her own blueprint for health care. One that reflects the right-wing conservative politics of her government and one that falls in line with Stephen Harper's two-tier health care system. The leader whom she just supported nationally.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we do not know all the details that could be in this minister's blueprint for health care but I want to ask the minister today: Is it true that she has given direction to look at a user fee pay system of health care in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. members, this government is committed to accessible, high-quality health care for all the residents of this Province. Any other information regarding what this government plans to do will be disclosed during the Budget process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister is not denying that indeed she has asked the Hay group to look at revenue opportunities that can be created in the Western and Grenfell Board areas, for example, user pay system. The minister is not denying that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I indicated to the hon. member, any information regarding either expenditures or revenues for the health care system will be disclosed during the Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair, final supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have established in this House that a user fee system is being considered. We have established that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: We have established, Mr. Speaker, that in the blueprint on health care by this government that they are looking at user fees.

I am going to ask the minister now: Can the minister tell me today what services that she intends to charge the people of this Province for? Will it be laboratory services? Will it be diagnostic services? Will it be surgical services? Can the minister disclose that today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: The hon. member will find out when the Budget is tabled in the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: My question today is also for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Mr. Speaker, in the Corner Brook, Bay of Islands, West Coast Region, the long-term care facility is a number one priority for all residents in our area. The documentation to support this facility is well maintained in the Western Region from the Premier, from the Minster of Justice, and myself.

Mr. Speaker, the minister met with the Health Care Corporation on November 24. The minutes from the meeting stated: She noted that the department would not know the long-term care facility ranks in the provincial needs until the financial audit is complete. I ask the minister, now that the financial audit is complete, and this government is supposed to be open and transparent, would the minister inform the residents of the West Coast if this facility is on the list of priorities, where it ranks on this list, and will the minister release this list?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have spent quite a bit of time going around the Province and hearing from the different health care boards as to what their priorities should be in the area of long-term care, and we will be disclosing our priorities during the Budget process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: On a supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to inform the minister - because, as we know, the Premier does not trust a lot of his Cabinet ministers and backbenchers - that the Premier already said it is the number one priority for this government.

Will the minister release that report to confirm to the residents the same thing that the Premier has already stated on the West Coast, that the long-term care facility is the number one priority for health care in this Province? Will the minister please release this report?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, let me tell the Member for Bay of Islands that I trust all the members on this side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Let me also tell him that I resent his comment.

Secondly, we have already indicated time and time and time again to the people on the West Coast, to the people of Corner Brook, that the long-term health care facility for that particular region is a high prioity for this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: On a final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bay of Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, if he trusts his backbenchers, why don't he tell the CBC what he told them before, that he could not leak it out about the freeze on the wages because he did not want to leak it. He only had to tell his P&P.

Mr. Speaker, if health care is such a priority for the West Coast and the Corner Brook area, the MRI - the Western Health Care Corporation has brought to the minister's attention the need to start renovations for the MRI. The Premier has stated on local television he did not know that it needed any renovations. I guess he thought it was going to be set up in the parking lot somewhere.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to complete his question.

MR. JOYCE: The Minister of Justice has stated that there is no money available. I say to the minister, now that there is $32 million brought down since the Premier's statement, since the Minister's of Justice statement -

MR. SPEAKER: I am asking the member to finish his question.

MR. JOYCE: - will the minister now please go ahead and stop the wait list, stop having people from the West Coast travel to St. John's, and give permission to start renovations for the MRI?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Where have all of you been for the last fifteen years? How can you stand over there and say what we are doing?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: We are here four-and-a-half months. Give us a break with regard to the MRI. The Member for Bay of Islands knows that there is a commitment on the MRI. Don't question me on whether I knew about that or not. I had no idea that there wasn't any space available. I can tell you that I did not know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I did not know. I can only tell you from my own experience. It was brought to my attention by the officials from the Western Health Care Corporation. That was the first time it was brought to my attention. But, having said that, there will be an MRI and space will be made available. I can only say it ten, fifteen, twenty, twenty-five times; twenty-six. It will be there and it will be (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Minister of Education concerning a decision by the Labrador School Board to stop offering the early French Immersion Program in 2005. This program has been extremely successful, Mr. Speaker. The 2004 Kindergarten enrollment for Labrador shows that approximately 54 per cent of enrollment is for the French Immersion Program in locations where it is offered. This decision is in direct contrary to the Government of Canada, who has a goal of 50 per cent of high school graduates being bilingual by 2013. It is also ironic that this decision is being made in the year that this Province is celebrating 500 years of French history within our Province.

I want to ask the minister: Will he insist that the French Immersion Program in Labrador not be axed in 2005, the early immersion program?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The issue that is raised by my hon. friend opposite is an important one, and I have had discussions with personnel of the Labrador School Board. In fact, only yesterday a representation of parents and interested residents of Labrador West met with senior officials with our department, and as recently as several days ago we met with the organization known as Canadian Parents for French. It is an important issue. We will be monitoring it very closely, keeping in mind however that a decision such as this ultimately is a decision of the school board. However, it is an important issue and we will monitor it closely.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, according to the 2003 Estimates this program is fully funded and recouped from the federal government. I say to the minister also that it should not be up to the school board. It should be a decision of the Department of Education who ultimately is responsible for delivering education in this Province. So, I say to the minister: If, in his opinion, it is a decision that the school board has a right to make, will he bring forward appropriate legislation to make the necessary changes so that his department can control the education process in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have to correct the hon. member on one point that he has made; the program is not fully funded. We do receive funding for bursaries, for in-service and for other curricular materials; however, the Province remains responsible for the placement of teachers and the costing of teachers and the cost of textbooks, so it is not fully funded, but I can assure the hon. member that we are doing something presently to deal with this very important issue, very important for the residents and the students and the parents in Labrador. That is, we are presently engaged with the federal Department of Canadian Heritage. We have an application in at present, seeking further funding and further resources which hopefully will go some way, maybe a long way, to deal with this very pressing issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, that is well and fine but, at the end, when all is said and done, if the decision of the school board is not to reverse the decision they have made, will you and your government step in and change it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, we will do, as a government, what is right now within our means to do. We must abide by the Schools Act of 1997, which clearly states that this particular issue, namely the implementation of programming, is within the purview and the jurisdiction of a school board; but I will assure the member, as I indicated earlier, we will do what is possible, particularly dealing with our federal counterparts and the Department of Canadian Heritage, to seek funding that will address this very relevant and important issue for the residents of Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has ended.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I table the 2002-2003 Annual Report of the Public Service Commission. Also, Mr. Speaker, I table The Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund Annual Report of the Board of Management, for tabling here in the House.

Thank you.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou, which is in the District of Burgeo & LaPoile, on the Southwest Coast, located approximately thirty miles from Port aux Basques and, of course, within my district.

I am very pleased and honoured to do this, Mr. Speaker, and it relates to the health care situation that we are about to, we think, face on the West Coast of Newfoundland. I will read the prayer.

The petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the Department of Health and Community Services of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is responsible for the funding and administration of the health care system in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS the Western Health Care Corporation is responsible for the delivery of health care services in Western Newfoundland upon the terms and conditions prescribed by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Health and Community Services; and

WHEREAS the Department of Health and Community Services requested of the Western Health Care Corporation on December 29, 2003, that a report be compiled and options presented so as to save the Western Health Care Corporation the sum of $3 million prior to the conclusion of the fiscal year 2003-2004; and

WHEREAS the Western Health Care Corporation did reply to the request of the Department of Health and Community Services on or about February 9, 2004; and

WHEREAS the reply to the Department of Health and Community Services by the Western Health Care Corporation, apparently, did include a recommendation that a number of clinics within the jurisdiction covered by the Western Health Care Corporation would be eliminated; and

WHEREAS one of the clinics to be eliminated pursuant to the response of the Western Health Care Corporation to the Department of Health and Community Services is situate within the Community of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou; and

WHEREAS the residents of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou are opposed to the closure of the heath care clinic in their community;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to support the residents of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou in their request to have the clinic in the Town of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou remain open; and

As duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

It is dated March 18, Mr. Speaker, and that is from the residents of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou. I guess it shows the seriousness of their concerns. It is signed by approximately forty people. I understand, indeed, that the community is totally up in arms and that there are numbers of these petitions en route to the House of Assembly here to be presented. It shows, I guess, the concern of these residents, that they have it tough enough as it is with their lacking infrastructures road-wise and so on, but one of the crucial things in their lives, of course, is to have access to health care facilities.

They have had this clinic for years and years. The doctors travel from Port aux Basques down to the clinic on a regular basis every two weeks or so, and the public health nurse and so on, and they have a place to go. These people cannot all afford to go to the nearest center, which would be in Port aux Basques, so they are very concerned about ensuring that their clinic remain as is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I file this on behalf of the people of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition to the House of Assembly. It is from residents from Western Newfoundland. It reads:

The petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the government of this Province in its capacity as funding agency for Western Health Care Corporation - hereinafter referred to as the Corporation - has directed the Corporation to recover its deficit and cut its current expenditures by 10 per cent; and

WHEREAS the Corporation has proposed to accomplish this by eliminating rural medical clinics, obstetrical and surgical services and sustainability reducing laboratory services at Sir Thomas Roddick Hospital in Stephenville;

THEREFORE let it be know that your petitioners request that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador direct the Corporation to maintain obstetrical, surgical and laboratory services at the Sir Thomas Roddick Hospital at current levels and provide the Corporation with any additional funding necessary to maintain such services.

And as in duty bound you petitioners will every pray.

Mr. Speaker, this petition has been circulated on the West Coast of our Province in the last week or so in response to fear that people are expressing over media articles, over reports and over directives that have been issued by this government through the Minister of Health to the particular boards.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Member for Stephenville East attended a meeting in Stephenville with over 800 people just a few nights ago, and I also understand that she was presented a petition similar to this with approximately 10,000 signatures on it, to be delivered to the House of Assembly. I look forward to the Member for Stephenville East getting up to present that petition, similar to the one I am presenting today, with the 10,000 signatures on it from Western Newfoundland, from the Stephenville area, her constituency.

It is quite obvious that the people in Stephenville, Mr. Speaker, have lobbied for years to get improved health care services in their particular region. We have invested more than $35 million - and I make no apology for it, I say to the Member for Trinity North, no apologies for $35 million being invested in Stephenville for a new hospital, a new hospital that opened only in the last year, opened its doors only to find out that there is a directive to the board in that area that you have to look at where you are going to make the savings; you are going to have to look at how you will reduce services to reduce costs.

This is what the people in the Stephenville area have been faced with, and the surrounding area, all the small communities in that area that members opposite represent. I was looking in the paper today and the residents of Hampton are right now faced with the fact that they may end up seeing their clinic close as a result of this directive. This is the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will continue with this, as I have other petitions, in further days.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition containing approximately 1,000 names, residents of Labrador West who are calling on the House of Assembly to petition the government to proceed without delay with the planning and construction of a new health care facility in Labrador West as the most cost-effective approach in the long term to provide the necessary health care facility.

Mr. Speaker, the Captain William Jackman Memorial Hospital in Labrador West was constructed in 1964 or 1965 and is approximately forty years old. This hospital is in desperate need of being replaced. Money has been spent on the upgrade of that hospital over a number of years, but it has gone to the point where it is much more cost effective to provide the area with a new hospital facility rather than keep throwing good money after bad.

Mr. Speaker, that hospital, if someone were to walk in there - and I know the Premier walked through that hospital during the election, and I am sure he is aware of the condition that I am speaking about. There are chunks of plaster hanging off the walls. There are sections of that hospital where if you were to work there, you would cook because the temperature is that warm, and there are other areas of that hospital, Mr. Speaker, where you would freeze to death. You can see windows that were put in, not too many years ago, cinched with tissue and paper towels to keep the draft out. This is where patients, who are already sick, are staying. So there is no question about the need for a new physical facility for the residents of Labrador West.

This government has promised that they are committed to health care. Well, one of the things we have to have - we can have the doctors, we can have the nurses, and we can have all the other expertise, but we need a decent facility for them to operate in. That is the basis of this petition, Mr. Speaker, to call on government to build into the Budget a plan to establish a new health care facility for the residents of Labrador West.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Government House Leader.

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

I move that the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, Motion 1, to move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions for granting Interim Supply to Her Majesty, Bill 2.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I have received a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

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

As Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I transmit a request to appropriate sums required for the public service of the Province for the year ending 31 March 2005 by way of Interim Supply, and in accordance with the provisions of sections 54 and 90 of the Constitution Act 1867, I recommend this request to the House of Assembly.

Signed _______________________________

Edward Roberts, Lieutenant-Governor.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the message, together with a bill, be referred to a Committee of Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the message, together with a bill, be referred to the Committee of Supply.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Those against.

Carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order , please!

Bill 2, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2005 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service."

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2005 the sum of $1,287,423,900."

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The bill today is asking for approval of the House for the amount just mentioned by Mr. Chairman of roughly $1,287 billion. It is to enable government to carry on its business of meeting its commitments in salaries, expenses, and all other public services for a period of approximately three months until the main supply bill, the Budget amount for the balance is approved and enable government to operate.

In other words, the purpose of this bill, Mr. Chairman, is to enable payrolls to be met, income support payments to be made, necessary operations of government buildings and services, necessary payment of its employees within all aspects of government, to meet other commitments that are ongoing from year to year, to allow these to be made.

Here in the schedule attached to the bill it spells out the amount for each specific department. I do not intend to elaborate on any of these in detail. They are there, it is a standard, basic procedure to allow us to be able to carry on the business while the Budget is being tabled and debated here in the House.

We do want to mention that some of these items generally reflect approximately 25 per cent, 30 per cent of the year because we are asking for approval to spend for the first three months. Basically, for the months of April, May and June until a Budget is brought down and approval given - hopefully some time in April or May when the Budget is finally approved.

In some instances there are allocations made to be able to put forward for more than a quarter because certain departmental expenditures require up-front payments in some areas that need to be met. For cashflow purposes each department has been looked at based on traditional patterns and trends and on basic commitments. It is not for any new expenditures. New program areas would not be normally covered in Interim Supply. This is basically to carry on with ongoing basic programs until we can have a Budget approved.

I am not going to belabour it, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say that I am certainly prepared to answer any particular questions pertaining to that, on Interim Supply and I am sure the ministers in their respective departments. It is very simple, very straightforward. If your department needs $1 million in salaries, there is allocation here for roughly one-quarter of that. If you need to spend $2 million on another item there is an allocation here for roughly one-quarter, 30 per cent of that. So each is done on an item basis in your budget so the necessary money is there to be able to carry on operations.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my comments for now, unless during the course of debate on this particular bill that questions arise which people would like me to answer.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is my pleasure today to rise and respond to the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board on his first bill to this House, Bill 2, Interim Supply.

I am very familiar with Interim Supply, and it is interesting how much difference a few months make. It was only last year that the current Minister of Finance and President of the Treasury Board stood in this House and said: You know, I think this bill should provide more details as to expenditures.

The first thing he said today, when he got on his feet, was that we are following the standard procedures. I thought you were going to be a new government, with a new approach. You have no details, one heading.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: For the TV viewing audience, it is interesting that they cannot pick up on what the Minister of Finance said. What he said was, how silly he was to have suggested that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) how silly you are.

MS THISTLE: My goodness, what a difference a few months makes.

What we see here in Bill 2, Mr. Chairman, we are looking at almost $1.3 billion of the Budget, the upcoming Budget. It is amazing. We have one heading for each department as such. The biggest heading of all goes to the Premier of the Province, his department, Health and Community Services. Five hundred and fifty-seven million goes to the Premier. That is very interesting, you know. Five hundred and fifty-seven million goes to the Premier. He is going to look after the entire health care budget. We saw that today in Question Period.

The people of the Province are very concerned, very concerned.

MR. SULLIVAN: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

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

The member opposite indicated that over $500 million is going to the Premier's Office. That is not correct. If the member looked here, she would see that the Premier's Office, that comes under Executive Council, has only $11 million. If you look at the Department of Business, it has only $100,000. I do not know where she is manufacturing the number there. I would like for her to explain it, because it is not under his area.

Under the Department of Health and Community Services, it is $557,907,700. If she has a question, Mr. Chairman, I will only be too delighted to answer the question on any aspects under my department and the ministers on theirs. I do not know what she is talking about. She has not even got the facts straight on it. She cannot even read the figures from what we presented, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It appears that the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board was the referee today in Question Period. He was sitting between the Minister of Health and Community Services and the Premier, trying to direct who was going to take the questions; but, you know, the Premier won out.

The Premier's Department of Health and Community Services will spend $557 million in the first quarter of the upcoming Budget. When I saw this Tory Blue Book - oh no, it is the Tory blueprint now, it is not the Tory Blue Book - we can easily associate that $557 million with the Premier's department because this is all about a dictator. He said: This plan is my vision.

This plan is my vision of where I want to lead the Province over the next four to eight years. None of you people - you are not included, it is my vision. My vision!

His vision came forward today when he was questioned by members on this side of the House asking for updates on their particular health care concerns in their districts. Did he let the Minister of Health and Community Services answer the question? No, he did not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Yes, I would say her questions are finished and her answers are finished. I would say she is absent right now from this House, and I wonder why.

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans has been around long enough to understand a few basic rules in the House of Assembly. First of all, Question Period is provided in our parliamentary system so the Opposition may have an opportunity to hold the government to account. We support that, and we will always support it; however, while it is up to them to ask a question, it is up to government who responds to the question, first and foremost.

Secondly, Mr. Chairperson, it is unparliamentary from time immemorial for a member to refer to the absence of another member in this House. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to enforce the rule and let the hon. member know that - look, any information that members opposite are looking for, we intend to provide today to the best of our ability. Whatever questions you have, that is what we are in Committee for, Mr. Chairperson, waiting to hear a question on what expenditure is this for and what is that for, but it is not parliamentary to refer to a member who is not present in the House just at this point in time.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. Government House Leader is certainly correct. The Chair did hear the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans state the word dictator, and it is certainly not acceptable in the democracy that we live in and it is certainly not showing respect to other members of this House, so I ask the member to withdraw that statement.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Chairman, I regrettably say that was certainly out of order. I do apologize and I withdraw that statement.

Now, Mr. Chairman, with reference to Bill 2, I guess what we are hearing today is that the Minister of Finance, the President of Treasury Board, is asking us for authorization so he can write a blank cheque for $1.3 billion. For $1.3 billion, he wants to write a blank cheque. He has no details but he is saying, trust me. Trust me.

Mr. Chairman, I must say I am somewhat suspicious of the intentions of this government when I look at their record to date; somewhat suspicious. Number one, this new government and their new approach should add a new word to their vocabulary, and it is called justification. They wanted to justify wage freeze, taking back $5 a month from pensioners, cutting the guts out of our health care system, just a few things to start with. So, what did they do? They said: Well, you know, we just cannot come out and make a wild statement. We have to have the goods. So, they commissioned an external review of the Province's fiscal situation. Can you imagine? This company that they hired was PricewaterhouseCoopers, led by the infamous Michael Gourley, once pokeroo for Ontario television and strong ties to the Tory Party. He came out with a report that did not measure up to what they wanted to do so they said: Go back Michael Gourley and work into the night and bring us back a report that we want. He did that, and guess what? He found out that the Department of Finance and Treasury Board officials were right all along. Every one of those officials did a good job, and I knew we had good people working for us in government. So, when everything else fitted perfectly, he said: What else can we do? So, they hunted around and said: Oh, bright idea. A light came on, but it is not on here today. A light came on and they said: Guess what? We will try and put through the student loan portfolio now before the end of March. If we put through the student loan portfolio before the end of March, it will look like the other crowd had the big deficit and we are going to start off fresh and clean. That is what they said. So, they started in and this is what they did.

You know something? Here we are here today - and Question Period is a good idea of what we can expect from a new government. Yesterday we had round one, I guess, and round one told us exactly what this government is trying to do to our health care system in this Province that we value and cherish so much.

We had two members from our side today stand on their feet, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile and Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. They represent rural districts, and everybody on this side of the House represents rural districts. I do not know if anybody ever stopped and thought about that, but the twelve members of the Official Opposition represent rural districts. I guess I would probably be the one that is most urban. I have urban and rural, but for the most part it is rural Newfoundland that is represented on this side of the House. I would also say to members of the House of Assembly, look at the Cabinet makeup here in this House when it comes to making major decisions that affect the livelihood of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I would have to say, no, not Labradorians. We do not have a member of the Cabinet from Labrador. Most of the people in Cabinet are from St. John's, who don't need to harness their belts or sit in their seats or dig in their heels when the Budget comes down. None of their constituents are going to be affected. Anyone who lives in St. John's has every service you can imagine. They don't need to call up their MHA to get anything done, they can call government, government is right here.

If you are out in rural Newfoundland and you have to see a doctor or get any kind of service done now, and those rural clinics are threatened to be closed, sure, my goodness, you would be frightened to death, wouldn't you? You would be frightened to death because that is the only link for people, and the things they cherish so much are their health care and medical.

All we have heard so far from this government is that they are going to cut the guts out of health care. The Minister of Health and Community Services has gotten up on her feet many times in the past couple of days and we were hopeful, as an Opposition representing the people of this Province and their concerns, that she would give us something concrete so that we could come back and allay the fears of the people who are calling us on a day-to-day basis, wondering how in the world they are going to access medical services if rural clinics are going to be closed and even new hospital downgraded.

You know, the previous administration, which I was a part of, was proud of having a social conscience, very proud of having a social conscience. Many times we had to wrangle about whether or not we would do a certain thing for a certain area. I know the Member for Gander is really glad that we, as a government, invested $65 million into Gander hospital. All of these were huge decisions that we had to make on our part. I don't think any of us will ever be ashamed to stand and say that we did it in the interest of people. If you have a social conscience when you are a government you will never go wrong. You can relate it to the fact that if you have a sickness in your family you would be willing to mortgage your home to get that child or family member looked after. We did the same thing as a previous government.

When the federal government decided to cut our health care budget the demands from people around this Province did not stop. I have often said this in the House of Assembly, when I have stood before, that we have been accused in the past of one-time spending. All of that one-time spending has gone into health care. We had many new initiatives started by the previous administration that are now currently in jeopardy. We hear it everyday with phone calls. It is not easy to say no when you have someone coming to you that needs medical attention.

When a health care budget goes from $900 million to $1.5 billion in a matter of four or five years and the federal government does not put in the money, you can easily see why you would have a deficit.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the member that her time has expired.

MS THISTLE: Just by leave for one moment.

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MS THISTLE: I thank you and I appreciate the extra time that you are giving me. We are on a very important topic, and that is the topic of how well this new government spends the people's money in anticipation of the budget that will approve the spending.

I would say, in conclusion, to my colleagues in the House of Assembly, the most important questions that are on the minds of people in this Province is health care spending. I would like to ensure that when I walk away from here today and get down from the speaker, that I want to know that decisions will be made in the best interest of all the people in this Province and not one particular district like we saw demonstrated here today by the Premier.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.

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

It is interesting, I listened intently to the member's commentary and most of it was focused in on health care. This being a financial bill the debate has wide latitude. We can talk about anything really that government spends, or any issue with respect to this bill because it asks the House of Assembly to approve a certain amount of money, Interim Supply, so that by the end of the fiscal year, which is March 31, we can continue to plow roads if necessary, pay doctors, insure social services payments are made, and basically the functions of government.

Mr. Chairman, I am really interested, and I was interested to hear the member's commentary about health care in particular. Do you know that last year while this member was a part of the Cabinet, under direction from the former premier, went to health care boards themselves and looked for a certain percentage? Do you know that they went through an exercise last year as a Cabinet where they said: What would be the impact of 5 per cent, 10 per cent, 15 per cent or 20 per cent reduction in health care? This member was in the Cabinet. They went through that very exercise. Not only that, and I am going to take every opportunity that is available to me as a Member in this House to remind the Opposition of what, not only they did, but what they failed to do over a fourteen year period. We have been here five months. Trust me, it will take us another six to clean it up but we will intend to do exactly that, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Back to the point, that this member was part of a Cabinet, not so long ago, that asked health care boards for exactly the same thing as part of a budget exercise. The Leader of the Opposition stood in his place in this Assembly in 1998 or 1999 - I forget the exact year but my memory is fairly good. Actually, he was sitting right there, and do you know what he said as Minister of Health? That if the health care boards do not get their deficits under control - and I will quote it for members opposite - that it will spell financial disaster for Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what he said when he was Minister of Health; I think it was in 1998 or 1999. That if health care boards - and he was speaking, by the way, on behalf of the entire government of which the member, who is now the Finance critic, was a member of the Cabinet and a minister of the Crown - do not get their deficits under control it will spell financial disaster for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now I know it is an unusual practice, and members opposite have seen an unusual practice in Question Period over the last couple of days. Do you know what it is? They are asking a question, they are getting an answer, and they do not like the answer. But it happens to be the true one. It happens to be the truthful answer.

The former minister also knows, and without hesitation I can say this: She and all members on that side of the House understand that those decisions or questions they are asking today will be revealed when the Budget is announced, and the Minister of Finance announces the Budget. Now that is the process. People understand that financial markets could be impacted if it is not done that way. People who are advising us as a new government advised you as a government, and you understand that. So it lacks inherent creditability when you hear members opposite stand up and talk about what we are going to do by dismantling health care. Seriously, do you think, or does anybody think for one moment that there is a member on this side of the House whose only intention, as the Leader of the Opposition and members opposite said, that we had some preconceived well-articulated plan that we did not talk about during the election because everyone of us over here were part of some conspiracy that we are going to go in and dismantle health care services to people in the Province. Now how out to lunch or ludricious is that assertion What an assumption to make!

The fact of the matter is this, when you talk about spending. You will not see members of this government or ministers of this Cabinet go on round-the-world tours to visit schools and spend $40,000 to $50,000 in so doing. You will not see members of this government do that, but what you will see are members of this government doing the absolute best that we can, delivering the best service that we can on behalf of people, and ensuring that for every dollar that is spent on the service that people deserve, they are getting a dollars worth, not 50 cents worth, not 60 cents worth, but they are getting their dollars worth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: That is what we intend to do. Yes, we have some financial difficulties and troubles in front of us right now, but those are ones that we will deal with effectively. We will deal with them efficiently, but we will deal with them always with people in mind because that is what we were elected to do. We are not some group of people, a bunch of financial crusaders, whose only job in this House is to reach the bottom line. It is not what we are about. It is a reality that we have to deal with; it is a fact that we have to deal with; it is an absolute truth that we have to deal with. In fact, it is self-evident, because I would rather run the affairs of this Province than let the Bond Rating Agencies in New York run them and go back to a situation like we were in seventy years ago, when as a people we had to give it up because we could not financially take care of ourselves. If that decision is before members of this House, that we decide as a group of people representing the public that we are going to take control of our affairs and not let bondholders like Standard & Poor's or Moody's dictate to what we have to do, than I am going to tell you, and I believe all of us are committed to this, that I think in our own private moments we would all have to agree that yes, we would rather ensure that we can control the future of the Province as opposed to some bond rating agency. Those are serious situations. Members opposite also know.

I remember being in the House congratulating the former government when we received an increase in our credit rating. It was very clear what that meant. It meant our borrowing costs were lower. It meant that our interest rates in servicing our debt were lower. But, the converse of that situation is also true, and members understand - particularly members who were part of the Cabinet - understand this intimately, members opposite, that if we see a decrease in that credit rating, if we see a decrease from the bond rating agencies that our credit rating is lowered well let me tell you something else, and they know this, they know that our costs to borrow are going to increase significantly. They also know that our costs to service our debt will increase significantly. What extra pressure and strain upon the already challenged dollar, financially in the Province, will that put on each and every one of us?

Mr. Chair, you know that from our point of view this is the time of year when we are talking about budgets because this is Budget time. The Minister of Finance will stand in his place, in due course, and deliver the Budget for the people of the Province. Then when we see the information that was being asked today, that was given to a member of the Opposition, that was debated publicly, that has people excited about things that may or may not happen, talk about closing of this place and closing of that place. The fact of the matter is, they went through the exact same exercise. This point cannot be lost, and I will make it finally before I sit down again. That as a Cabinet, members who were part of the former Cabinet who sit in Opposition today did exactly what departments do every year. They asked the health care boards of this Province: What would it mean if there was a 5 per cent, 10 per cent, 15 per cent or 20 per cent reduction in the allocation of money to the boards? What would it mean to you as a board?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Not true.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, it is.

From that point of view, Mr. Chair, it is an exercise. The Budget is an exercise that everyone goes through. It is an exercise that every department goes through. The point I am making is this, that we are going through an exercise. That exercise will soon conclude itself and will culminate the day when the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board stands in his place in the House and delivers the Budget Speech. Once that becomes clear the decisions of government will be made public where they should be made public, right here in the House of Assembly. Then people will have a chance to agree or disagree or challenge us and hold us accountable - which I hope you do, and I defend your right to do it - but at the same time, between now and then it is not incumbent upon us, and nor should we at this point, release the types of information that will be contained in that Budget Speech because it would be premature and members opposite understand that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to rise today, Mr. Chairman, and speak to the motion on Interim Supply. Before I do so, I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate all the members of the Legislature on their re-election. It is my first opportunity to speak in debate, to be able to do so, and to say to those who are new in the Legislature that it is a great opportunity to be elected, to serve your constituents, to work on their behalf for things that you believe in and that you believe to be right and true and proper. I think that you will certainly enjoy the time that you spend in this Legislature on their behalf.

Mr. Chairman, today I want to speak on the bill, the motion on Interim Supply, and I want to talk about what is happening with regard to health care, health care in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think it is always the number one priority of people throughout our Province, always in the utmost of every person's mind no matter where you live, whether it is in the northern region of Labrador, in the western region on the Port au Port Peninsula, in the Burin Peninsula or right here in the capital city of our great Province. It is always the number one concern and the number one priority in the minds of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, every person in this Province knows that there are times when there will be change, and there are times when the status quo may no longer be acceptable. People understand that and to a large degree, in most cases, they accept it, but what people never understand is why things and issues that are so important to them are quite often side-swept, are quite often not listened to, or are quite often not enacted in the way, in the shape, in the manner, that they see that is important.

Mr. Chairman, people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador just want to live - no matter what bay, no matter what harbour, what peninsula, what town or what city they reside in - they want to do so enjoying the privileges and the opportunities equally throughout our entire Province. They want to know that in times of sickness they will have access to hospital facilities, that they will have access to the kind of treatment, the kind of doctors, nurses and our allied professionals who we have out there, health professionals in the field, that they will have access to those people, because, Mr. Chairman, that is what is important to them.

Mr. Chairman. they also realize that they are at one of those points in their time in this Province where there will be some change. They know that there is a new approach. They know that part of that new approach is looking at health care, and they also know that there will probably be change and change will come as part of that new approach. They all voted for it - at least some of them did; thirty-four districts did - but what they never anticipated in that new approach was that the services of health care in their communities, in their regions, would become the focus, it would become the topic of discussion, that it would be consuming the government's new approach, that it would become one of the main pieces of looking at fiscal management within the government. They did not know that their health care system would be a pawn in the bargaining of a new budget in a new government. They never knew that, Mr. Chairman, but they are finding out. They are finding out because of the directives that have been issued, directives by the minister who says herself that she is looking at the fiscal bottom line, who says herself that sustainability has to be the number one priority, and that irregardless of the concerns, irregardless of the needs, the suppressing need that might be out there in any region of this Province within the health care sector, it is not being considered, Mr. Chairman. The only thing being considered is balanced budgets, pay down the debt, and do it in this time frame in whatever measures that will be required.

Mr. Chairman, the people are concerned, and they are legitimately concerned, because when I look at a document like the Terms of Reference that the minister has issued to a consultant to look at the Western Health Care Board and the Grenfell Health Care Board, and when, in that Terms of Reference and that consultant's proposal it is outlined quite clearly, Mr. Chairman, that population approach will be the new approach when it comes to health care. Population approach, Mr. Chairman, in an area where we have seen a declining population in both the West Coast of the Island and the Northern Peninsula, yet population approach to health care will be part of the formula, and that can only mean for people in rural areas of this Province, rural communities, that they will see a regionalization of health care services.

I read an article in the paper, as I said earlier, from the community of Hampton, who has a small clinic, which they feel is an important part of the primary health care service in their particular region. They want to make sure that they keep that clinic open, Mr. Chairman. I know how they feel. I know exactly how they feel, because I have a lot of these small clinics in my own district. Actually, I have six of them in my own district and I know how important that primary health care piece is to those small rural communities in the Province. I know how they depend upon it. I know how they cannot always get a flight out to a hospital, or get an ambulance or a bus out to a hospital because of the climatic factors that exist in our Province, because of the geography that sometimes separates us. They have legitimate concerns, Mr. Chairman.

Whenever you hear there is going to be a population-based approach to the health care delivery, one has to be concerned because we know - we all know, every one of us in this Legislature knows, because we represent these districts - we know that the numbers are not always there in the rural areas of this Province, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We know that we do not have the numbers, Mr. Chairman, to always build the mecca in terms of every kind of service, but we do know that we are still entitled, as citizens, to have a decent, proper, health care service that is accessible, that is affordable to the people when they need it.

Mr. Chairman, the other thing that is being considered is revenue opportunities. This firm has been asked to look at revenue opportunities which could be implemented, Mr. Chairman, to streamline and to improve the fiscal financial operations of the boards in at least the following areas. There is a whole bunch of these areas that are listed, Mr. Chairman: the referral practices to secondary and tertiary centers. Bed utilization is listed, Mr. Chairman. Ambulatory and day surgery activities are listed, Mr. Chairman. These are the things that this group have been asked to look at the revenue opportunities that might exist.

In support services, Mr. Chairman, they have been asked to look at what revenue opportunities could exist in dietetics, housekeeping and maintenance. Now, Mr. Chairman, to me that is a pretty clear directive. They have also been asked, Mr. Chairman, to look at what revenue opportunities might exist in medical and surgical supplies and drugs, in surgical services. Now see, Mr. Chairman, in my mind there is an intent, for a minister and her department to issue to a consultant, in a proposal, those particular things to look at; to look at, Mr. Chairman, where the revenue opportunities are.

Now everyone knows, in the health care system, there is only one way to create revenue opportunity. I ask the Member for Trinity North - he might want to listen, because he could learn something here. When those particular ambulatory fees might hit his district, he might want to wonder why it came from somewhere, where it came from. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am telling him today that there is a Terms of Reference that has been issued to a consultant to look at revenue opportunities, Mr. Chairman, and everyone knows, the members opposite know, that there is only one way that the health care system can generate revenue. There is only one way, Mr. Chairman, that the hospital in my region can generate revenue.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her time has expired.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will take my seat, but there will be lots of time for debate in Interim Supply. I thank the House for its attention.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words today on this bill, usually referred to as an Interim Supply Bill, Mr. Chairman.

Members on the opposite side, in opposition, already are talking about the rustbucket. Of course, that refers to the Hull 100, that was purchased by the previous Administration, from Estonia, and they paid, I think, something like less than $2 million and it was supposed to be in the water back in 1999. We spent approximately $3.5 million, and it is up to $9 million now, Mr. Chairman, and it is still not being utilized. That is the type of situation that really has gotten us into the situation we are in today, in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, with respect to the deficit that we have to face this year, with respect to the debt that has accumulated over the past number of years by the previous Administration.

I was not planning on getting into that, Mr. Chairman, because there is going to be lots of time for me to speak on the financial situation of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador when we get into the Budget Debate. It is interesting to note that from 1949, I think, to now, there is somewhere around an $11 billion debt for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but from 1995 until now - basically eight or nine years, the previous Administration doubled the debt of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Then they have, basically, the face to question this Administration when we put the numbers forward of the real financial situation of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the deficit that we are facing this year. I would say stay tuned with respect to the Budget Debate, Mr. Chairman.

With respect to the Interim Supply Bill, which is what we are debating in the House of Assembly today, this is basically, from one sense, a routine bill. When I say a routine bill, I am not talking about the amount of dollars that we are here to approve but routine in the light that it comes before the House of Assembly each and every year, this Interim Supply Bill. Of course, the reason why we have it at this time of year, before the end of March, is because we all know full well that normally the Budget is not approved in the House of Assembly each year prior to March 31. We get into April and possibly May before the Budget is approved. From memory, I would think sometimes quite late in May.

Mr. Chairman, we are here to try and get some money approved through the Legislature to pay the ongoing bills of the various departments within the Administration or the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Some of the sum heads we have, of course, would be: the Department of Finance, Executive Council, Government Services, Transportation and Works, Municipal and Provincial Affairs, all government departments.

The previous speaker was up speaking about health care in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and some of the questions that were asked today in this House of Assembly, and the responses from the Minister of Health. Really, it is sad to see that the Opposition, in the new sitting of the House of Assembly, so early on, are really into major, major fearmongering. We have seen it over the past number of months, especially since January when we have been talking about bringing the Budget forward. We see the Opposition fearmongering with what we are going to do, or what they think we are going to do as an Administration. We have a very serious situation in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chairman, and we have to address it and we will address it.

Before I go on, what I meant to say when I got up first, Mr. Chairman, was that I would like to thank the people in my district, the District of Cape St. Francis, for again sending me to the Legislature to represent the people in Pouch Cove, Torbay, Bauline, Flatrock, Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove, up around Major's Path, Torbay Road, Clovelly area, Airport Heights, Mr. Chairman. It is an honour to be in the House of Assembly to represent the people of the District of Cape St. Francis. Again, it is an honour to represent them as the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Hopefully, I will continue to do the job that I have been doing in the past. Obviously, they must feel that I am doing a fair job, I suppose, with the mandate they gave me in the last election on October 21 with the majority. I would like to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, I would say to the former Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) back.

MR. J. BYRNE: The former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation said that they knew I would be back. I was not quite so sure that he would be back, but he is, so I have to give him credit, I say to the former minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: There he goes again. The former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation said we did our best to try and buy the district. His district. Really, he should not be judging everybody by their own morals, I say to the former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. That is not the way it works. We, on this side of the House, will be doing what we feel is right for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, not making decisions based on pure political motives, I say to the former minister.

The Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, Mr. Chairman, there are a number of subheads within the department and we are looking now to be approved by this Administration and this House of Assembly within the next few days, hopefully, the Interim Supply and the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune is quite familiar with the situation that I am in today looking for funding for Interim Supply for the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. We have debt servicing expenditures which will require something like $24 million within the next few months.

The Canada-Newfoundland Infrastructure Program will be needing somewhere close to $20 million. This is an interesting one for most people, I would think, especially in rural Newfoundland, I say to you, Mr. Chairman. The Municipal Operating Grants, they are looking for now to be approved of almost $6.5 million; $6,450,000. We are looking for money to be approved for the disaster assistance for $2.1 million. Of course, departmental salaries, where we have the people within the department working - and a very good department, too, I would say to the Members in the House of Assembly. The staff and the employees at the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs have done a very good job, and doing a very good job, as the former minister knows.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) there for debt relief.

MR. J. BYRNE: Debt relief? Now, the former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation wants to know how much is there for debt relief. You know, we see special assistance, disaster assistance but I will tell him this, the former minister understood the importance of the debt relief program and the benefits it had to rural Newfoundland and many municipalities in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I am working on that. I am hoping to get some funding this year for debt relief, even though we are in a very difficult financial situation. I am hopeful that we will get some money to go towards that very necessary objective.

General operating costs, we need almost $500,000 for that. Special assistance, of course, we are looking at $1,066,700 in this Interim Supply for the next few months. Special assistance, of course, Mr. Chairman, is used and utilized for various functions throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is used for - a lot of it goes towards fire departments and for bunker suits and special apparatus to fight fires because, you know, when you really sit back and size it up, I suppose, when you look at the job that the volunteer fire department is doing in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador for the communities they serve, at the cost that they do it for and what we contribute, we have to be very, very thankful that they are out there; that they volunteer their time, the firefighters, both male and female. Also, basically from that perspective, I would say that the spouses and partners of those firefighters give up a lot also. So we should be very thankful to those individuals, I say to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the Members of the House of Assembly.

I know you only get, basically, ten minutes up and down on Interim Supply, but the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs plays a very important role across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and, in particular, in rural Newfoundland. I know that the former minister has a lot of deep concerns for rural Newfoundland and the South Coast, and particularly (inaudible). We will continue on, hopefully, based on the amount of monies that will be forthcoming in the Budget, to continue to do the job that needs to be done for the municipalities in rural Newfoundland.

One thing I will mention before I sit down, Mr. Chairman, is that the previous Administration on many occasions - I will not say many, that is incorrect, it would be misleading. I will say on a number of occasions in recent years they said that they presented a balanced budget. I remember standing on the other side of the House disagreeing with their statements, that you were bringing in a balanced budget. The present Minister of Finance did the same thing. In actual fact, we now know it to be the case, that there was no balanced budget brought forward in the House of Assembly. They looked at the cash flow, and even then I questioned that, if it was really and truly a balanced budget. We now know that there really was not any balanced budgets.

As a matter of fact, as I just said, the debt of this Province doubled over the past seven or eight years compared to when we joined Confederation in 1949 to now. It took something like forty-five years to get to a $6 billion debt and in the matter of six or seven years we doubled it. Why? Because we saw another example, in this election and leading up to the previous election during the summer months, the previous Administration had promised something like $250 million more - promises they made leading into the Budget. The former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation said that we tried to buy his district. Now, who was trying to buy what, I say to you, Mr. Chairman, when we know the deficit - what it is now? - over $800 million, and they were going to add another $250 million in promises. So, in actual fact, we would be over a $1 billion in debt for this year alone.

I notice, Mr. Chairman, that you are giving me the signal that my time is up. I am sure I will have lots of time to speak on the Budget in the upcoming days and weeks and months. So, based on that, I thank you for your time and I am sure someone on the other side will want to speak to this very important piece of legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before I start and have a few words on Interim Supply, I would just like to thank the people from the Bay of Islands for electing me again for the third time. I guess I am the only fellow or lady in Newfoundland and Labrador who had to win this election by vote and also in the court. I am glad I won by both elections, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: I am glad the people from the Bay of Islands put their faith in me as usual, Mr. Chairman.

I was just listening to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I have a lot of respect for the minister as a person and as a minister, but I must say times have changed. I must say with the minister, times have changed. I just happened to have it around me, just by luck, when you were speaking before me, March 20, 2003, "I want to say a few words on this Interim Supply Bill that the Minister of Finance just introduced, and she referred to this as a routine bill. It is routine in the light that it is introduced each year, but other than that it is not really routine.

"Madam Chair, we are into March 20, I believe, and they want this approved by March 26. Tomorrow is Friday, the House does not sit; on Saturday and Sunday, the House does not sit. So, on Monday or Tuesday of this week they want $1.349 billion approved.

"The House could have easily opened up a week ago, two weeks ago, a month ago. That is a decision for government. Again, a typical situation: come in here, bring in legislation and try and get it forced through the House of Assembly in a short period of time, when it is required we give it proper and due consideration."

I say to the minister, times do change and obviously when you are sitting on the other side things are a bit different. The Government House Leader mentioned the fiscal problem the Province is into. There is no doubt we have a fiscal problem. I don't know if there is anybody on this side of the House who would doubt that or argue, but the difference is how we handle the fiscal situation.

I will just give you a good example. I am sure you are not even aware of it. When the Minister of Health and Community Services went to the Western Health Care Board and said, we need a plan to reduce your deficit for this year, and over seven to ten years to reduce it down to zero, which, as you said, we all ask - it is a fair comment. The comment that is not made to the public is that the Western Health Care Board came back to the minister and said: You are not giving us enough time. We need more time to look at the problems, look at what it is going to cost in the hospital, look at what the human resources are going to cost, look at the restraint it is going to have and look at the services that are going to be reduced. The minister came back and said, it doesn't matter, get it in, because we need the budget, and here we see the Budget being put back again for another week, ten days or two weeks. We don't know when yet. That is the difference on how we handle things. We give people time to follow through, to see the human cost of it. I say to the member, I understand where you are coming from, but I am sure there are a lot of things going on that you are not aware of but we are on the West Coast. That is the difference in how we are going to handle the situation.

The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, as I said earlier, I do have a lot of respect for him, but he also said they wouldn't make any political statements or any political promises. Again, just by luck, I happen to have it here, Madam Chair, just a few of them. Of course, when you say something they always say: Well, it is not true, you need something. Well, I just brought along a bit of documentation to back up what I am going to say here.

The first one was the promises the Premier made with the unions. I will just read the headlines, I don't need to get into specifics: Williams Makes Big Promises To NAPE. That is the headline that the Premier made when he spoke to the NAPE convention, that legislation to force them back to work would not be included and he would not lead a government that did. That is just one that was made.

The seniors' benefits: I will just read the ad that NAPE - I am assuming some of this money that is going to be in the Interim Supply will be used for this. The seniors' benefit - the Minister of Education: We have some 11,000 public service pensioners who are affected by the fact that this government refused to listen to their plight and to listen to their concerns. I ask the hon. Minister of Finance to do what is fair and to show some compassion to our pensioners who are asking redress from this insensitive government. Will he make a commitment to the thousands of pensioners who say, please help us, we need your help? What would he say today if he was not making political statements at the time, I ask the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

You look at the Grand Bank Hospital, another prime example. I am pleased that the Premier announced today, without waiting for the Budget, that the long-term care facility is going to be built in Corner Brook. I am very pleased with that. It is well needed, it is well documented, but on the other side there are other members who have concerns in their district. I know during the election the Grand Bank Hospital was a major concern for the member. I say to the members, yes, it is a major concern, and I understand that the Premier told the mayor at the time that this project, if he became Premier, would continue with no discontinuance whatsoever. That is my understanding of what the mayor quoted, and I read an article where the mayor said that. If the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs wants to talk about political commitments made before and during the election, that is just another one.

The Cancer Clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor is another prime example of how, before an election and during an election, they are going to say, no, we need it, it is a priority. I am hoping, through this Interim Supply, that the Cancer Clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor will be there. I am sure the Minister of Tourism and the Minister of Transportation and Works support this also and will ensure that it is in there also.

The MRI for Corner Brook, once again I hope the funding is in this Interim Supply. The Minister of Justice, you were holding hands around the Western Health Care Corporation when they were rallying to get the MRI for Corner Brook, offering your full support. Mr. Minister, they are still waiting to get permission to go ahead; they are still awaiting permission to go ahead and do some renovations to the Western Health Care Corporation for the MRI. That was six months ago.

Of course, as I said here today, the Premier said that he did not know anything about renovations, did not have any idea. The first he heard about it was when he met with the Western Health Care Corporation this February. I bring to the attention of the Minister of Justice and the Premier, the press release by then the health critic, the Minister for Trinity North, who, in his press release on August 20, 2003, demanded that this government start immediate renovations to the health care through the Western Regional Hospital in Corner Brook so the MRI could be housed without delay, to have it up and running by January, 2004.

Here it is in March and they do not have permission yet to start the renovations let alone to go ahead and do the renovations. I say to the minister, you always say how much clout you have around the Cabinet table. I think it is time for you to start using some of your clout. If you need, you should take the Premier, because the Premier committed today that it is going to be done.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: Do you want me to show you the press release from the Member for Trinity North? I will present you with the press release. That is not a problem. I will give you the press release.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Chairman, I will present the press release. That is not a problem, I say to the Minister of Justice.

The other thing about the MRI, the Premier has said today that it is the first he has heard of it. There was a letter sent to him, I think it was last July, by Dr. John Scott, who is a physician in Corner Brook. He put out the points about the MRI and why it should come to Corner Brook. In that letter, one of the points, not only was he talking about the renovations they needed to house the MRI, it was the actual location where the MRI should be located at the Western Memorial Regional Hospital in Corner Brook. If the Minister of Justice wants a copy of that letter I will definitely give him a copy of that letter also. These are the kinds of things, Mr. Chairman, that I hope are in this interim budget which the Premier today announced that will be done for the Corner Brook area.

Herdman Collegiate is another one. This government here, under the two former Ministers of Education, worked with the residents, the District 3 School Board, to ensure that Herdman Collegiate was going to be a multi-school for all Level I, II, and III for the Corner Brook area to take out the inefficiencies for Corner Brook and have one school. It was agreed to, there was a final plan done, I think it was last August or September. To this date everybody is still waiting to see if this project is going to go ahead. It is a $9 million project. I think what I will do on Thursday is ask the Premier, because every time you ask the Premier a question in the House, he stands up and approves it. No need to wait for the Budget. I am just glad that it is happening that way. Sometimes I feel sorry for the Minister of Health, who cannot answer the questions about health in Corner Brook. That is the government's decision, who they want to answer the question.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time has elapsed.

MR. JOYCE: By leave, Mr. Chairman, to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. JOYCE: I will have lots of time later on, Mr. Chairman, to speak on these important issues. I look forward to the debate. I look forward to all of the good things that are going to happen in the interim budget. I just hope the things that are committed to by this government - and I have another five or six that I will get to later - will be part of this Budget.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to rise this afternoon, too, to make a few comments on Interim Supply and talk about the financial needs that are great in this Province, but we have issues that desperately need to be addressed and taken care of.

I want to say, Mr. Chair, by starting out that the area of Labrador has been neglected by various levels of government and different governments throughout the years. We are hoping to see some positive changes in this upcoming Budget that will address some of the concerns that we have had for a long period of time. One of the most important issues in Labrador, as in the rest of this Province, is the subject of health care, where we have long lineups, we have long waiting lists. It is particularly more painful to people in Labrador who have to be referred to a main centre such as the Health Sciences Centre in St. John's. Many times, at great cost to people who live in Labrador, they are sent out to St. John's only to be seen by a doctor, sent home, and told to come back in three weeks.

Mr. Chairman, there has to be a better system. People are not made of money. People do not have the financial means to be able to travel back and forth a number of times from Labrador to St. John's to get medical help that they need. It is not like we are two or three hours drive away. It is not like we are four or five hours drive away. We are $1,000 away, and that is the best way to measure the distance, Mr. Chairman, because it is the only way to get here.

I spoke earlier today on a petition that I presented to the House of Assembly on the need for a new health facility in Labrador West. That is something that this government will have to address. We can no longer tolerate the situation, Mr. Chairman, where people are admitted into a building that should be condemned and replaced with a new facility.

I have raised with this government, as I did with the previous Administration, the question about the unfairness of what is happening within Labrador, concerning health care subsidies, where people in Labrador West, the district that I represent, are being discriminated against when it comes to having no subsidy in place to travel to the central hospital in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, whereas every other resident of Labrador can travel to a hospital in Goose Bay for $40 return airfare. In Labrador West, people are paying almost $500.

The previous Administration refused to correct that injustice, and I am hoping, and the people of Labrador West are hoping, that this government will address that issue in the Budget. We would like to have it addressed before then, but I guarantee you, Mr. Chairman, this will be an issue again if it is not addressed in the upcoming Budget.

Recently, I spoke to problems concerning people who are in the hospital here, under palliative care. We have to have a system in place, Mr. Chairman, where the air ambulance is utilized to bring these patients back home so they can be with their loved ones, be with their families, because they very, very ill people.

Mr. Chairman, I have to deal with a few of these cases a year. In the last case, I spoke with the Minister of Health, I spoke with the Minister of Transportation, and I did receive good co-operation from them, and we did get the air ambulance put on to bring the patient back. Sadly, Mr. Chairman, the patient died within thirty-six hours of being back in Labrador West.

There is a need there, Mr. Chairman, and it is a very real need because we are talking about people, we are talking about their families. We are not talking about mechanical things, and it is important that a change be enacted into the policies that govern the air ambulance in this Province so that people are treated with diligence, they are treated with the respect with which they should be treated when they are going through that stage of their life.

Very important also, Mr. Chairman, is the area of education. Yesterday, on the debate that was in the House governing student assistant loans, I spoke about the need in Labrador for students who have to travel, and the great costs that are incurred by them and their families because they do not live close to an urban center where the major post-secondary education institutions are located.

Mr. Chairman, I do not believe, and I think it is fundamentally unfair, that people who live in rural areas of this Province have to pay a higher price to obtain an education than people who live closer to the facilities that they are attending. I know that is true in a lot of areas of our life, Mr. Chairman, but I think any reform to education costs in this Province should acknowledge the extra cost that are incurred by people in rural areas and remote areas of our Province, and that should be addressed as well, Mr. Chairman.

We can talk about the roadwork in Labrador, and the Trans-Labrador road - not highway, Trans-Labrador road - and the need for a paving program to begin. Mr. Chairman, the distance of 600 kilometres between Labrador West and Happy Valley-Goose Bay has been completed now for almost twenty years, and there is not one inch of blacktop on that entire road.

The paving program that was announced by the previous Administration does not go far enough, Mr. Chairman. It was almost a slap in the face to the people in Labrador, with the minimum amount that they were going to do in the upcoming year. I understand that length was changed during the election campaign, but the reality is, Mr. Chairman, it was only fifteen kilometres that was intended to be done, and that is not nearly enough to tackle a road that is 600 kilometres in length.

Mr. Chairman, we also have a need in this Province for a provincial drug program subsidy that covers over and above what it does today, that covers things like drug prescriptions for people who have MS, for people who are affected by Alzheimer's, people who require hormone replacement drugs and other expensive therapies that ordinary working people cannot be expected to pay out of their paycheque. They cannot afford it, Mr. Chairman, without ruining their financial life for them and their families. Yet, they are being asked to do that. Many people are not getting the health care that they need, simply because they have made a conscious decision to provide for their families rather than for themselves. That is not fair, Mr. Chairman. I say to you, it is extremely bothersome when we realize the fact that we are the only province in this country that does not provide assistance to their citizens in this form.

Ironically enough, Mr. Chairman, government is not saying that we will not pay for these drugs, because, if you look closely at the policy and what to expect, it is that once you reduce yourself and your family to financial ruin, once you spend every cent that you have, your RRSPs, money that you have saved for your children's education, and if you lose your job, or you liquidate all of your assets, then government will pay. So, Mr. Chairman, and this is important to point out, it is not a question of whether or not government will pay; it is a question of what they require you to do to yourself and your family before they will. That, Mr. Chairman, I submit, is very unfair to any person and family who find themselves in that predicament.

There are, Mr. Chairman, many requirements upon this government from the people of the Province. Some may never be met, some may be difficult to meet, but I want to make sure that this government puts every effort into doing what is possible for people because the needs are great. People are hurting. People are suffering. People are doing without, and this government has the responsibility to the people of the Province to ensure that their basic needs are being met, and they cannot be expected to provide for them on their own.

Mr. Chairman, that is all I have to say this evening. I am sure there will be further opportunities to take part in the proceedings as they progress. With that, I will conclude my remarks.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

It is an interesting debate that is taking place this afternoon. I appreciate the comments made by the Member for Labrador West. I know they are made out of genuineness and sincerity about the issues that represent his constituency. He, like all of us who have been elected here, raise the issues that are important to people in our own individual districts as well as general management of the Province.

I can say I am not going to take up a lot of time, Mr. Chairman. I have spoken once already, but I do just want to take a few moments to respond to the concerns that he has brought forward today.

Be assured, I guess I say to the member, that as a government, particularly as a new government, that all of the issues, whether they be in health care, whether they be in Labrador West, whether they be on the South Coast of the Province, or on the Southern Shore, or in part of the Northeast Coast, or the Northern Peninsula or Central Newfoundland and Labrador, that the issues that affect people are ones that, obviously, as a government, we are the most concerned about.

It is interesting when you first become government - and I am sure hon. members opposite may have found this themselves - the situations that present themselves to you. The pot is finite. There is just so much in, and things that we want to do are infinite. There is no end to the things that I, or you as a member, or members opposite, or members of this government - there is no end to the things that we would like to do, things that we know would be beneficial to the people of the Province; a litany of them, that we all have from our own individual districts, to just a general thrust and throw of where we think the Province should be going. At the same time, there is a responsibility to ensure that the decisions we make are made for the absolute correct reasons, that they can be defended on the basis of that, and that we can live within the means that we have. Now, that does not mean you only put so much in and that is all you are going to spend. It does not mean that. Government operates a little differently. We all understand that, but it does mean we all have to be responsible, I guess, in terms of how we manage it.

It is one of the reasons, I say to the member, that the Premier has highlighted for himself the issues which will generate significant revenue for the Province; such as trying to get a legitimate and real and bonafide return on our resources, such as oil and gas through the Atlantic Accord, so that we may be able to look at ourselves in the mirror and say, finally, in the truest sense of the word, principal beneficiary means x-number of dollars of more revenue, or 100 per cent of all provincial revenues staying in this Province for us to do with that what we believe we can do. If that means, potentially at some point in the future, funding some of the initiatives that you have talked about, that is what that revenue is going to do for us. That is why it is so critical that on his plate, as the Leader of the Province, and as Premier of the Province, he has singled it out as one of the priority items in federal-provincial relationships and relations. It is one of the reasons why - I should not say one, it is the reason why he has talked about, even when he was Leader of the Opposition, seeking the federal share of the Hibernia site, 8.5 per cent and what that would mean to the provincial revenue over the life of that project, hundreds of millions of dollars.

The Leader of the NDP stood today, for example, and talked about the revenues that come in from Terra Nova; $32 a barrel profit. Amazing! During that debate I was in the House as a member of the Opposition. I was Mines and Energy critic at the time. During that debate in the House the allowances government gave to that company of the day were unbelievable. For example, today we have a consortium that makes probably one of the most profitable oil and gas projects on the planet. Extremely profitable. When you can take $32 per barrel of oil over what that resource is, I mean it is significant. Six hundred and seventy-odd million last year, I think, was the margin. Yet, the government of the day did not even require that local procurement and engineering work be done in the Province. They did not even require it. The Member for Grand Bank was the Minister of Industry at the time. Her signature was required on that, to let that happen. They did not absolutely require that even engineering work and procurement activities for that site and for local business were done here. Do you know what the clause said in the contract? I have it. Best efforts. Inform me about something else, my colleagues here.

The Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board wrote the Province, two ministers, the Minster of Mines and Energy and the Minister of Industry of the day, in 1996 requesting and outlining what their concerns were with the fact that this decision, in terms of engineering and procurement jobs, engineering work to be done locally. That is how we benefit from resources, when we get that here, a transfer of technology, developing a knowledge base, enhancing our local engineering business community, procurement advantages for people who are in small business, whether it is supplying toilet paper or paper towels, or goods and services to that site, were not done here.

Do you know that the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board actually wrote the government of the day expressing concern over that? What do you think the response was? Does anyone know? There is a member in this Legislature who knows. The Member for Grand Bank knows what the response was. Guess what? They did not even respond, and by not responding they let the time frame expire on when they could respond. Because that time frame expired, then the decision to let engineering and procurement activities in this Province associated with our resource was allowed to stay in Leatherhead, England. There wasn't even a response. There was no response, and that was purposeful. That was purposeful that there was no response because it happened. Do you know where that deal was made? That deal was made in Houston with Dick Cheney, who is now Vice-President of the United States who was Chairman of Brown and Root, between him and former Premier Brian Tobin and the Cabinet of the day. That is where that deal was made. What did we lose? We lost an opportunity. Our local business community lost opportunities. Local businesses in terms of supply and services in the offshore oil and gas industry lost opportunities.

I will say this to the member, that this government has no intention of losing those opportunities because it is too important to the person who is in business. It is too important to the revenue stream of the Province. It is too important for the growth of the industry and it is our future.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The royalties alone. The member raises a good question. He said look at the royalties. The royalties alone are amazing. Incredible.

In 1998, for example, the Statement of Principles was signed dealing with the Hibernia project. In 1991 former Premier Clyde Wells signed the actual document, the royalty agreement. You would not believe the difference in those two agreements. You would not believe the difference in the Statement of Principles and what was actually signed. As a result, we hardly get anything. Now there were, what do we say, a certain environment was in play at the time. No question that the project ran into some difficulty. Everybody knows that, but the view of the day, and I can only go by what was said publicly, the view of the day was that the Hibernia site really only represented - in terms of employment wise - about the size of three or four fish plants. No one talked about the royalties, the most profitable project. One of the best projects, again, on the planet today for Mobil Oil is the Hibernia project, in terms of the sweetness or lightness of the crude, which does not require a lot of refining, but also because of the royalty stream that is pouring into their pockets and not here.

I am not going to get into judging that. It is what it is today, but there are lessons that must be learned and taken to heart and understood on another project or other projects if we believe that they are there, and I believe they are there. The future's incredible opportunities are out there right now in terms of the offshore oil and gas industry, particularly after we saw what happened in the -

MR. COLLINS: Voisey's Bay ten to one. (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, Voisey's Bay ten to one for the federal government. On that deal, for example, what normally we would take in before equalization, and the Member for Labrador West points it out, ten to one for Voisey's Bay.

Here is the reality on provincial and federal taxes prior to equalization: This Province would net, over the life of that project, about $850-odd million, $858 million and change, before equalization. The federal government's take, the federal government tax share on it before equalization, is $565 million and change. We are talking approximate figures. After equalization, the federal government gets $1.3 billion over the life of the project. We net about $70 million to $80 million. That is the difference, in a non-renewable resource.

There are things that we have to do. There are things that we have to press forward on. This is one of them. This issue and these issues surrounding our resources are ones that I think we can move ahead on, to a large degree all of us, in a non-partisan way, if it is in the interest of everyone in this Province for us to do so.

I appreciate the comments made by the Member for Labrador West, and I also appreciate, Madam Chair, the opportunity to respond generally to some of the concerns he has raised, to try to give some insight in terms of where our head is, as a government, in how we plan and how we are moving ahead and how we are planning to make decisions over the next little while as it relates to the Budget process and other important issues effecting every Newfoundlander and Labradorian.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR (Osborne): The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to rise today to speak to Bill 2, although yesterday I thought that maybe our Bill 2 should have been Bill 1, a very important bill, the matter of Interim Supply. It is very important that we keep our government running.

Before I do that, I would like to thank the electorate of the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace for returning me again to my seat. This is my second election and I thank them very, very much for that, another opportunity to serve in this hon. House.

I would like to congratulate you, Madam Chair, on your appointment to that position. As well, I would like to congratulate the new Minister of Government Services in her role, my successor. I was there some short time ago and I would like to congratulate her and wish her well. I know some of the challenges that are involved in that particular department and one of the challenges you are facing, of course, is the insurance issue, which I am sure we will have ample time to discuss before this session is over for this year. I wish you well in that position.

I would like to welcome as well the new members who were recently elected some five months ago, and wish them well. I fully appreciate the challenges that they face as new members. Coming into this setting, into one of the most hon. Houses, is one of the most strenuous and stressful things I guess you ever do when you come in to represent so many people, because every single one of them - and this is part of the process that we are having today - has an expectation of government. Not all of them, all 12,000 or 13,000 of your constituents, want the same thing. I found, from my own personal experience, that they want you to do your best, to be truthful and honest with them and to give them good governance. That takes us down another path, just what good governance is, because it is interesting enough, I think, that the only judge of good governance is history. We look back, since Confederation even, and every government that we have had, guess what happened to them? The people got tired and moved on, and that is the people's right. We look back and we look at the evaluation of who was a good government and who was not a good government. You look back now and talk to people, and none of us provided good governance. The expectations and the hopes now are to you, where we sat just a few short months ago ourselves. We stayed there for fifteen years and, getting a little tiny bit political, I hope you do not be there for fifteen years.

Interim Supply, I am a little bit skeptical when we are asked to stand and support a bill, basically, with very little detail, very little description. I remember for four years sitting there and listening to members on this side asking for more details, saying that you cannot base a good decision on something you do not know anything about. I am hoping that some of the things that will be there will be a continuation of the good things that were instituted by the previous government. There were a lot of good things that were there. The economy itself showed a rebound. There was a growth in jobs for, I think, six or seven consecutive months, if I am not mistaken. That is the kind of thing the people want. People want to get out, go to work and feed their families. That is all they want. They want government to help them with that, to provide a means and provide a sense of direction where they can feel good about themselves, where they know they can feed their families, get their children to school in nice clothes, good food for them when they get home. That is the kind of thing that all of us want. That is the kind of thing that we all want for our constituents.

I am going to get a little tiny bit political. On January 5, there was a message sent out loud and clear around this Province that there is a freeze on. A lot of our young people right now who are in university, going to graduate this spring, are feeling a little bit of despair. I spoke to one young lady just before I came down here this afternoon and she is uncertain now about her future. If there is a freeze, if there is a wage freeze and people are going to be reduced through attrition, that means there are no new jobs within government. We are a smaller Province and the government is a large employer.

There are a number of our young people over at the university right now, and in other colleges, who are saying: Well, there is no hope, there is no chance for opportunity. I hope there are things here in Interim Supply and in the new Budget. I look forward to Tuesday, as well as everybody else in this Province, with great hopes that this new approach that is being offered by your government will take this Province another step further. Bring something forward, put something there, offer some hope, show some enthusiasm, so that people will start investing again, building homes, coming here to live and creating a housing market where people can go to work. Those are the things that everybody wants; decent road to drive over.

You go across the Island and you will hear stories about this, you will hear a story about a community on the Northern Peninsula that was snowed in for twenty days. I know it is impossible, I guess, to do all of that, but there was no plow able to get in there for twenty days. The frustration that it caused those few families on that Peninsula!

There are other things that people want, and maybe unrealistically. You know, we all get calls regarding things where somebody says: Well, so-and-so has that down the street, I should have it too. As a government, the expectations are there that we should be able to provide that. There is more to governing than balancing budgets. There is more to government that keeping that bottom line in check. It is a large part of it, because good governance means doing just that, it is always reviewing the fiscal situation, but excellent governance is also balancing the needs of the people. We have always got to look at the social needs of our people.

There are people out there who are determined, they want to make Newfoundland and Labrador their home, they want to stay here. It is a beautiful province. It is the best province to live in in North America. To do that we need to be positive in our approach to dealing with them. They need health care. They need readily available health care. We don't ever want to go back to the days where the large centres had health care. That is what created, back in the 1950s, our cottage hospital system. That was a stop-gap measure to provide health care for the people we had then. Back to the days of the Easter Seal vessel, going around the Province doing x-rays, checking for tuberculosis, the Christmas Seal, those are the things that we don't want to go back to.

The people in the Province have come to expect - and partly, I guess, because government, and previous governments, have taken the strides and efforts to make those things available to the people who put us here. This is where I see a problem going to arise for that government over there, because the people will start making demands. No doesn't work. You cannot take something away from people.

There is a great demand for new drugs. There is a great demand for new schools. In my own district I have two school, St. Joseph's and Davis Elementary, that accommodate the K to IX system. Those schools are deteriorated to the point that they are between thirty-five and forty years old and they are really not fit to go into. One of them has been slated to close this year, while the other one is going to have some work done to it, or supposedly have some work done to it according to the school board, to bring it up to a little bit more liveable or useable for its students. Now, it is totally unacceptable. That is not what people want, schools that will be just fitted up for a makeshift place to get an education. Everybody wants to have the same as the next community. We want to have the same means and the same access to good quality education. Nobody wants to go and send their child to a classroom where there are no windows, or you have to crawl in over a desk to get to their own desk; a library being chopped up in two or three pieces. Those are the things that I look forward to seeing in the Budget on Tuesday.

I look forward to seeing my long-term care facility that has the same priority, by the way, as Corner Brook in ranking.

MADAM CHAIR: I remind the hon. member that his time has elapsed.

MR. SWEENEY: I thank the Madam Chair for her notice and I look forward to getting back again to raise some of my concerns.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am certainly happy today to stand and add a little bit, I guess, to this debate of Interim Supply here in the House of Assembly. As members who have stood before, I guess I can call this my maiden speech of this session of the House of Assembly, and thank the people who were kind enough to support me once again. It is my fifth election, fourth time being successful, Madam Chair, and I certainly thank the people in Bonavista South who came forward, showed their faith in me, and came out and worked and supported me in the past election.

I congratulate all Members in the House of Assembly. I say to members opposite, and members on this side as well, that I do not think there were any big surprises in the last election. We pretty well knew the numbers that were coming back here. I think when you listen to the Minister of Finance, not only did he know the numbers but he knew the names of every person who was coming back here, and that is why this member put so much faith in him as the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Madam Chair, if there is anybody in this Province, if there is anybody in this Legislature who knows Newfoundland and Labrador, it is the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board. I do not know of any other member who has travelled further and wider and has known more people and have allowed people to bring forward their concerns to him and to have them brought up at our caucus table and addressed.

What we are talking about here today is Bill 2, which grants Interim Supply. Madam Chair, somewhere within the next few days hopefully this bill will be approved, because we are not looking for any new money or any extra money. What the government is looking for, as members opposite will know full well, is we are looking for money to carry on with the services that government provides. We are looking for money to carry on the services that the Leader of the Opposition, and the Opposition members stand everyday to question if this is going to be done or something else is going to be done. That is what this bill does, it allows for some of those things to happen. We will never get them all, I can guarantee you, but we will do some.

This member has stood in his place on the opposite side a good many times presenting petitions and raising concerns. Madam Chair, some of the things that I have asked for, I have gotten. I have gotten them because they were needed. I did not get them because I was the Member for Bonavista South. Money was spent in my district like every other district because it needed to be done. That will not change, I say to members opposite. You will find that the Minister of Finance and the Premier of this government will be there to support the things that are needed. Yes, we are into difficult times. There is no doubt about it, Madam Chair, we are into difficult financial times.

There is one thing members opposite should realize, that we are not all demons over here. We are not out trying to bring hurt on people in Newfoundland and Labrador. You hear some members speak from the other side saying: All of us over here represent rural districts. Well, I say to the members opposite, we have members here who represent rural districts as well. We have members here who represent urban districts. We are certainly in tune and know the needs and the difference of what needs to be done in rural areas versus urban areas.

I say to members opposite, you do not hold that all by yourself. You are not the champions of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. You are not the champions of everybody because we all, when we are elected here to this House, bring forward our own concerns that are raised to us by the people that we represent. None of us are any different.

I stood here many times and talked about the road, Route 235. It has probably been mentioned more often in this House in petitions than any other road in the Province. I can assure you that those same concerns, whether I have to challenge members opposite in the race to get to the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Transportation and Works, that I will still be having a beaten path to that office to try to get that particular road and other roads, like the road to Winter Brook and Route 230, upgraded to a standard that people have come to expect today.

I stood here in this House many times and talked about the need to open long-term care beds at the Golden Heights Manor in Bonavista. That has not changed, I say to members opposite. Just because I sit on the government side does not mean to say that all of that is done away with, that you will not hear from this member anymore. That will not change because there is still a need. I say to members opposite that the onus is on them as well - not to make personal attacks. We can all go back and talk about what this member did or what that member did, but maybe we should take a lesson - I have always respected the Member for Labrador West when he stands. He has been in Opposition for the number of years that I have been here, but when he stands and talks about the concerns of his district, never a personal attack on anybody, never talks about what this member did or what some other member did. It is always about the concerns of his district. It is always about issues that were raised to him and issues that he is aware of. That is the way we approach it over here on this side of the House as well. That is the way that we approach it.

I heard the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair today ask some questions to the Minister of Health. Because the answers did not come back the way she wanted them to come back, then she went full circle and tried to tell the minister that the demons that were over here were going to bring hurt on people and going to take away their health care facilities, and going to close down hospitals. I say to the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair, I have not heard any of that. The people on this side of the House, Madam Chair, is just as much in tune with the problems of Newfoundland and Labrador. The people on this side of the House talk to their constituents, realize their concerns, realize the issues -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: - know the importance of health care, know the importance of education, and I can tell you we will not need to be reminded from people opposite.

I will tell you some of the things that we will not do. We will not go and build half a hospital and then decide to do a survey to see if the hospital is needed or not. We will not do that, like happened in Gander, I say to members opposite. When the hospital was half built then they decided they were going to do a survey to find out if the hospital was needed. That is not the route that we will go. We will do a plan. We will lay out the plan to show people what is needed. We will listen to people; we will converse with people; we will take suggestions, and at the end of the day, hopefully, the right decisions will be made. That is the kinds of things we will not do. We will not buy a boat over in a Third World country, only to have it brought back here and spend half the cost of a new boat and still not have a trip made yet. That is the kind of things that we will not do, I say to members opposite.

I say to members opposite: yes, people have large expectations. People came out on October 21 and decided it was time for a change in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. They decided it was time for a change. They did not want to go down the path that they had gone down for the past fourteen years. They wanted a new direction. They wanted to put other people there to try to change some of the things that they saw that was being done without them having an input and without their decisions being taken into consideration. They decided that they wanted to put in a new party to be the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. People came out and resoundingly voted for the party that you see sitting here in the House of Assembly today.

We have been in office now a little over four-and-a-half months, probably. Something like four-and-a-half months, Madam Chair. You cannot expect miracles, but I say one thing to members opposite - and you people would have known what happened when you people were on this side of the House because I would not know - but I can tell you one thing, I have never seen a harder working, more dedicated group of people who are so interested in bringing about change and doing things that are right in my life. I have never been part of a group of people who were so eager and so willing to go out and meet with people and hear their views, hear their opinions, than the people that you see sitting on this side of the House right now. So I say to members opposite, give us a chance. Let the Minister of Finance bring down his Budget.

Next Tuesday, I understand, is the date that has been announced for the provincial Budget to be brought down. So I say to members opposite, you are not going to be told what is in the Budget. You know that cannot happen. You can ask all the questions and then create the fear that this is going to happen or something else is going to happen. You can ask all those questions, but be a little bit patient. Wait until next Tuesday when the Minister of Finance puts on his new pair of shoes and brings down the Budget here in this House of Assembly. Then you will be able to find out what is in the Budget. It will be clear. It will be all in the details, I say to members opposite. Then the questions can be asked and you will get your answers at that particular time. Until that time, I say to members opposite, have a little patience, give us a little chance, have your input. If you have some recommendations, the Minister of Finance gave you a number that you could call if he was too busy to talk to you. Put your call on line and, I can tell you, it will be registered and it will show up with the over 900 calls.

MADAM CHAIR: I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: I have read every one of them.

MR. FITZGERALD: The Minister of Finance tells me he has read over 900 of them.

I understand my time is up. I thank the people for listening to the few words that I have had on Bill 2, and I ask that we pass this bill without delay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I rise to speak to Bill 2, Interim Supply.

Madam Chair, I have listened with great interest to a lot of the commentary that has gone on in the House this afternoon, some of it having to do with Interim Supply and some not. Having listened to the Member for Bonavista South, I think he really does believe what he is saying. Unfortunately, what he is saying does not ring true. I listened to him talk about the fact that a lot of the members opposite represent rural districts like the majority of us on this side of the House, but, Madam Chair, when you consider that of all of the Cabinet Ministers, of the fourteen Cabinet Ministers, including the Premier, ten of them live inside the overpass. Ten of them, when they are sitting around the Cabinet table, talk about issues impacting urban centres more than rural centres, what kind of influence can someone from Bonavista South, or some of the other members who represent rural areas of this Province, have in the discussions that are going on? While I am sure he is sincere and believes that he can have an impact, that he can have some influence, unfortunately, I do not think that is true.

I listened to him go on about getting answers to questions, and the fact that we cannot expect to get an answer on anything to do with the Budget before the Budget comes down. We have asked the Minister of Health and Community Services, all of us stood here and asked about projects that have so much importance to our constituents. We wanted to know the status of those projects. In some cases, as in the Grand Bank health care facility, which is well underway, and contrary to what the Member for Bonavista South said, that they would never, ever, ever put a stop to something that has already been started. Guess what? The health care facility for Grand Bank is well underway. We have spent $3 million on it, and where is it now? It is put on hold.

Again, what the member says, while he probably believes it to be the case, is certainly not the case based on our experience to date with what the government has done, certainly to the new health care facility in Grand Bank.

Do we expect answers? Of course we expect answers to our questions, because they have to do with the Budget, but it is ironic that when we ask the Minister of Health questions about certain projects that all we get from her is a cookie cutter reply, wait until the Budget comes down, but when it has to do with the Premier's district, lo and behold, there is an answer; we do not have to wait until the Budget comes down. We know, because the Premier said today he would not let the minister answer the question. He would not let the minister answer the question when it had to do with his district. When there was a question asked about a long-term care facility for Corner Brook, when there was a question asked about the MRI, when there was a question asked about the appropriate space to accommodate that piece of equipment, lo and behold, the Premier himself stood and took the question. The Minister of Health was not allowed to respond to the question about health, that had to do with the Premier's district. Guess what? Before the Budget comes down, before any of us know what is going to be in the Budget with respect to all of our health care facilities, guess what? The Premier has already said: Yes, there is money in the Budget for the long-term care facility for Corner Brook. Yes, there is money in the Budget for the MRI. Yes, there is money in the Budget for space to accommodate the MRI. So, why is it that the minister could not answer the questions when it came to the Premier's district but all the others we got the cookie cutter reply: You just have to wait until the Budget comes down.

Madam Chair, it is interesting to hear the Member for Bonavista South talk about how people are going to be treated fairly by this government. We do not have to worry, they are not going to play politics with it. You know, he recognized that when he was on this side he got a fair amount of support from the government of the day, which was a government that I was a part of, because we recognized, as a government, the importance of treating every part of Newfoundland and Labrador fairly, the importance of recognizing that it does not matter where you live in our Province, you are entitled to get your needs addressed to the best of the government's ability to do that. I recognize that there are issues, there are financial issues, but not of a magnitude that the government opposite has be professing. We know, and they know opposite, that what they have done is inflated the numbers to make it sound like they are in a crisis situation, or that the Province is in a crisis situation. We know differently, the unions know differently, the pensioners know differently, and they are going to hold this government accountable for their actions.

Unfortunately, what the Premier has done in his address to the Province on January 5 is to dampen the economy, and I know. I have spoken with business people throughout this Province who have said to us: You know, we are seeing sales in large ticket items gone down. We have seen that they are not selling as many cars, that they are not selling as many refrigerators, that they are not selling as many of the large ticket items because people are worried. They are sincerely worried that they may not have a job; and, just as you and I would do, they are holding onto the money that they have. They are saving it for that rainy day. Unfortunately, that is not helping the economy. That is not helping people out there who are looking to find employment opportunities. It just is not happening. Again, we ask why it is necessary to do this. Why can't we be up front, recognize that we have a serious situation that is not a crisis situation?

When you talk about your great vision, your new approach, everything you are going to do to increase revenues for the Province, everything you are going to do to make sure that you have enough money to do the things you want to do, then why can't you keeping talking that positive message? Why can't you continue to talk about that and recognize that you are going to try and grow the economy, that you are going to take advantage of opportunities, that there will be employment opportunities for people so that we can move ahead, so that we do not have the Taoiseach of Ireland going off thinking that the sky is falling in, that we do not have the bond rating agencies out there thinking that, my heavens, if we do not get a handle on this we are going to down rate your grading, your credit rating.

Those are serious issues, and it can become a self-fulling prophecy. If you want people to believe that it is all doom and gloom in Newfoundland and Labrador, that there is nothing happening here, the tourists should not even bother to come here. Why would they bother to come here? It is a bad place to come because the sky is falling in Newfoundland Labrador, according to the Premier. I think it is really important for us to be positive, for us to look at opportunities, for us to stress what this Province has going for it, for us to again paint the right picture of Newfoundland and Labrador. The economy has been growing in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have seen employment opportunities for people throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. Unfortunately, more of the those opportunities have been seen on the Avalon, inside the overpass, than in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, but that is why we have entities like our REDBs, Regional Economic Development Boards, boards that are comprised of people, all stakeholders from throughout rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and inside the overpass as well.

We have people who are representing municipalities, people who are representing business, people who represent education, people who represent our youth, people who represent our seniors, people who represent other organizations, working together to try and improve what is happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It is about rural revitalization and it is about working with our grassroots, working with our people. They know better than we do, they know better than you do, what is going to work in their own areas, and they need to be given the opportunity to come up with a plan and to put that plan in place. These are people who really know what their needs are, they know their strengths and their weaknesses, and they should be given the opportunity to make it work.

Madam Chair, I know my time is running short but I would like to speak for a minute again to the headings here under Interim Supply. I wonder, when I look at Health and Community Services, $500 million, I was really hopeful when I saw that number. I thought, here we are with a facility in Grand Bank, on the Burin Peninsula, $3 million sunk into it, the steel is there, and I understand from the minister yesterday that it will stay there. I am hoping that they will now agree to put a building around that steel, that we will actually see a facility. I am really hopeful that, of that $500 million, that $15 million will go to finish the new health care facility in Grand Bank, something that is badly needed. We have a cottage hospital there, the only cottage hospital left in Newfoundland and Labrador, that really needs to be replaced. The need is there, the analysis has been done, and I call upon the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance to give it serious consideration and to approve it in the Budget.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

AN HON. MEMBER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MADAM CHAIR: I am sorry.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: And Labrador Affairs.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I did not mind being referred to as the Member for The Straits & White Bay North. I will just start off by saying, as some other members did, certainly to pass on my appreciation to the voters for The Straits & White Bay North, those who voted for me and those who did not, for participating in the democratic process back on October 21, and sending me back in here to represent them again for the next four years.

AN HON. MEMBER: A very wise choice.

MR. TAYLOR: A very wise choice, yes.

Madam Chair, before I get into the few comments I want to make on Interim Supply, Bill 2, I would just like to speak for few minutes, to make a comment on some of the comments coming from the other side on the ratio of rural members to urban members in our Cabinet.

The previous speaker certainly was correct in saying there were basically four members of Cabinet who are from rural districts and ten who could be considered more towards urban districts, but I would say, Madam Chair, I do not know what that member thinks but I think that four baymen are as good as ten townies any day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: They certainly are on this side of the House. I don't know about on that side of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: I know, but, like I said, the four baymen have no problem handling them anyway.

AN HON. MEMBER: Be careful, your leader is listening.

MR. TAYLOR: Well, we will deal with him in due course, if he decides to say anything about it.

Anyway, Madam Chair, I did want to make a few comments on Bill 2, on Interim Supply. Certainly, as it has been widely acknowledged, this is a financial bill and we can be fairly wide-ranging, I guess, in our comments.

Madam Chair, in listening to some of the comments that have been coming from the other side over the past two days, and some of the comments that have been coming probably over the past couple of months, about high expectations, some criticisms of some of the actions that we, as a government, have taken over the past number of months, you would swear to God that the people forgot that the people who are now sitting in Opposition were sitting in government for fifteen years, and you would forget that we were only here for less than five months now since we were sworn in as a Cabinet, I believe. Five months on April 6, not that anyone is counting.

Madam Chair, in that time have we changed the world overnight? No, I will be the first to admit that we have not changed the world overnight, but we have made some substantial progress. I certainly think that telling people the truth about the financial situation of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador was certainly a big step in the right direction, something that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have not seen for a long time, the truth about the financial situation of this Province. Maybe if the people had the truth about the financial situation of the country of Newfoundland and Labrador back in the late 1920s and early 1930s, maybe we would still be an independent nation today. Maybe we would not have had to pass over the reigns of power and the control of our destiny to a Commission of Government. Maybe people should think about that.

I thought it was very, very interesting that over the past week or so -

MR. GRIMES: A point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: I wanted to make a point, Madam Chair, if I could.

The hon. member, and the minister in speaking, talked about telling the truth about the financial circumstance. The public accounts of the Province, for every year since 1949, has been signed by the Auditor General saying that this document reflects truly and accurately the financial state of affairs of the Province. Every single year. Every year.

I believe, Madam Chair, it is a disservice to the House of Assembly, a disservice to the people of the Province to suggest that anything other than that has occurred in the history of the Province. The evidence is there.

Another former premier - the Minister of Transportation is shaking his head in agreement because he knows that has happened every single time. Every single time since Confederation it has said this truly and accurately reflects the financial circumstance in the Province today. I think he should be asked to withdraw the statement.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. RIDEOUT: Madam Chair, I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition, if I was shaking my head and he took that to be in agreement with him he is dreaming in technicolor. The fact of the matter is, Madam Chair, there is no point of order. It is a point of discourtesy interrupting my colleague making an excellent speech.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Chair.

As I was saying, Madam Chair, before the Leader of the Opposition made his comments and raised on his point of order - which of course, there was no point to - the people of the Province do need to know the truth about the financial situation that this government is confronted with.

As the Leader of the Opposition rightfully pointed out, there is an Auditor General who does sign the public accounts at the end of each year, and that Auditor General will sign the public accounts of this government when the time comes. I am sure that they will find what we are telling the people of the Province is the truth about the financial situation that we are now confronted with.

I was not suggesting for a minute, Madam Chair, that the public accounts that were tabled in the House and presented to the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador over the past fifty-odd years was anything less than the truth. What I am suggesting is that the public accounts are not always put in front of the people of the Province. Yes, they are tabled. Just because there is a book printed does not mean the 531,000 people that we have in the Province will read it. Furthermore, Madam Chair, the messages that come out of the public accounts can be radically different from the messages that come out of the mouths of the politicians who the public accounts are presented by.

Madam Chair, the people of the Province do need to know there is a real fiscal problem in this Province. Why? If there was not a real fiscal problem in this Province, why do we have so much problem recruiting and retaining doctors? Why do we have so much problem keeping pavement on roads? Why does the Opposition of today, the government of yesterday, continue to say that we need to run to Ottawa looking for more money? Why do we need to get more money from the offshore oil? Why do we need to get more money from Voisey's Bay, for example? Why do we need to find more money? Why do we need to have revenue growth to the extent that everybody thinks that we need it? Why do we need to have a new deal with Canada, that everybody suggests, if we do not have a real fiscal, a real financial problem in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? Of course we do. If we did not, we would not all be looking for $100 million here and $100 million there. If we did not have a financial problem in this Province then the previous Administration, the people who are sitting in Opposition today, would not have been tempted two years ago to raid the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund to the tune of $100 million to put into general revenues, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: If we did not have a real fiscal problem in this Province, Madam Chair, we would not have seen the previous Administration take - how many millions of dollars in Term 29? Is it Term 29?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, it is Term 29.

MR. TAYLOR: In Term 29 we were supposed to get $8 million a year in perpetuity, and they took $130 or $160 million in one-time cash, as I recall. No! No! There is no fiscal problem in Newfoundland and Labrador! That was number two. That was another cookie jar that was raided.

Why, Madam Chair, did we do a deal with the Government of Canada to take over the Labrador ferries and the coastal boat service in Newfoundland and Labrador to the tune of $300 million? Why did we do that? Because we needed one-time cash again. That is the story of Newfoundland and Labrador for a good many years now, that when the fiscal situation starts to smack us in the face we start raiding cookie jars.

We find ourselves in the unfortunate situation, as a government today, in 2004, where there are no cookies left. The cookies have been all taken out of the jars, Madam Chair.

MR. RIDEOUT: Not only is it empty but the jar is gone too.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, not only is it empty but the jar is gone too, my colleague reminds me.

Madam Chair, we have a very real situation that has to be dealt with here in this Province. We have a very real problem with the finances of this Province and it is a situation that is not going to be resolved overnight. It is a situation that we are focused on and that we will deal with over time. We will deal with it with compassion, we will deal with it in the best interests, both in the short term and the long term, of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I stand here today and I speak on behalf of the people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and the Straits and White Bay North, I speak on behalf of people in the fishing industry, I speak on behalf of people throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, and when I sit around the Cabinet Table I will do the same thing, and I will try to keep their interests in mind as we move down this road towards dealing with our financial situation.

There is also somebody else who I am keeping in my mind -

MADAM CHAIR: I remind the hon. minister that his time is up.

MR. TAYLOR: By leave just to conclude, Madam Chair?

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MADAM CHAIR: By leave.

MR. TAYLOR: There is one other thing that we all need to keep in mind when we look at the finances of this Province. I have a child who is thirteen years old and a child who is nine years old, and I can tell you, Madam Chair, when I walk out of this, if it is four years time when the people give me my walking papers, or it is eight years time or it is twelve years time, I will walk out of this knowing that I didn't take the politically easy route so that I could get re-elected. I am going to take the decisions, and we will take the decisions, that will look after our children or our grandchildren so that we do not burden them with the debt that the previous Administrations have been so willing to lay on the children of our future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: I listened here in this House yesterday afternoon when we were debating Bill 1, on education, and I listened to members on the other side talking about free education. I would dearly love to be able to come in this House and say that we will give free post-secondary education to all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. When do you think we will be able to do it? Well, we are not going to be able to do it as long as we are on a course where we are hitting close to $1 billion or over $1 billion in deficits a year. We are not going to be able to do it as long as we have the highest per capita debt of any jurisdiction in the country. We are not going to be able to do it as long as we have an $11 billion debt that is expected to go up to about $15 billion in another four or five years. Those are the things that we have to deal with. We have to get our fiscal house in order. Then maybe we will be able to deal with free education -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: - and deal with health care in the manner that it needs to be dealt with for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Chair.

It seems like every day I get up at this time.

Madam Chair, I will not be too long but I do want to make a few comments on a very important bill, a bill that is going to allow the members opposite to spend somewhere in the vicinity of $1.5 billion, $1,500 million. The Minister of Finance came in today and said that it was only a routine bill, it should not take very long. You know, it is only routine, not much to talk about, so we should get it through quickly. Every since that time today, I have listened to people stand on the opposite side and talk about the great change that has occurred since the election back in October. I agree, there has been a great change, and the great change is what has taken place in the members opposite from the time that they left the floor on this side until they have gone over there, because it was just one year ago, almost to the day, that the Minister of Finance stood on that side of the floor and introduced a similar bill for a similar amount of money.

Madam Chair, those who sat over here at the time, who are now in government, criticized her for days over the fact that she was ramming a bill through the House of Assembly. She was ramming it through the House of Assembly without having enough time to debate it. Just to quote some of them, if you do not mind, in Hansard, because I always find that Hansard is a great piece of information because it reminds people of what they have said in the past. When the members opposite were talking about the great change that has taken place, I went out and picked up a copy of it just to see what they said last year in this very debate on Interim Supply.

The new Minister of Municipal Affairs was the first one on his feet on Interim Supply. He was waxing eloquently about the need for time to debate this very important bill, and he ended up by saying this House could have been easily opened a week ago, two weeks ago, a month ago. That was a decision for government. Again, a typical situation. Come in here, bring in legislation, and try to ram it through the House of Assembly in a short period of time, when what is required is proper time for consideration of this very important bill. That was one of them, Madam Chair.

The Member for the Straits, the Minister of Fisheries, who just got up before me, said something very similar, a very important bill, needed time to debate it; but the one that I find really a bit strange is the Minister of Finance, the individual who bought in this bill today, said it was routine, no need for much discussion on this. It is only routine. After all, it is only $1,500 million we are asking you to approve. It is only $1,500 million that we are supposed to trust you to spend in the next few months. It is only to tie them over for two or three months, but he said it is not necessary to debate it.

How things change in a very, very short period of time. The Minister of Finance is on the record saying, less than a year ago: Interim Supply is a bill to allow the wheels of government to move forth. Then he went on to talk about: I do not think it is adequate time in three days - and that is about what we are going to get here, because they are talking about bringing a Budget down on Tuesday. They will probably want this tonight. We might be forced to sit all night so they can use the hobnailed boots to drive this one through, like they tried yesterday on their first bill, the education bill, but I will talk about that one later.

Anyway, the Minister of Finance, the Member for Ferryland, says: I do not think it is adequate time, in three days, to debate how the government wants to approve to spend $1.3 billion. I think that is the exact sum he brought forward today and said we did not need to debate it at all. He said: She wants to approve this spending in three days.

Well, I say to the minister opposite, that is exactly what he wants to do. So you talk about things changing. You talk about things changing. You are certainly right, they have changed.

One thing, I will tell you, that has changed around here since they took government is that they have succeeded in frightening the life out of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian.

MR. SULLIVAN: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I would like to tell the hon. member that we are prepared to give whatever time is needed. We can stay all night if they want to, right on through for hours. They were not prepared to spend all night to give us time to do that, but we are prepared to do that if they need hours and hours tonight. We would be delighted to do that.

MADAM CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate and Fogo.

MR. REID: Absolutely, Madam Chair, there is no point of order.

That is something too, Madam Chair, that I have been noticing in the last few days when they talk about change. Every time we stood on the floor opposite, when we were over there talking about points of order, the Government House Leader stood over here time after time after time and said, they are wasting our time in debate by getting up on frivolous points of order.

Again, the Minister of Finance today said we can have all of the time that we wish. Well, Madam Chair, the comment that the minister just made is not true because we do not have all the time that we wish on this bill, because it has to be approved before the end of this month. Madam Chair, we cannot speak as long as we want on this bill because you will bring in closure on it if we do not have it passed before March 30.

Madam Chair, there is also change happening in the Province. They talk about it and they waxed eloquently about the change that they are bringing about. Yes, there is change, a lot of change. There is a lot of change in the members opposite simply because they crossed that fifteen feet to the other side of the floor. Let me tell you what I am talking about.

Today we have some 20,000 public service union members in this Province who could be on the street in two weeks from now. They could be on the street in two weeks from now. In fact, their leaders and their negotiators are down in one of the hotels here in St. John's trying to come to a deal with government to stop them from putting the people out of their jobs, put them on the street so that the services will be hindered and hampered in this Province that they provide.

When the members opposite were in Opposition, in talking about collective bargaining, it was, oh no, the government's approach was always wrong. They are the government today, Madam Chair, and their approach is wrong, because when they stood here on this side of the House they talked about never legislating anybody back to work.

It is interesting that in the same speech last year, almost to the same day, here is what the Government House Leader said. This is Thursday, March 20, 2003, one year ago. When talking about collective bargaining, here is what the Member for Kilbride, the Government House Leader, said about negotiating with the public service. He said it right here in this House just about one year ago. He said, when talking about strikes, "Unlike you- and he was referring to us- "Unlike you, and unlike you and members opposite, Madam Chair, we would never use the force of this Legislature to legislate people back to work. That is the difference." That is the difference between you and us.

AN HON. MEMBER: Say it again.

MR. REID: Never legislate!

The Member for Kilbride went on to say, "That is the difference. That is the difference!" That is a commitment we make to the people.

By the way, Madam Chair, I would say if he went downstairs and checked with Hansard he could get a tape of himself standing in the House of Assembly with his face turned red yelling that at us: That is our commitment, never to use the Legislature to legislate people back to work. He went on to say, "That is the difference! That was a commitment. That was a public commitment and a public policy on collective bargaining outlined by the leader- the Premier of today- outlined by the leader of our party on behalf of all of us - on behalf of all of our party - to the NAPE biennial convention eighteen months ago."

He was very proud of that when he stood here one year ago to the day and said we would never use the Legislature to legislate civil servants back to work, and the Premier of this Province, the leader he was talking so eloquently about, was standing in front of the doors right out here, behind that door, yesterday, saying, if it is necessary we will legislate; right in the middle of collective bargaining - right in the middle of collective bargaining! - that he says he is going to negotiate in good faith, not in public. He walked through the door of the House of Assembly yesterday and he said that on television so that every public servant in this Province - so that is the change from moving from this side of the floor to that side. That is the type of change that the people of this Province can expect.

I also saw a real change today though, here in the House of Assembly, Madam Chair, a real change because I have not seen it before. What I saw here today, Madam Chair, was in questions to a Minister of the Crown. I saw evidence today, that there are two sets of rules, that I have not seen before. One for everybody else that sits in this Legislature, one for every single district, every single soul in this Province except for - there is one set of rules for everybody else and there is one for the Premier and the Premier's district. That was-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: We saw evidence of that standing here in the House of Assembly this afternoon. On being questioned, time after time after time, by my hon. colleague from L'anse au Clair, the Health Minister got up and said: We cannot give a commitment to this, we cannot give a commitment to that, we cannot give a commitment to something else. On the fourth question, or the fifth question, the Member for Bay of Islands got up and asked about the hospital or the seniors' home in Corner Brook in the Premier's district, and all of a sudden, bang! No more talking about that. The Health Minister was told to sit down and let me, the Premier, say: Yes, the commitment is given. Yes, it will be built. Forget everybody else in the Province. Forget everybody else. Then when questioned about the MRI for Corner Brook -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the member that is time has lapsed.

MR. REID: By leave, Mr. Chair?

When asked to talk about the MRI, the Premier got up and said: Yes, Mr .Speaker. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we gave a commitment -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: - and we will abide by that commitment, but no commitment for anybody else in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

CHAIR: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is my pleasure to speak in this debate on the Interim Supply. Now, Mr. Chair, we have Interim Supply for approximately one-quarter of the full budget before this House and it is traditional on Interim Supply bills, and all financial bills, in fact, for members to talk about financial matters generally, if they wish, or the specifics of interim supply.

Mr. Chairman, I could pick the Department of Health estimates and talk about those particular estimates, or I could pick the Department of Human Resources and Employment and talk about those particular estimates, or I could look at any department and talk about the issue that are in the forefront of the public's mind today which is the fiscal position of the Province.

I do want to talk about that generally, Mr. Chair, and I want to talk about it in a way that puts a perspective on it that I think may be missing in the minds of the public and certainly seems to be missing in the minds of the Minister of Finance and the Premier. We have had all the talk about doom and gloom and how much money we are spending, and how much money this costs and that costs and how we have to be prudent. Well, of course, we all know that we have to be prudent, but I am going to say something that may come as a surprise to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The problem that we have in this Province is not that government is spending too much money, the fact of the matter is we are not spending enough money. We are not spending enough money on education, we are not spending enough money on roads. Mr. Chairman, the road that you keep talking about in your district should have been paved long ago. We should have the money to do these things. We should have the money to ensure that people on social assistance have adequate resources to be able to feed their families. We should be able to eliminate not just child poverty but all forms of poverty in this Province. We should be able to do that Mr. Chairman, and we should be spending more money, not less money. It is the job of this government, and any government in this Province, to ensure that we are able to do that.

What I want to talk about briefly, Mr. Chairman, because I only have another seven or eight minutes to talk about this, is to talk about the issue that I spoke about earlier this afternoon in response to a Ministerial Statement, when the Minister of Energy, the Government House Leader, gave a Ministerial Statement on exploration of our offshore oil and gas fields.

What I said, Mr. Chairman, was that there is a problem. There is a problem about who is the principal beneficiary of our offshore oil resources. The problem is not exactly what the government has been talking about in terms of dealing with the government in Ottawa, and saying that the government in Ottawa is making more money off our resources than we are. The real problem, Mr. Chairman, is that we are not making enough off our resources even before the infamous clawback of 70 per cent to Ottawa.

I want to take you through some of the figures because they are important. They are very important. I want to relate to you first of all the per barrel value. I am going to use Terra Nova as the example because I have very reliable figures from one of the players in Terra Nova. It is Husky Oil, and they report to their shareholders on a quarterly basis what they get per barrel, what they spend per barrel to get that oil, and what their operating profit is on the per barrel oil production of their various holdings, and they compare them. They compare Terra Nova, for example, to western Canadian light crude, their most expensive or most valuable western Canadian oil. They compare it to their heavy, heavy oil from the Tar Sands. They compare it to what they are making in the South China Sea, in partnership with the Chinese government.

Mr. Speaker, what I want to say to you is that the most profitable oil in Canada comes from the offshore of Newfoundland and Labrador. For the year 2003, the value of Terra Nova oil was approximately $39; $38.91. From that, Mr. Chairman, eighty-one cents came to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in royalties.

AN HON. MEMBER: Per barrel.

MR. HARRIS: Per barrel. Eighty-one cents per barrel in royalties, the value of the oil nearly $39 a barrel. One dollar and ninety-five cents went for something called hedging, which is dealing with the currencies and making sure you do not get caught on the wrong side of currency changing. The operating costs for the year 2003, overall, were $3.16 a barrel, leaving $32.99, or almost $33 a barrel in operating profits on Terra Nova.

Mr. Chairman, that is a lot of money, and it compares to the same companies operating profits in Western Canada for light crude, of around $22 a barrel, and their return on heavy oil, synthetic oil, like Syncrude in Northern Alberta, of $14 a barrel. What is interesting, Mr. Chairman, is that the royalties for both of these, Western Canada light crude, and the heavy crude synthetic oils, are significantly higher than they are for Terra Nova. For Western Canada light crude, the royalties that they pay is $7.28 a barrel. Seven dollars and twenty-eight cents a barrel in Western Canada, eight-one cents a barrel here.

If you take those numbers, Mr. Speaker, if you take those numbers and apply them to the whole of the production of Terra Nova in the year 2003, you get some very astounding figures. The value of the 48.8 million barrels of oil produced in Terra Nova in 2003 was nearly $1.9 billion. The royalties from Terra Nova will be $39.5 million, let's say $40 million. Well, the Government of Canada claws back 70 per cent of that, so of that $40 million we only get $12 million and the Government of Canada gets $28 million. So we are not the principal beneficiary.

Mr. Chairman, if we kept it all, every single cent of the revenue from royalties from Terra Nova in 2003, we would have gotten a grand total of $40 million. Do you know what the oil companies would have gotten, or did get, in fact? Even if we had gotten 100 per cent of the royalties in the government coffers in Newfoundland and Labrador, the oil companies who are partners in the Terra Nova project received $1.6 billion, $1,609,000,000 compared to royalties of $40 million.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask you and everybody else in the Province, and in particular the members opposite: Is this something that we can hold our heads high about, when the production companies, when the partners in the Terra Nova project, are getting an operating profit of $1,609,000,000 and the royalties to the owner of the resource is $40 million? That, Mr. Speaker, is why this government and this Minister of Finance are talking about shaving money, finding excuses, asking employees all across: Give us your suggestions for saving money. How many lights can we turn off? How many towns can we not give required money to? How many hospital services can we redirect or change?

This is the problem we are in, Mr. Chairman. We are not spending enough money because we are not getting enough revenue from our resources. That is the problem we are in, that we are not the principal beneficiary of our offshore resources, the oil companies are and something has to be done about that.

My time is up, so I will finish without making a closing and just say thank you very much.

If I could have leave, that would be great.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired. Does the member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the New Democratic Party

MR. HARRIS: I was watching very carefully and I saw the signal. I assumed I was going to be called out of time and I decided to finish, but with leave from hon. members opposite I would be pleased to carry on because I think the point is an important one, and that is that we are not getting the proper prospective on the problems of Newfoundland and Labrador. They are not what we are spending or overspending, and spending too much money. In fact, we are not spending enough. We are not meeting the needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why we have underdevelopment; that is why we have the highest rate of poverty in the country; that is why we have so many demands on our services, and we have to do something about it.

Mr. Chair, one of the things that this government has to do - and I know the Premier when he campaigned did not want to emphasis cutbacks, or attrition, or layoffs when they were brought to his attention. What he said was: I am going to be working on the revenue side. Well, get to it. Let's see this government get to the revenue side and start looking at our resources from the perspective of us as the owners. Yes, we can talk to Paul Martin. Yes, we can deal with the other premiers across the country and say: We need to change the Atlantic Accord. We need to get a bigger share of the royalty revenues because 70-30 just does not cut it when we get 30 per cent and the government of Canada gets 70 per cent on equalization clawback. Yes, we should get 100 per cent, but if we got 100 per cent of the royalty revenues from Terra Nova in 2003, we would still have $40 million to our credit and $1,600 million to the credit of the oil companies. Yes, they have other expenses. Of course, they do. There are capital expenditures involved. There is investment involved, but when you compare what goes on in Terra Nova to what goes on in Western Canada, the operating expenses for heavy crude, the Syncrude type of synthetic oil, the operating expenses there are four and five and six times the operating expenses in offshore Newfoundland and the capital costs are just as great, if not greater. So we do have an extremely, profitable business out there and time is running short because the reserves that have been proven for the Terra Nova field and the Hibernia field are not limitless. They are a defined amount.

As of last May - and I checked this with the C-NOPB today. The last statistics that they posted on their Web site have to do with the proven reserves as of May, 2003. As of May, 2003, 25 per cent of the proven reserves for Terra Nova are already gone. They have already been extracted. So, 25 per cent is already gone and there is only 75 per cent of proven reserves left, and Hibernia has only been producing since 2002. Mr. Chair, we have to be very careful to deal with this problem, and deal with it soon.

With respect to Hibernia, Mr. Chair, they have already extracted 40 per cent of the proven reserves from Hibernia. It is already out of the ground, sold into market, and we have not gotten very much in royalties from that. The production rate at Hibernia is one-and-a-half times what it is for Terra Nova. Seventy-five million barrels of crude oil was taken out of Hibernia last year compared to $48.8 million barrels coming from Terra Nova. This is the nature of our offshore oil business today, Mr. Chair, a very, very extremely profitable business for the oil companies and something that we, as a people in Newfoundland and Labrador, have come to realize that we are getting very negligible amounts from the value of this resource.

Mr. Chair, we talked in this Province for the last twenty-five or thirty years or more about the losses from the Churchill Falls contract. We talked about that, Mr. Chair, both sides of this House. Everybody in this Province is focused on the notion that the value of the Churchill Falls contract has accrued to the people of Quebec through Hydro Quebec and not to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, I say, Mr. Chairman, that in the last ten years what we have seen happen in our offshore oil regime, in terms of the royalty regimes in place, in terms who is getting the lion's share of this resource, we have a worse situation. We have a worse situation than Churchill Falls, and something that has to be addressed; not just with the Government of Canada but with the oil companies and with the future of our offshore oil and gas prospects.

Mr. Chair, the members opposite, when in Opposition, made a great deal of hay about the Voisey's Bay development and the contract that was put in place there. Well, that is another situation, Mr. Chair, where we pointed out time and time again to the government of the day, now sitting in Opposition, that the numbers for the Voisey's Bay development also showed that the Government of Canada was going to be the major beneficiary by the tune of ten to one over the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in terms of revenues from Voisey's Bay. That is a resource that is here on land in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; not offshore, not in some disputed question mark where we have shared jurisdiction or an Atlantic Accord, but our own resources owned by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the kind of arrangements that we made with respect to the exploitation of that resource.

Now, Mr. Chairman, when we hear the people say that we want our oil and gas to be treated the same as if it was onshore, I looked to what we do with the resources that are onshore in terms of Voisey's Bay. If the best we can do for resources that are onshore, that are under the ground within the territory of Newfoundland and Labrador, and all we can do is make sure that Ottawa gets ten times as much as the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, then we have failed. We fail as a people, we fail as a government. So, the issue here is not how can we save $5 or $10 or $5 million or $10 million, or as this government would have it, save $1 billion or $800 million a year from our Budget, which I think is ridiculous - ridiculous, Mr. Chairman, because the accrual method of accounting is not the method of accounting that shows the cash deficit on a year by year basis that we should be trying to make up. The real deficit is the one that was identified by the Minister of Finance last November on a cash basis. The current account deficit and the capital account deficit added together, $285 million, recognized by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives as a sustained cash deficit of $280 million, that is the deficit that needs to be tackled over a period of four years. It can be tackled in two ways, by cutting back on $280 million of expenditure or finding $280 million of revenue within four years. That is what we should be concentrating on, not cutting back on services, not cutting back on employees wages, and not hurting senior citizens, which this government seems to propose to do.

I want to thank all members opposite and members on this side for their indulgence in allowing me to go beyond the ten minutes allocated, but I see another member wants to speak so I will sit and let him speak, the Member for Lewisporte, the Minister of Transportation and Works.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before I begin to make a few remarks on this debate on Interim Supply, let me take the opportunity to say congratulations to his Honour the Speaker, to yourself, Sir, as Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees, and to our colleague the Member for St. John's West, on your election or appointment, as the case is, to those positions. I know you will do tremendous work in carrying out your duties.

I also want to take the opportunity - this is the first time I have had a chance to speak in the House since the election - to thank the people of Lewisporte District, Mr. Chairman, who were so kind to me again in this election. I first ran in Lewisporte in 1999, and I won every community in the district in 1999. I ran again in the last election, and I again won every community in the district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: The only difference was, Mr. Chairman, that in the election in October, I won every community by a greater majority than I did in 1999.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I want to, in a moment of nostalgia, I suppose, Mr. Chairman, say as well that the 2003 election was my seventh election to this place. I first came in here in 1975. There is only one other colleague from the class of 1975 still here, the Member for - what is it called now, Stephenville, Port au Port?

AN HON. MEMBER: Port au Port.

MR. RIDEOUT: Just Port au Port. We came in together in 1975, and I am delighted to see him back.

AN HON. MEMBER: As Liberals.

MR. RIDEOUT: We both came as Liberals, but let me say to the Liberal on the other side, Mr. Chairman: While the light shines out to burn, the vilest sinner may return.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I also say to the Member for Bellevue, do not take that as an invitation that we want you over here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I was attempting to wax into a bit of nostalgia, Mr. Chair, and say how nice it was to have the Member for Port au Port back in the House. I have to say to him that I have a - we came in in 1975 together but I came back a little earlier than he did so I am the senior person in here for whatever that might count. I am sure it does not count for much.

In any event, Mr. Chair, I was kind of thinking today - as I was listening to the debate on Interim Supply, I was kind of thinking today of the strategy here. The Leader of the Opposition started yesterday by saying: No, there was an election. The people spoke. All of the sins of the past are forgiven. We have made a perfect act of contrition. Don't go talking about anything in the past. Mr. Chair, I could not help but remember that for every day I sat where the present Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair sits now, from 1999 to 2003, for every day that I sat there somebody got up on this side of the House and talked about: Oh, when you guys were in power. Ask the Member for Lewisporte, he helped make that decision. He created the mess that we have on our hands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: What a crowd of people to take responsibility, Mr. Chair. No wonder they are over there and we are back over here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: The other thing that I noticed over the last couple of days in listening to debate as well, Mr. Chair, was that the government of the day, from 1999 until 2003, almost every single day they would say: fearmongers, you don't know what you are talking about, lies, innuendo. It did not matter whether it was parliamentary or not.

Now, day after day, Mr. Chair, what do we see? We see members in the Opposition getting up: So, you are going to cut back this service in some place; you are going to do this to the hospital in Stephenville; you are going to do this to some other community in the Province; you are going to close down clinics; you are going to do all of those things. Well I say, Mr. Chair, fearmongering. Just like they used to say to us, Mr. Chair. They spent day after day, week after week, month after month slinging it back across the House every single day. The more things change the more they remain the same.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: That is the new approach.

MR. RIDEOUT: I wonder if the Member for Bellevue might run out and see if he can find a MacLean's magazine somewhere. He might find some interesting reading in it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Or get up and give another Joey speech. Bring the tears to your eyes.

This is something I remember about the Member for Bellevue from 1999 when I came back in here. There were three or four Cabinet shuffles and he did not make it, and he did not make it, and every time we would meet him out in the corridor he would be complaining about the new suits he had bought, and he never made it into Cabinet. Finally, Mr. Chair, just a few months before the last election he made it, but he did not have to buy any new suits because he was suited out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: This is what the Opposition are up to, Mr. Chair, they are trying to get this fearmongering tactic going throughout the Province. They are trying to get people upset even before the Budget comes down, in anticipation of scoring political points. This is all the things that they used to accuse us of when we were over there.

There is no new approach to this from an Opposition perspective. This is as old as parliamentary democracy itself. Once you get over there you start doing the things that everybody else did, but they are not even trying to carry it off with any fresh approach. They accused the Premier today of making budgetary decisions for his own district. The Premier did not say any such thing. He said it is a priority. I am sure that over the life of this government that priority will be addressed, as will a number of other priorities that are in many other districts in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: But no, Mr. Chair, that is not good enough. You have to take that and run with it. You have to take that and try to make something out of it that it is not. You have to take that and try to make a mountain out of a molehill. It is like the old saying: If you tell a lie long enough people will accept it as the truth. Well, if you spin a story long enough and nobody reacts to it, and nobody says anything about it, people out there will accept it as the truth, when there is nothing further from the truth, Mr. Chair. That is the thing that the Opposition is trying -

AN HON. MEMBER: You were experts at that.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, you were experts too. He flung Sprung across the House today, Mr. Chair. What about the hospital companies that they formed? The Trans City Companies that they formed when they were the government? Millions and millions of dollars poured into the pockets of their political buddies. That is openness, that is transparency, that is the probability!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: They have the political face then, Mr. Chairman, the face of a robber's horse, to stand on their legs.... The Member for Grand Falls talked about her legs being worn to the bone on the university bill yesterday. They have the nerve to throw those things across the House when they committed all of that and more, when they did those things and more.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the Middle Distance Fleet?

MR. RIDEOUT: The Middle Distance Fleet, what about it? I remember that same member, when he was the Minister of Transportation, flicking across the House - they were talking about public-private partnerships. Now, that is how you guys financed the Middle Distance Fleet. Do you want to know, if he wants to go back for a history lesson, how their party financed Confederation Building? Do you know how that was done? You do not want to know too much history, do you? You do not want to know whose political friends got - fifty or sixty years being paid off, Confederation Building. How much do you think that cost us? Middle Distance Fleet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, and the only two Middle Distance vessels left in the Province, Mr. Chairman, I understand, are gainfully employed in Labrador, fishing for the Labrador Fisherman's Union Shrimp Company, a fairly wise investment.

That is how we financed some of the new ferries that we build in Marystown, too, Mr. Chairman. The government that just got defeated was talking about financing the Long Island Causeway in the same way. This is the nonsense that the landslide gentleman from Bellevue gets on with.

Mr. Chairman, I have no choice - I am just getting warmed up - I have to adjourn. It is 5:30 p.m.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

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

I guess by agreement I do now move that the House adjourn. We will be back again tomorrow, for Private Members' Day, at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that this House do now adjourn and will sit tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. I do believe we will be hearing the resolution by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

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