The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we are pleased to have statements by the following members: The Member for St. John's Centre, the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair, the Member for Bonavista South, the Member for Bay of Islands, the Member for Trinity North, and the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the many hundreds of volunteers in the curling fraternity in our Province who were instrumental in the successful World Curling Tour Event just completed at Mile One Stadium.

The Pharmassist Players Championship finished up this past weekend with the John Morris Team from Alberta taking home a top prize of $43,000. Overall, there was a total prize of $150,000 available to be won by the competing teams.

Eighteen teams and seventy-two players participated in this event with teams coming from all over Canada, as well as the United States, Switzerland and Scotland.

As well, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge our home grown teams of Mark Noseworthy and Brad Gushue, who performed well during the tournament as both teams finished in second place in their respective divisions during the round robin.

Attendance at the event was fantastic with a new attendance record being set with over 25,000 people enjoying the five days of curling. The playoff and final matches were televised on National TV and helped showcase our Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SKINNER: By leave, please.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

Leave.

MR. SKINNER: - showcased our Province, our facility and our people. A total of $2,000 was donated to the Children's Wish Foundation and a Junior Curling Scholarship was also created from the event proceeds.

Congratulations to all members of the curling fraternity who participated in making this a highlight for the Province and a memorable event for Mile One Stadium. The event will return, Mr. Speaker, to Newfoundland and Labrador in 2005 and 2006.

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 Mr. Jamie Pye, a native of Forteau in the District of Cartwright-L'anse au Clair, for recently being named the recipient of the 2003 Youth of the Year Award for Innovation. This award recognizes the outstanding contribution he has made to the social and economic development of the Province.

Mr. Pye combines graphic design with local artwork and his own photographs to create his own successful small business, Shoreline Creations. Judges noted that the unique setting of the Labrador Coast influences the art he creates. In addition to being the operator of a successful home-based business, he is employed as a field worker with SmartLabrador.

Mr. Pye, along with four other winners in the Province, were recognized recently by Futures in Newfoundland and Labrador's Youth and received a $500 scholarship and a crystal iceberg Youth of the Year Award.

I would also like to congratulate the other four youth who were named as winners in those categories: Sheldon Peddle of Corner Brook for Linkages - recognizing achievements and partnership; Sonya Foley of Tilting for Expression - recognizing artistic endeavours; Megan Stuckless of Botwood for Legacy - recognizing the preservation of our heritage; Ashley Reid of New Harbour for Vision - recognizing outstanding leadership skills.

I would like all hon. members to join me in extending our congratulations to these outstanding young people in our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate Michael Ryder, a native of Bonavista -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: - on his exceptional season in the National Hockey League.

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see that Michael was able to translate his AHL success from a year ago into NHL successes as a rookie with the Montreal Canadiens this year.

At the end of the NHL regular season play yesterday, Michael ranked first among rookies in points, first among rookies in goals, and second among rookies in assists.

Some other players who have led rookie point scoring in years gone by include names like Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux and Steve Yzerman.

Mr. Speaker, in Saturday's final game of the season, Michael scored a goal and, in so doing, also tied a long-standing provincial sport's record held by Tony White for the most goals scored by a Newfoundlander in a single NHL season.

Michael has been credited for his great play-making ability, his quick and strong shot, his commitment to team defence and his effectiveness on the power play. In fact, Mr. Speaker, these skills combined with Michael's numbers this season have put him in contention for the Calder Trophy as the National Hockey League's top rookie.

This is a tremendous accomplishment for Michael, and something I know his family and friends in Bonavista, and indeed, all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are extremely proud of.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join with me today in congratulating Michael Ryder on his tremendous success in the National Hockey League this season, and in wishing him continued success in the playoffs and in his future hockey career.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, March 6, I had the pleasure of attending the HIS Volunteer Fire Department's Annual Firefighters Ball.

The HIS fire department was started in 1983 and provides firefighting services to the Towns of Hughes Brook and Irishtown Summerside.

At this event, several firefighters were recognized for their contribution to the department and their community. Five of the founding members received twenty-year Long Service medals, which include: Fire Chief Rick Parsons, Captain William Parsons, firemen Alvin Loder, Kirk Brake and Danny Wheeler.

Other members recognized for their service were: Winston Anderson, Firefighter of the Year; Garwin Parsons received the Premier's Award, and Jamie Barrow received the award for Rookie of the Year.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to make mention of another group that attended the event: the women who make up the HIS Firettes. This group has raised thousands of dollars over the years to help support the fire department in purchasing much needed firefighting equipment and deserves to be recognized.

Mr. Speaker, I invite all members of this hon. House to join with me in commending the members of the HIS fire department and indeed all volunteer firefighters across the Province for their tremendous contribution to the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate the Trinity Historical Society. On March 24, they received the Manning Award in the provincial importance category for the restoration of the Green Family Forge.

Mr. Speaker, the Manning Awards, created in 1993, recognize excellence in the presentation of places like the Green Family Forge that have had such a significant historical value in our Province. The Awards were established to encourage the efforts of those organizations who work very hard to ensure the survival of such structures.

Mr. Speaker, for six generations, the Green family had been blacksmiths in Trinity, passing down their knowledge and expertise from father to son. The forge currently holds approximately 1,500 artifacts from the family's long history as blacksmiths dating back nearly 250 years. The tradition of the forge continues today during the summer months as the Historic Society have employed a full-time seasonal blacksmith to manufacture items of interest for visitors to the area as well as to supply the local market.

Mr. Speaker, this award comes at a particularly significant time as this year also marks the fortieth anniversary of the Trinity Historic Society. Having recently had the pleasure of attending their fortieth celebration, I can assure this House that these awards are well deserved for a group of individuals who endeavour to ensure the survival of our historical places for generations to come. This is the second award -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. WISEMAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, this is the second award the Trinity Historical Society has received for its restoration work on the forge since it was recognized in 1991 as an historic structure by the Heritage Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador. In 1998 the society was awarded the Southcott Award from the Newfoundland Historic Trust.

I ask members of this House to join with me today in congratulating the Trinity Historical Society for the tremendous work that they do in preserving the history of Trinity and also contributing to the Province as a whole, in ensuring our history is not forgotten.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Kim White, a student from Carbonear who has recently been selected to travel to Ottawa to participate in the Forum for Young Canadians this April. Every year some 550 students from across Canada take part in this forum to experience first-hand how our nation's government works. I believe that Ms White will make an excellent ambassador for Newfoundland and Labrador. Ms White is very active in her community, and is hard-working.

Not only will she be taking part in the Forum for Young Canadians, but she is also a member of the Baccalieu Trail Youth Council, a member of the RCMP Youth Advisory Board, a member of the Key Club, which is a junior club of the Kiwanis, and she takes part in Futures in Newfoundland and Labrador's Youth. If that is not enough, Ms White was also recently involved in Rural Expo 2003 and she is a peer-helper at Carbonear-Collegiate High School.

Clearly, Ms White is a very dedicated member of her community and very deserving of this opportunity to meet other students like herself across Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending congratulations to Ms White for being selected for this forum and our best wishes in her endeavour.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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.

This being again, unfortunately, a day in the continuation of the most massive strike in the Province's history, I have some questions for the Premier, and someone will answer on behalf of the government.

Mr. Speaker, isn't it true - and maybe the House Leader can answer - that the Premier deliberately sought an invitation to be in Corner Brook today rather than to be here dealing with the most massive strike - and questions about it - in the Province's history?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier is Premier of this Province. He does not want to be confined inside the overpass. That would be your first complaint. He has commitments in his district, and to the people of this Province, and he is going to fulfil his commitments to every person in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, what the Finance Minister - who is, when the one-man show is not here, supposedly, the chief negotiator for the Province - is trying to suggest is that this was a long-standing commitment that the Premier had in Corner Brook today, rather than what we know, that on Saturday the Premier spent the time calling people in Corner Brook asking for an invitation to be there today.

When the normal host declined - out of respect for the strikers - he called his friends and asked them if they would organize a luncheon today so he would not have to be here to answer questions when we have the most massive strike that he has caused in the history of the Province, Mr. Speaker. Is this a long-standing commitment? Mr. Speaker, is that what the Finance Minister is trying to have us believe?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier of the Province called the President of NAPE on Friday and indicated that he was available to meet him any time the weekend. He remained until 12 midnight. The chief negotiator, I had in this building here until midnight Sunday night and the phone never rang. We are prepared to sit down. In fact, at two o'clock today, pretty well as I speak here, my negotiators will be sitting to the table with Mr. Puddister and Mr. Lucas and their team to try to get a resolution to this issue.

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 the people of the Province will see through the charade that is happening here today. We have the Premier who conveniently is not available to answer questions and then we have the Finance Minister who is th chief negotiator who will not answer direct questions put to him.

Mr. Speaker, he talked about the overpass. A Budget presented last week with 4,000 job cuts, a two-year wage freeze, major service cuts in health care, education and all public services - this question, Mr. Speaker, for the Government House Leader: There is a motion given that we won't adjourn at five-thirty today nor at ten o'clock tonight. Are they so ashamed of this Budget that they want us to be here in the nighttime because they want to discuss it and debate under cover of darkness? Mr. Speaker, why are they trying to close the House and have this debate happen in the nighttime instead of broad daylight? Are they that ashamed of what they read last week in the Budget?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me correct, first of all, a release put out by the Leader of the Opposition. He said today that we are trying to run the House and run them out of time in the seventy-five hour budget debate. Mr. Speaker, as an experienced parliamentarian the Leader of the Opposition would know that the Finance Critic on her time right now doesn't not come out of the seventy-five hours debate. On top of that, neither does his time, neither does his Opposition House Leader's time, neither does any of their time.

Mr. Speaker, let me say this to the member opposite: There is a new government in place, we have a serious and a large legislative agenda to put forward, and I can assure the Leader of the Opposition this, that whether we meet tonight, tomorrow night or every night up until June the cameras in this House will be on to see your performance and ours, and we are not ashamed of 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.

Mr. Speaker, what the people of the Province would know is that there is no legislative agenda on our Order Paper in this Legislature. The only item is the Budget which we have three or four months to debate and we gladly do so. They want us here after dark, Mr. Speaker, because they are ashamed -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - of what it is. None of them will speak to it, they are that ashamed of what they have done.

Mr. Speaker, maybe the real question is this. Maybe they really are trying to close the House so that the Premier can get down to Florida on Good Friday like he planned all along. Is that the real circumstance, Mr. Speaker? Would he like to give us a specific answer to that question, about what the real plans are and why they are trying to have us here in the nighttimes when there is absolutely no need of it. They are trying to take the place on their backs! Everybody knows there is a new government and they do not like what they see, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it has often been said that the House of Assembly is somewhat theatrics and it has been proven in front of me today.

The Leader of the Opposition either knows, or the Opposition House Leader has not told him, that, first of all, the House will close according to the Parliamentary Calendar that you put in place; which will be Wednesday or Thursday.

Secondly, I have also advised, as early as last week and again today, the Opposition House Leader and the Leader of the NDP, that, yes, we do have a legislative agenda. It will be provided for them over Easter in time so that they can assess it, digest it and have a more informed debate in the House.

Let me ask the Leader of the Opposition this: Have you knowingly stood up and indicated to the House something that you know not to be true, or has your Opposition House Leader taken the time to advise you?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: On a supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I am glad to have the answer.

It might be instructive to know that the calender that we all agreed to, this House did not open on the scheduled time because the government was not ready.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Now they are trying to rush through items because they are not ready, and now we find out that they do plan to close for a two-week break for Easter, even if 20,000 people are still on the streets, rather than come here every day and answer questions about it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me get to this question for the chief negotiator for the government, the President of Treasury Board. The Premier who has taken himself and put him in his position as the one-man show and will not let the Finance Minister do his job as the chief negotiator has shown himself -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to finish his question.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

- showing himself to be a temperamental bully, so much so that the Globe and Mail has even said: What we need to solve Newfoundland and Labrador's fiscal problem requires a cool head, not a hot temper. When will the government, through the chief negotiator, or the Premier if he does not have enough manliness about him to do it, apologize to the people, apologize to the people for being hot-headed and going out and saying: These people will stay out until the cows come home?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: When are the people of the Province going to receive an apology for that kind of hot-tempered, ill-measured, improper statement by the Premier or the chief negotiator?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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 am not sure who is hot-tempered or misguided here today. When 20,000 are out on the streets and trying to get an agreement, the only question he has is about the Premier's travel schedule and an apology. It is time to get on with asking questions, trying to get people back to work, something constructive here to get this resolution resolved!

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.

Maybe the chief negotiator for the Province can finally get the one-man show out of the way. Maybe he has gotten him out of the way today deliberately so he might get to do his own job because the Premier has made a complete and utter and total mess of it to date, starting on January 5.

Mr. Speaker, and something constructive - when is the President of Treasury Board going to get his boss, the one-man show, the Premier, to stop grandstanding out on the picket lines attempting to divide and conquer the unions? Doesn't he acknowledge that is only making it virtually impossible to get an agreement, that kind of grandstanding? When is he going to rein him in and do the job that he is there to do as the Finance Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The chief negotiator is now in the process of meeting with the President of NAPE and CUPE on behalf of this Province to try to get an agreement here. We will make every effort to clearly articulate our position to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and to anyone who asks. We want to make sure our position is clear. It is unambiguous there and anytime I am asked, and I have been asked by telephone today by people and members of the union who called my office, I am going to make clear the position of our Province so the public and the people know. I will respond to that, as I should do, to make sure what is on the table here in our Province.

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, surely the President of Treasury Board does not expect anyone in the Province to believe that a civil servant who is now speaking to the union reps is not going to come back to the President of Treasury Board or the Premier to get direction. He is trying to suggest that he is not the chief negotiator. I know he is not, because the Premier is. That is part of the problem, Mr. Speaker.

The issue is this - the whole point is - which position seems to be the problem. It is almost like a game of, Who Wants to be a Millionaire? Last week it was zero, zero, two and three, and no concessions.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the member now to finish his question.

MR. GRIMES: Today it is zero, zero, one and two, plus all the concessions are back on the table. What is your final answer? How is anybody supposed to know? What kind of a game are you playing out there?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The final answer will be worked out at the negotiating table, not pull the rug on the whole negotiations like he was used to doing when he was in the position.

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, the Premier - I expect upon the advice of his chief negotiator, the President of Treasury Board - keeps asking the union members to put it to a vote. What would they put to a vote today? Would it be what they talked about last week, what is in The Telegram today, what is out there with Danny's signature on it, the same as the signature that said no layoffs during the election in full-page ads? What would they put to a vote? Don't they realize that tactic of trying to divide and conquer is part of the problem instead of being part of the solution? When are they going to get back to some real respect and dignity that the Premier talked about at the NAPE convention, and deal with the leadership and try to get a deal?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We made clear to the negotiating team with the unions exactly what our position is. What they want to put to a vote of their membership, they will determine -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: He should know that the union leaders will determine what they want their membership to vote on. I can only say that we will make it unambiguous, quite clear and in writing what our offer to them is, and if we so desire we will make that available to the public so they will know too.

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, again this government, with the one-man show, obsessed with one-upmanship, and his chief negotiator, is trying to now suggest that a bureaucrat is the chief negotiator. They say, put it to a vote when the people do not know what it is on any one day what they are supposed to put to a vote. You have to convince, Mr. Speaker, the leadership, not try to force them to do those things.

Will they, and will the Finance Minister, recommend to the one-man show that the Budget that they are so ashamed of, that they will not even talk about and debate about in the daylight, will you put that to a vote with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition should know that budgets are debated in this House, and they will be debated in this month and they will be running into next month. Some time in May it will be put to the people of this House, who are elected to represent the people of the Province for a four-year mandate, and we will carry out the responsibilities that we were given.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment and Status of Women.

Now that the Premier has made such a mess of bargaining with the unions that represent public sector employees, I ask the minister: Will she now step in and see if she can have more success in solving this strike? Can she solve the problem that the Premier has created?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, at this time it would be my wish, and the wish of the government, that a consensus and a negotiation would continue until we reach an agreement with the union.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: A supplementary for the Minister of Labour in this Province. Does she see herself as having any constructive role in solving this strike, which is a role the Minister of Labour normally takes on? When is she going to do her job?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as part of the collective bargaining process, mediators from the Labour Relations Agency have been involved in the process for the whole time and we will continue to be involved as required to bring this to some agreement.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess the hon. minister is washing her hands completely of the problem we have in this Province today.

My final supplementary to the minister is: Has the minister apologized to the leaders of NAPE and CUPE for the Premier's actions in attempting to break the unions last Friday, and if she has not, will she apologize for his attempt at union busting in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I know for a fact that our Premier is quite capable of speaking for himself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe I can pry an answer out of the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board.

Mr. Speaker, this government has shown that they have no regard for the collective bargaining process. It appears we are headed back to the Peckford days of the 1980s when union leaders were jailed and union members were forced back to work.

Can the minister deny reports -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, can the minister deny reports that he has instructed his officials to prepare back-to-work legislation to force strikers back to work?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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 would ask the hon. member, you know, to try to get her facts straight and hopefully her research will be a bit better. I can certainly deny it because we haven't asked them to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would ask hon. members of this House to take note of today's date, April 5, because in a series of intimidation moves by this government since January 5, and as recently as a news conference last week, the Premier threatened the unions when he indicated that a legislated agreement would be less beneficial to the unions than the offer on the table last week.

Will the minister confirm for this House today that back-to-work legislation contains contract language that indeed has been changed to implement a wage freeze and strip current benefits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

She probably did not hear very well the response to my first question. If she is on a fishing trip she is fishing in the wrong place, because I have not instructed anybody to prepare any back to work with any terms or conditions in it, and I am not aware of any that is in the process, so I say to the minister, go back fishing again for some other reason.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, we have heard that the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board has not told his officials to go prepare that back-to-work legislation, but has the Premier of this Province instructed his officials to prepare that back-to-work legislation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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 will certainly endeavour to get an answer. You will have to ask -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: You will have to ask the Premier what he has told his officials. I can tell you, I have not told officials. I am not aware of any specifics, I can tell you. The hon. member is once again on a fishing trip, because she wants to see -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have asked for some quietness. It is not possible to hear the answer, if we have too much noise in the House.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member seems to be more intent on provoking things rather than getting a resolution to this strike. They do not want a resolution to this. We want to see it; we want to deal with collective bargaining and deal with this at the table. We do not want to see the possibility of having to legislate back, as happened when you sat on this side of the House and you were the government of the day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Premier but, in his absence, the Minister of Finance, who today has been talking about being constructive. Will he acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, that so far his government and the Premier have been anything but constructive in dealing with the public sector strike, whether going behind the backs of the leadership directly to the members, trying to discredit the leadership of the unions publicly, and insinuating that union members in this Province would seek to choose to use violence against family members of the government? All of these things, Mr. Speaker, are totally destructive of the process of trying to get an agreement with our public sector workers. Will he not acknowledge that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will acknowledge that when we are asked to clarify what we put on the table, we will do that. We will make that aware. Whether it is by telephone or whether someone asks on walking into this building, we will clarify our position and that is the right.

I would like to say that the Premier has not, in anyway, indicated. He said it is a price that his son paid because he is Premier. He did not indicate that anybody, in any union whatsoever, had anything to do with it. It is very unfair for the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi to try to inflame the situation when we are trying to get a settlement here in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, this is a government and leadership that took an offer off the table on March 31 and then insisted that the members be allowed to vote on it. That is the kind of constructive, so-called, behaviour that is going on.

Mr. Speaker, now that the first round of negotiations has totally failed as a result of the actions of this government and bargaining has commenced again, will this government now take these concessions off the table - that the members of this union have already been out on strike for years and years ago - and start to negotiate fairly and put a fair offer on the table that will try to end this strike, and not try to provoke, prolong it and keep people out on the streets until the cows come home, to use the Premier's phrase?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today on the Open Line program I clarified some of the things that were mentioned on the NAPE Web site which do not accurately reflect the position that we offered to union members until midnight. Numerous things are inaccurate in that Web site. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we are trying to articulate to the people exactly what our position is and as we provided to them in writing on that night. That is what we want to do, get the truth out. We are prepared to sit down and deal with the issues back at the negotiating table here, but we want what we have offered portrayed accurately to the people and we want to see it portrayed accurately to the membership of those respective unions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: A very simple question, Mr. Speaker: Is this government and is this minister prepared to put an end to concession bargaining and put a fair offer on the table?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to get a fair settlement for the people of the Province. Currently listed on NAPE's Web site are conditions that are not even in the past agreement. Extra concessions above and beyond what they currently have they want us to agree to. We are not prepared to jeopardize the Province in areas of demands they currently do not have. We are prepared to discuss other issues and hopefully get some mutual ground on issues. Some are not being articulated clearly at all. We were prepared.

One of the issues mentioned said: we will not give a guarantee that we will not roll the Provincial Pension Plan altogether. We gave that guarantee to them, Mr. Speaker. We want that articulated properly to the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: In the allocated time, we have room for one question by the Member for Labrador West. In the scheduled four minutes, there is about half a minute left.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, and Responsible for the Status of Women. I want to ask the minister: If, in this Province, under our current legislation there was a strike at Abitibi Price or the Iron Ore Company of Canada or Wabush Mines or some other private enterprise and management went to the picket line talking directly to the workers, under our legislation would you consider that to be an unfair labour practice?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that in this House of Assembly I do not feel comfortable commenting on speculation only.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Labrador Affairs. Minister, Tuesday's Budget was full of betrayal and broken promises made to the people of Labrador, but minister, nowhere was the hurt and betrayal felt more than that by the youth in Labrador when you and your government failed to commit funds to build an auditorium in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. I ask the minister: Will he tell this House and the people in Labrador why he and his government have betrayed the youth in Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Member for Torngat Mountains knows and the people of Labrador know - if they do not know, then it has certainly been articulated publicly by me and by others since the Budget was brought down last week - that the Mealy Mountain Auditorium project has been deferred. It has not been cancelled. This government is fully committed to having an auditorium for the people and the youth of all of Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and we will see that happens in due course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Deferred, Mr. Speaker, and probably deferred until the cows come home.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, this government continues to betray the people of Labrador. There was no announcement of the Premier's Office in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, no senior position with the Department of Natural Resources for Labrador West, and certain parts of the Trans-Labrador Highway that will not be cleared during the winter.

I ask the minister again why he and his government continue to betray the people in Labrador, especially the youth?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and Labrador Affairs.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We certainly have not betrayed the people of Labrador. We have committed to the priorities of the people of Labrador. We have committed to Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway, we have to the Mealy Mountain auditorium, Mr. Speaker. As the former minister knows, in the context of every departmental budget there is always opportunity for the Premier's Office to be put up there, or a senior official from the Department of Mines and Energy, and all of these things will be dealt with in due course in the confines of the Budget that is already laid out. Where positions are staffed in the short term or in the long term is something that happens within the department's decision making.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a point of order arising from one of the answers given in Question Period by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board when he was answering a question from the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, talking about the events, the unfortunate events, that gave rise to the comment: They will stay out until the cows come home.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance suggested that at no time did the Premier suggest that union members had anything to do with this. The direct quote in the media is: I believe that this is a price my son has paid for my political involvement.

What we need, Mr. Speaker, is not inappropriate excuses for an intemperate and inappropriate - we need an apology, especially in light of the fact that my information today is that the investigation is complete, the charges have been laid, and it does not involve a member of either one of the unions that are on strike.

When are we going to get the apology, Mr. Speaker, instead of these weak excuses in trying to explain away the improper, inappropriate actions taken by the Premier of the Province? When are we going to get the apology? That is the real question, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

To the point of order, first of all, for the record, last week at a press conference the Premier was asked about the situation, to which he responded. Secondly, he indicated publicly, immediately, that he was in no way alleging that the union or anybody associated with it had -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I had the presence to sit and listen to the point of order by the Leader of the Opposition in quiet, and I would appreciate the same courtesy by him and the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. The second point is this: The Premier said exactly last week that he in no way alleged that any member of the union had anything to do with that. He said that publicly. What we are witnessing here today is the type of lowball politics that we have become accustomed to, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: The fact of the matter is this -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: The fact of the matter is -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask that members co-operate and we will be able to hear the presentation by the Government House Leader.

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

The fact of the matter is that the assertion and the point of order that the Leader of the Opposition has raised has more to do with political grandstanding than a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is important to know that the statement that may have been made by the Premier, that he did not believe that someone from the union was involved in that particular incident involving his son, was followed by a warning that if any union member harmed a member of his family or his caucus or their families.... That was, what I suggest, an insinuation that union members - why would you warn people if you did not believe that this was being contemplated or might be contemplated by union members? That is the point that is being made, Mr. Speaker. That was the inflammatory remark for which the people and the union leadership have been looking for an apology.

The minister is suggesting that I said something entirely different than that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

While the circumstances giving rise to the point of order are indeed unfortunate, the Chair has to rule that there is no point of order. There is, however, a difference of interpretation of an event that has occurred by hon. members of the House.

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

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS there are unfortunately 20,000 public service employees on a legal strike resulting in serious service disruptions; and

WHEREAS there was no consultation with their elected representatives, as promised by the Premier in his address to the NAPE convention in September 2001; and

WHEREAS there has been very little real negotiation between government, as the employer, and the union negotiator; and

WHEREAS the Premier has made threatening remarks regarding the strikers being punished and left off the job "until the cows come home"; and

WHEREAS the Premier has engaged personally in unfair labour practices by passing the elected leaders and the negotiators in an attempt to divide and conquer the unions;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly call upon the government to return to meaningful negotiations with professional negotiators in an attempt to reach a mutually agreed new contract; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the House of Assembly call upon the Premier to reinstate his commitment to respect the bargaining process and not use the Legislature to impose an agreement.

That is the Private Members' Resolution, Mr. Speaker, for Wednesday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS the government committed in their election platform to reduce ferry rates to the equivalent of road travel; and

WHEREAS the recent Budget saw increases of 25 per cent instead;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly call upon the government to recommit to its stated plan and log out a time line for when the people of the Province can expect the plan to be implemented.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on tomorrow I will move the following private member's motion:

WHEREAS a strong and dedicated civil service is an important part of maintaining and improving both the social and economic life of people in this Province;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly does not agree with a downgrading of the civil service in this Province.

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 to present a petition from constituents of mine in the Cartwright-L'anse au Clair area. It is with regard to the marine services, in particular the Labrador Coastal marine services that operate between Cartwright and Goose Bay.

Mr. Speaker, the people of my district still do not have a decision from this government on what the configuration of marine services will be for this coming year. They have implemented, of their own doing, a consultant's report to look at the entire service in this region and to look at what will be supplied to the people.

Now, Mr. Speaker, for the people who are watching, I want to explain this because even hon. members on the other side -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is altogether too much noise from my left. I ask if the hon. member could present her petition in relative silence and we could all hear the prayer and the words that she wants to communicate.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the Member for Lake Melville would like to hear what I have to say.

Mr. Speaker, for the public to understand this issue, in Labrador we have three particular ships that provide a service to the people. We have a freight service that operates from Lewisporte to the North Coast to Nain. We have a passenger service and freight service that operates from Cartwright to the North Coast to Nain, and we have a Labrador ferry that operates between Cartwright and Goose Bay.

Now, Mr. Speaker, my constituents and I believe that there is an agenda by the Minister of Transportation to take that ferry, that Labrador ferry, and move it back to his hometown in his own constituency in Lewisporte. Mr. Speaker, do you know why I feel that way and the reason my constituents have to go out and take names on a petition to come to this government to try and get a decision on what kind of marine service they will have this year? It is absolutely unbelievable that this could happen.

Mr. Speaker, we feel the report that has been submitted to this government, which they will not release to anyone in my district, will not release to the people of the Province, does contain recommendations that support the existing service, but we feel because of comments that have been made by the Minister of Transformation, right on the date of his election, in his own paper, in his own district, saying that he wants to boost the economy there and he will do it by bringing back the ferry to Lewisporte. Mr. Speaker, I am asking, I am pleading today on behalf of one of the ruralist areas in this district, one of the regions that needs this service more than anywhere in the Province, for this government to let the Labrador ferry be a Labrador ferry for the people who live in that area.

Mr. Speaker, it is because of decisions that we have made in marine services in my district that we have allowed the economy to grow.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I cannot even hear myself. The Member for Placentia is consistently -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

Again, I ask that we show some -

MS JONES: May I have leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been denied.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents in my district. Mr. Speaker, the petition reads:

WHEREAS all other residents of Labrador, except Labrador West, travel to Goose Bay for medical services at a cost of $40 return airfare; and

WHEREAS residents of Labrador West have to pay nearly $500 to access the same services.

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to direct the government to amend this discriminatory policy immediately so as all residents of Labrador West can avail of the same medical services at the same cost as any other resident living in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, this is a terrible situation that has been going on for far too long. People in my district who are referred to Goose Bay for CT scans, or other services not available in Labrador West, have to pay through the nose for what everybody else in Labrador gets for $40 return. I say to the government: Do you believe that is fair, because people in my district certainly do not? People in my district do not.

For the last year we have been arguing and fighting for us to be treated the same as people in other areas. I brought it to the previous administration for a year. It was not acted on there and to date, with six months into this new administration, there is still no action on this point, but it is very important. I do not see why we should be treated differently. There is 600 kilometres of gravel road between Labrador West and Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Driving is not an option, Mr. Speaker. We have all heard the stories over the years about accidents that take place on that road. The only sensible way for people with medical conditions is to be able to fly, but in order to do that, Mr. Speaker, it has to be within a reasonable rate because people do not deserve, living in one area of Labrador, to be treated differently than people in other areas.

Mr. Speaker, this petition says people travelling to Goose Bay from anywhere else in Labrador. I would like to point out there is a difference there because, as I understand it, people in some areas of Labrador can travel and fly to St. Anthony for the same price.

Mr. Speaker, Labrador West is signaled out. We are being discriminated against.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is a lot of dialogue across the House, you might say. Again, it is very difficult for the member to be able to present his petition when the noise level is as high as it is.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, Mr. Speaker, we are calling upon government to treat people in Labrador West the same as people in other parts of Labrador; not carry on the discriminating policy that currently exists. All we are asking for, Mr. Speaker, is not special treatment, we are only asking to be treated the same.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Motion 1, that the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board has already moved that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

We are looking forward to a wonderful and eloquent afternoon by the Member for Grand Falls- Buchans and the critic for Finance and critic for Treasury Board.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I, for one, will be here til the cows come home.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Had I thought about it earlier, Mr. Speaker, I could have worn my ‘udderly' ridiculous cow costume.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: This is really no laughing matter, Mr. Speaker. What I need to talk about here today is that the people of this Province are - they are certainly dismayed, that is an understatement. I was out to my district again this weekend, and everywhere I went, whether it was in Church or the supermarket or on the street, people are feeling pretty down.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are outraged.

MS THISTLE: They are outraged. They are feeling like they are lost, they are hopeless, they do not know what their situation - what happened, this feeling that has now captured the Province's attention.

This time last year people in the Province were happy. They were looking forward to another big summer of tourism, a lot of work underway, a lot of school construction, a lot of health care improvements, a lot of housing starts, a lot of car sales. There was a general feeling of optimism in the air. I don't know what has happened with this new government. They have pulled the blind. They have pulled the blind on our economy.

The biggest shock, I think, I got was yesterday when I came out of church in Grand Falls-Windsor. I went up over Hospital Hill and I saw the sign that was erected by the Central West Health Care Board for announcing our new cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor, and right across it in spray paint, blue spray paint, was: Cancelled by Danny. I asked the strikers, when did that sign get defaced like that, and they said, when they came on duty in the morning it was there, on Sunday morning, Palm Sunday: Our Cancer Clinic was Cancelled by Danny.

I looked up the correspondence that had made the case for the cancer clinic and I said to myself, there are a lot of things we can do with this budget, and it is all about making choices. When I stood on my feet last Thursday I talked about the Premier's office he is going to have in Ottawa, starting off with $375,000 for the first year. Of course, that will snowball because once he gets up there, or someone gets up there, some political patronage person gets up there, they will want to expand on that, it won't be good enough.

Three hundred and fifty thousand dollars in the Budget for the Premier's office, and I looked at what the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor would cost. They had fund-raised, they had a contribution from the Newfoundland and Labrador Cancer Foundation and they also had the sale of the Carmelite House. At this time last year, when interest rates were 5¾ per cent at the bank, they were looking at a loan of $3.2 million. That has probably been reduced since then because of more fund-raising and interest rates have come down.

Even if we do deal with the figure from last year, do you know what the payments would be on that? Does anybody know what it would cost to pay off that cancer clinic in ten years? Based on last year's interest rate on the amount they wanted last year, it would cost $421,000 a year to bring that cancer treatment to the people who need it most.

This government has chosen to spend a starting figure of $350,000 a year to put an office in Ottawa - can you imagine! - when we know that there are so many people, all in Central Newfoundland, who require this cancer clinic and need it and want it and should have it. They should have the dignity and good service. The nurses in the hospital in Grand Falls-Windsor are performing beyond measure. They are giving such excellent treatment to the cancer patients, but to think that for another $50,000 a year, can you imagine? Rather than have that Premier's office up in Ottawa the people in Grand Falls-Windsor and Central Newfoundland could have a cancer clinic.

That is all about making choices. It was interesting to see the PricewaterhouseCoopers book. It was entitled - where is their title? It is here somewhere. Directions, Choices and Tough Choices. That is the independent study the new government had and that is how they tailor-made their Budget, based on that study. Now, for $50,000 more a year we could have the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor.

I would like to say to the members opposite: Who, across the way here, would stand up as being the member of the new Tory government and say that the office in Ottawa is more important than the cancer clinic? Come on everybody, jump on their feet. Everybody jump up. Let me see now, who would jump up across there and say: If I was in the Cabinet, or if I was talking to the Premier this is what I would do, I would say go for the cancer clinic; forget about the Ottawa office. I do not see anybody rushing to get up on their feet though, do I? I do not see anybody rushing to get to their feet. No, sir, the silence is deafening. You will not hear any cow hoofs there trying to jump up or anything.

This is ridiculous. We could have had our cancer clinic. We should have our cancer clinic and I, for one, will be fighting for that cancer clinic. It might be a bump in the road but I can tell you one thing for sure, that the people of this Province are not going to sit down when it comes to making choices and agree to an office for the Premier in Ottawa when he will not have a cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor for the people who need it the most.

I also stood on my feet last week when one of our members brought forward a resolution on health care. I said that there is a disease in this Province that is attacking the eyesight of our seniors. I cannot remember the exact name of it but it was some kind of macular degenerative disease that attacks seniors over the age of fifty-five. I also said that the St. John's Health Care Corporation, if they had $450,000 to buy the equipment, that could prevent at least 120 of our Newfoundlanders and Labradorians from going blind.

Now I ask this new government, who is in the business of making tough choices: Will anybody stand on their feet from over there on the other side today and tell me what is most important, the Premier's office in Ottawa, or preventing 120 of our seniors in Newfoundland and Labrador from going blind? Will anybody stand on their feet and tell me what is the most important today? No, not one. No, not one. No, not one.

I am also going to talk today about an issue that is facing all of Newfoundland and Labrador. I will get back to health care issues because health care has always been number one in this Province, although I do not know from what I seen in this Budget Book this time.

The new government had always blamed us, the former administration, for putting one-time money, as they called it, towards health care projects. As a result, we had a ballooning deficit. Well, let me ask the members opposite, the new government with the new approach, who stood on the fence or sat on the fence - it is a wonder they did not fall over or cause injury, but they were the same ones who were on their feet everyday saying: We have to do something about that doctors' strike. Yet, they never came out and they never said: Go pay the doctors what they need to keep them here. But, they did not say not to pay them. Today they are saying that we have a ballooning deficit. So what is it? It is all about making the right decisions. I can tell you one thing, when it comes to health care I think we have made all the right decisions.

When you have people lined up for cardiac surgery - I saw the current Finance Minister over here almost having a heart attack, his blood pressure was that high. He was like a red beet, right in this place where I am standing today. He was putting forward the reason why we should be putting money into the health care system; so we would not have people lined up and dying in the streets because they could not get their cardiac surgery. Now that same minister is over there today saying we have the biggest deficit ever recorded in history.

I want to bring to attention something that I seen on Out of the Fog. I think it might have been last Thursday night. I could stand to be corrected on that. When the Premier of this Province said that we have the largest deficit ever recorded in this Province's history.

MR. REID: I think Tom Rideout was there when that happened. He was part of the Cabinet for sure.

MS THISTLE: Well I do not know, this would have been - I think when I look back over the figures for finance - would he have been around in 1983-1984?

MR. REID: Definitely, in the Cabinet.

MS THISTLE: In the Cabinet, okay. That would be the Minister of Transportation and Works, is it?

Anyway, the Premier was asked a question by the interviewer, and his reply was: It is the largest deficit ever recorded in this Province's history. Well, let me tell the viewing audience out there today that one of the biggest deficits ever recorded in this Province's history was 1983-1984 and that particular deficit was $326 million.

I think it is also very right and very fair to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Now, if you were to convert that deficit of 1983, $326 million, to today's money, what would you have? You would have $538 million. Just a raw cash deficit, nothing else included. Just a raw cash deficit. I think what the people of this Province are finding out through the media and other ways is that there is an education process going on here in this Province. Our Minister of Finance has conveniently tried to muddy the waters. All he talks about now is the cash deficit, where a year ago all he talked about was the accrual deficit. All the new government is talking about is the cash deficit. They are talking about a cash deficit of $362 million. They are making a commitment to the voters in this Province that they are going to get rid of the cash deficit in the next four years. Well now, let me tell you something, there is nothing being said about the accrual deficit. The accrual deficit is the entire deficit of the Province's debt; long-term debt. I can tell you, that has been growing since Confederation, and without divine intervention of Ottawa there will be no way that the long-term debt of this Province will be cleared up. So, they really, under false pretenses, left the impression with the voters of this Province that they were going to kill the deficit in four years, but the only thing they are trying to kill in the next four years is the cash deficit. In other words, what we overspend on the year-to-year basis.

It is like I said last week, if you have a household budget of $1,500 and you spend $1,700, you already have $200 of an overdraft. Well, they are going to try to kill that overdraft in the next four years. They are not the least bit worried about the long-term debt because they know full well that they are never going to pay it off. Even if they waited until the cows came home, they would never pay off the long-term debt. I think it is important for the people of our Province to know, that the only thing they are trying to pay off is the cash deficit.

I want to talk, Mr. Speaker, about that.

The Minister of Finance titles his - the tough medicine that he had to dish out to the people of this Province, he is talking about responsible choices. Let me tell you that there is a proposal going forward in Grand Falls-Windsor concerning our school board out there. This government never had the decency to come out and say that they were closing down the school board office for District 5. All they did, Mr. Speaker, was provide layoff slips for everybody. No answers to any questions.

Everybody knows that Grand Falls-Windsor is in the centre of this Province. If anybody is my age, or a little bit younger, they can remember the Trans-Canada Highway going through our Province. Remember the slogan, Finish The Drive In Sixty-Five?

The centre of our Province is Pearson's Peak. Pearson's Peak is to the west of Grand Falls-Windsor, between Grand Falls-Windsor and Badger. That is the centre of this Province. It does not matter that Grand Falls-Windsor, the Exploits Valley School Board - it is not even referred to as that now; it is called the Baie Verte, Central, Connaigre School Board, District 5 - it makes no difference that they have just taken over a school that was closed out during school reform. They have renovated it so they can hold teacher development conferences in there. They had the parking capacity, they are within two to two-and-a-half hours of all schools in the surrounding region, and they can deliver personal development to seventy-five schools from where they are situated. It does not matter that all of those renovations have been done. They have the wiring for the computer set up for training. Everything is ideal for providing conferences, delivering professional development, and reaching all of the schools in that geographic area. It does not matter that they have all that in place and are ready to go. They have all now received their layoff notices. My understanding is that they are looking at making that board office central in Gander. Gander is not central, by the way, for anyone who would like to have a history lesson in geography today. I am also hearing that the current office in Gander is much smaller, unable to accommodate professional development delivery, and would have to be renovated at considerable cost.

Is this what the new government are going to do when they say responsible decisions, to save money? Is this what they are going to do, I ask the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? It makes perfect sense to have a board office that is in the centre of all the schools that you are serving.

I would like to ask the Member for Windsor-Springdale, and also the Member for Lewisporte, who is the Minister of Transportation, Works and Aboriginal Affairs, and the Member for Baie Verte, who is the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation: Are they satisfied to take that school board out of Grand Falls-Windsor and put it out in Gander, at a considerable cost money wise to the taxpayers of this Province, and a loss to their constituents and also a great loss to the most important people, the students, who expect people in the board office to be working for them? Can you imagine the distance that will have to be travelled from Gander to all points west and in between, and the fact that Grand Falls-Windsor has their own school, their brand new school? It was not used for very long, but it was renovated and turned over to the board to be used as a board office. All of the activities that are now able to take place in Grand Falls- Windsor, in that board office, that board will now be closed up, abandoned, and everything moved to Gander at more cost to the taxpayers of this Province.

I would ask those three members that I just mentioned to stand in their place. I ask them: Do they agree with government's decision to do this? Again, absolutely nobody is hopping to their feet. In other words, what they are saying by not speaking is that they agree with the move to take the school board office out of Grand Falls-Windsor, at a considerable inconvenience and a considerable cost to the people who use it the most, a loss of forty jobs for Grand Falls-Windsor, so they can put it in Gander, which now has a smaller office out there for the school board, that will require massive renovations, and the employees alone will have to travel a greater distance, at a greater cost to government. Now, if you call that responsible decision making, there is something wrong here. There is definitely something wrong. That is one thing that this government wants to do.

They want to do the same thing with health boards in this Province. I am proud to be in a district - I am from the Central West Health Care Board, and it has one of the best records out of all the boards in the Province for doing good work and coming in within budget. Now I am hearing that the same idea is going to happen with school boards and hospital boards. Now I am hearing that the same idea is going to happen with school boards and hospital boards. It is too early to tell on hospital boards. I know the people are out there working on it, directors in hospital boards, but it is not so current yet as what we have been hearing about school boards. Now, if you call that a new approach to economic development, I know why the people in this Province are furious. Because all of the social programs, all of the good things, all of the values that we have cherished for so long are being dismantled before our eyes, and for what reason? For what reason? I am seeing article after article in the newspapers around the Province, and people are saying, What is happening to this new government? They have a zero approach to economic development and they are expecting the taxpayer to bear the brunt of every financial woe that is out there.

I was looking at a column on the weekend by Bob Benson, and he said, "The budget does little for morale in a Province which has an unemployment rate stuck at 16 per cent... During that time, more than 40,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians voted with their feet on the future of this Province...".

You know, that is true. Last year we had the most significant turnaround in out-migration. In fact, we eliminated out-migration altogether. What this new government is trying to do today is bring back out-migration. They have said to young people in our Province: Do not stay here. Get your education and run. We have nothing here for you. There will be no.... Let me see, how many years does it take - 4,000 jobs? There will be no jobs open. Four thousand jobs will be closed off probably for the next ten years in the public service here in this Province.

I was looking at the document, Newfoundland and Labrador Fiscal Review, by Hugh Mackenzie. That was a document, an audit that the union membership here in this Province had asked for. Hugh Mackenzie is an economic consultant and a research associate with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. He worked for more than thirty years. There is no political affiliation, to the best of my knowledge. He has done papers for almost every agency in Canada, an objective independent look at the provinces' finances. This is one of the questions that he raised. He said: Faced with the same facts, we could just as easily be asking a different question. What do we need to do to be able to afford the public services we need? But if you ask the wrong question, you will always get the wrong answer.

So, what this government is trying to do is download the Province's financial problems on the backs on our public sector workers.

It says: Neither public spending nor public sector employees compensation can legitimately be said to have caused the Province's current fiscal problems. The primarily cause of Newfoundland and Labrador's fiscal problems is a weakness in the Province's revenue base.

That is simply what it is, a weakness in the Province's revenue base; but, if you look back to last year and this former Administration, of which I was a part, we predicted that we would have a deficit of $286 million. In actual fact, we ended up with a deficit of $197 million. That says a lot about the way people were reacting in Newfoundland and Labrador to our economy. That tells us that they had a lot of confidence in our economy, but what confidence do the people of our Province have in this new government's measures that they put out a few days ago? I can tell you, I have not heard too many that were in agreement with it. I have not found any in my district, I can tell you that, and from the phone calls that I am receiving as the critic for Finance, I have not heard any good news or any agreement to it.

The funny thing about it, or the unusual thing about it, was, this report that was done by Hugh Mackenzie, that itself agreed to the very figures that the Department of Finance and Treasury Board had given to - also, the PricewaterhouseCoopers report. I think what is interesting, what Mr. Hugh Mackenzie said, is that the current new government have no confidence in their ability to generate new sources of revenue for this Province in the way of economic development. That is clear enough, because I was saying here last week that if you look at the provincial government's booklet on the economy forecast, that says it all. When you can start off a new government and a new mandate and you can tell the people of this Province to forget about starting a new business because, guess what? housing starts are about to decline, population is going to decline, employment is going to grow by only half of what is was in previous years.

If you are going to leave that message out there with the population, when you got elected saying that you had a new approach and new economic development ideas, right off the bat you are going to say: Well, look here, this is what is really going to happen. That does not say much about a new approach for a new government.

How can anybody get interested in starting a new business in this Province based on the Budget that the new government brought down last week? I do not think there is going to be any excitement out there, from what I am hearing. In fact, it is going to lead to collapsing our economy. I do not think the people are going to stand for it.

Now, I have heard exaggerations of what actually happened with the advocacy group that was at the Confederation Building here yesterday, but I think maybe on tonight's news we will really hear and see what did happen. If people are prompted enough by their own initiative to say that there is a problem here with this new government, they are not going to sit back and they are not going to take it. They are going to say, I am not going to sit around and have our economy wiped out from in front of our own very eyes, when everything was going so good. People were feeling good about their situation, and all of a sudden this new government comes in and pulls the rug from under their feet and there is nothing only doom and gloom. We saw that yesterday when Mr. Bill Kelly organized, in haste, in only two or three days, an avenue for people to come, just ordinary people, and discuss how they were feeling about the new provincial Budget.

People came out, and I guess there is some disagreement on the numbers. I cannot say; I was not there myself. I was driving out from Grand Falls-Windsor yesterday afternoon. What I can say is what I heard on the media, and if half a dozen people come out and draw attention to this problem, there is a problem. There is a problem. I know in my own particular district, where things were really excellent, there was a great feeling, a positive feeling, I would say that outside the overpass we probably had the most buoyant economy next to the Avalon. I think most people would agree with me.

I cannot believe the measure of discontent that is in the district now. People are fearing that all the infrastructure that was built up and created economic development is going to be dismantled. I just spoke about the school board, that there is a possibility that forty people might lose their jobs. What is going to happen if the same thing happens to the health care boards? We are also hearing that Human Resources and Employment are looking at - not looking at, they came out and said - they are going to close twenty offices. Where are those twenty offices? How are people going to be impacted because of that?

All we have heard is that there is going to be a lot of dismantling, but we have not heard tell of any building up. That is a one-sided budget. How do you expect people to feel, young people who are in the university and college systems now, when they hear that news?

Number one, as a former administration we brought in lots of measures to help them reduce their student loans and start off on a better footing. Now, if they are going to be coming out of university and college with no hope for a public sector job - we have only heard from a couple of groups in that public sector. We still have to deal with the issue of nurses. Their contracts are coming up in June, and teachers in August. No doubt they are watching to see how this government will handle the current strike. Based on what we have seen so far, there is very little hope out there that it is going to be any easier for those two groups.

I think what we can say is that there has been a series of intimidation by this government ever since January 5. On January 5, Mr. Speaker - and I have said it a few times - the Premier set the atmosphere when he came out and said there would be a wage freeze. He hadn't had any discussion prior to that point or had sat down with union people. I think there would have been a different feeling here in the Province today if the Premier had sat down during the fall with union people and said: We have an issue here, we have a structural deficit, and we need your help in trying to deal with this issue. Instead of that, before any consultation, and he expected cooperation from unions, he came out blatantly and arrogantly, mind you, for a first address by a new Premier, and said: There will be - in fact, I was in CBC studios at the time and I was shocked when I heard and saw what he said; a wage freeze for the public sector. I mean, without any consultation with union leaders, none whatsoever, to just blatantly say: That is the way it is.

Then there was another kind of intimidation. The indexing of the seniors' pensions that they had gotten in their last round of contract talks, he threatened to claw that back from the seniors who are out there today. He had to haul in his horns on that one. There was so much of an outcry from seniors and the general population all over this Province that he had to haul in his horns on that and he had to take that one off the table. That would be an absolute disgrace, for a new Premier who is supposed to be business oriented, coming to a new government and talking about his expertise in economic development, and then haul five dollars a month from seniors. Unreal! Anyway, thank God they came to their senses. Maybe the caucus might have pressured him on this one. Maybe the caucus might have pressured the Premier to pull back on that one, taking money from seniors. I do not know who did it, but I am sure it was a combination of a lot of people and the public at large, but he did it. I think it is time now for the caucus to - like someone said this morning - tap him on the shoulder and say: Look here, we need to do what's right here.

Anyway, here we are talking about intimidation again. Then, of course, he went out and said: Well, we did not put a date on that wage freeze. Let me see now, oh yes, that is going to be two years. He just randomly picked a number out of thin air. It is going to be two years for a wage freeze. Then, on top of that, he decided he would train up the RNC for riot protection. I do not know who tipped off the media but the media were able to film the RNC in full flight, decked out in their riot gear and ready for whatever they needed to do in case of looking after crowd control. That was an intimidation tactic.

Then, of course, there have been several things put on the table and pulled off the table. All intimidation. Then, only as late as last Friday, the Premier decides to wait out on the picket line and negotiate directly with the union members on the picket line. That is an unheard of thing for the employer to do in the public sector; absolutely unheard of. That was intimidation.

There has been a lot of intimidation. Then there was the threat to union workers themselves over the weekend. I saw it in the paper on Sunday. There has been a series of heavy-handed intimidation, the worst kind of collective bargaining that many people in this Province have ever witnessed. How do you get a settlement when you go down that road and people do not trust any of the words that you are saying or any of the actions that you do? I think you have to go back to square one.

I think it is incumbent on the caucus and the Cabinet to let the Premier know how the people in this Province really feel. They can start by saying, go back to the table and sit down with the union. Develop a contract that everybody can live with, instead of intimidating people. The caucus and the Cabinet need to go back to the Premier, and they should be able to bring back the feelings of their districts. They have thirty-four people over there on the government side. Now, I cannot imagine how anybody from rural Newfoundland can go back to their districts and hear nothing but accolades about this Budget. I do not believe it.

[Alarm sounding]

MS THISTLE: Is that another tactic to take me out of here?

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

I ask that the House now take a brief recess until we find out what is happening.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Now that things have returned to normal, I recognize the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know what caused that interruption but I am glad it is over because we have important business to do here. I am sure that members opposite will want to carry on this very important debate about the Budget.

I was looking over some previous budgets by the Progressive Conservative Government in this Province. It is almost like déjà vu when I look at Budget 2004 and I compare it to the budget - it was years ago, I think it was 1986. I do not know if there is anybody in this House who was around in 1986 when the Progressive Conservative brought down their Budget.

MR. REID: Tom Rideout. Oh yes, and buddy up there too, by the way, the Member for Port au Port.

MS THISTLE: There are a couple of people are there?

MR. REID: Yes, the Member for Port au Port.

MS THISTLE: Well, they would know more about this, I guess. They could remember this a lot better than I could. My political history really only spans about eight years. I started in 1996. But, it was hailed as the good news budget. Can you imagine? At that time the Budget was $2.6 billion, in 1986. Of course, it has doubled that now. It is over $4 billion. Actually, it is almost $4.2 billion today.

The current account deficit at that particular time was $87 million. It is funny how I mentioned that in 1983 it was $326 million. I looked at some of the fees in that particular Budget and it is almost like somebody from the other side went and dug out that Budget and said: Yes, that is not a bad idea. I think we will sock it to the people of this Province because we survived that Budget of 1986 for two years.

MR. REID: Was Len Simms the Finance Minister then I wonder?

MS THISTLE: I do not know. Like I told you, my political history does not go back that far.

What I will say is that the Progressive Conservative Government, in 1986, announced $20 million in new fiscal measures. Now, it was not called economic development, it was called new fiscal measures. It is interesting that this current government, the new Progressive Conservative Government, introduced their fee increases and they total $26 million. A lot of similarities. In fact, they said they are going to have a 5 per cent increase in the cost of motor vehicle registration; a 5 per cent cost in motor vehicle registration. Now, I do not have my calculator with me today but motor vehicle registration is going from $140 to $180. I guess they looked at what the cost of money would be today and they increased it upwards. Then they said 5 per cent in driver's licences; 5 per cent increase in Registry of Deeds; 5 per cent increase in tuitions at vocational schools and colleges. Thank goodness, the protest that the students had in February brought this new government to their senses because in 1986 the Progressive Conservative Government increased tuition at the vocational schools and colleges by 5 per cent.

I am proud to stand on my feet to say that we were the first government ever to decrease tuition. Students themselves will tell you of the victories they gained while we were the previous administration. They experienced tuition cuts, as much as 25 per cent. This year this new government has said they will freeze tuition, but they only said that after a repeated lobby from myself and this Opposition side and, of course, the students who launched massive protests over in Corner Brook and here on Prince Philip Drive. Of course, at that particular time they increased a 750 millilitre bottle of liquor by thirty cents. That raised profits by $1 million. So you can always count on the reliable area for taking in more money. Then the cost of tin tobacco increased by fifty cents. I think the Minister of Finance stood on his feet last Budget day and talked about increasing alcohol and tobacco.

Can you imagine, the construction industry was slapped with a 12 per cent tax rate on building materials. Can anybody tell me what putting a 20 per cent tax on building materials does to the economy? My lord, it just stymes the economy when you think about - two of the main indicators in our economy which tells us how well we are doing, number one, would be housing starts; number two would be car sales. The new government has already put out a warning to the people in this Province: Forget housing starts next year, they are going to be down. You have already said that housing starts are going to be down, you said the population is going to decline and employment is only going to grow by not even 1 per cent. That is a wonderful message to put out to the Province for anyone who is trying to generate new economic development.

I was looking in the paper, and I saw in The Telegram, we have a columnist here, Brad George, who is with Provincial Affairs with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business of Newfoundland and Labrador. He says that last week was not good for small business owners in this Province. News of the public service strike will certainly mean slower consumer spending.

I think we are already seeing that. We are already seeing there are less people out there willing to take a chance and buy the big ticket items. People do have to buy the essentials. They do have to buy their groceries. They do have to pay their light and heat. They do have to pay their rent. Whether or not they will pay their taxes on time is another question. What comes first? The roof over your head and the food in your stomach. All the other things might have to wait.

When it comes to retail spending and making purchases on disposable income, you probably will not go out and buy a new appliance; you will make do. You probably will not go out and buy a new television or new entertainment system or go on a vacation. You probably will not go out and buy summer tires; maybe you will wear your snow tires down until they are bald. These are the kinds of things that, by bringing out a budget that is very grim, very bleak, does nothing to instill confidence in consumers out there. Mr. George goes on to say: Over 150 new fee and fine increases were announced in the Budget.

This government will stand on their feet and say there are no tax increases, but can you tell me that by increasing fees and service charges and fines there are no taxes? A lot of times the people who can least afford it are going to have to pay these.

There is not one person in rural Newfoundland who does not value getting out in the woods, whether they are fishing or hunting or out on their snow machine or hiking or whatever. Every sport and every recreation that we have come to enjoy as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are now going to be taxed to the hilt. Even to take a shower in a provincial park is going to cost $5. If you want to take your family out salmon fishing, it is going to go from $27 to $35. Now government might think they are going to generate $25 million or $26 million by doing that. Do you know something? I guess what they are not looking at is how much money is generated from people putting gas in their gas tanks, people buying extra food to bring it up into the woods, people buying equipment and everything else, but if you are going to tax people so that they are going to be discouraged from just taking a weekend in the woods, or overnight, or going on a family vacation, they are not going to spend that money that they would normally spend on a tank of gas and so on.

For the past three years we have been, as a former Administration, able to provide a heat subsidy to people around this Province. We brought in that heat subsidy when home heating fuel was thirty-seven cents a litre. Now, one of the pledges that the government we see over there today made to our seniors is that they would provide a subsidy up to $250 for our seniors for extra costs. I wrote the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board about this subsidy to seniors and low-income earners and I got back a reply that he was studying it. Then I asked again, and then I got back another reply that the price of fuel oil, home heating oil, had gone down by four cents. Four cents. Now, we were providing a subsidy of $100 a year to seniors and low-income earners for home heat subsidy and this is how the Tory Blue Book, blueprint, commitment reads, "Ensure seniors have adequate income to meet their basic needs by reducing taxes..." - reducing taxes - "...and introducing a special needs assistance program of up to $250 to assist with home heating costs for low-income earners."

Now, while it is true that home heating fuel from February 15, 2003 to February 15, 2004 came down by four cents a litre at that particular date, it does not make any difference because we were providing a fuel subsidy when it was thirty-seven cents a litre, and today, February 15, it is fifty-one cents a litre.

The Tories go on to say "...by reducing taxes...". They have not reduced taxes. They have increased fees. Now, you tell any senior out there who is going to have to pay $40 more to license their vehicle, $5 to take a shower in the park, $5 extra to get a salmon licence, and $12 more to get a moose licence, and if they have to take an ambulance - my goodness, I guess people will be thinking twice now before they use their phone and call an ambulance - it is going to go up from $75 to $115 a trip.

I had a constituent call me over the weekend and they already got a bill, since April 1, on an ambulance trip. There are two seniors in the house and the only source of income is an old age pension cheque. One of the individuals in this household is not very well, so will she have to think about, the next time she takes an attack, will she call an ambulance? Because it means that she does not have the money to pay it. It is gone from $75 to $115 a trip. If they need a medical escort, that has gone from $25 to $50 a trip.

You say you have not increased taxes, and you are not about to provide a $250 subsidy to your seniors, as you indicated here in your Blue Book. Let me tell you, and let me tell the seniors in this Province, you have increased your fees and you have increased taxes, and you have not provided a heat subsidy to the people who were out there today depending on it. Those same people who are going to have to pay extra to get their car licenced, or their truck, they are going to socked with high insurance. They already are. Some insurance has gone up as much as 50 per cent. The discrimination now of young people and elderly people, when it comes to getting insurance, what are they going to be faced with, when they have to pay extra for insurance?

MR. REID: $2,300 for my son.

MS THISTLE: My colleague, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, just said to me that he has one driver now, a son who is able to drive, and just liability insurance, I guess, is going to cost $2, 300. How is it going to affect elderly people?

MR. REID: They were going to fix that.

MS THISTLE: I thought the people across the House opposite were going to fix the insurance. Apparently not! Apparently not!

Even if you want to get a trout licence, and I think there is a lot of trouting going on, on the Avalon Peninsula, everywhere you look on the Trans-Canada Highway, when the season opens, there are cars parked. People on the Avalon Peninsula and all over our Province are big trouters, I guess, even that one licence is going from $8 to $12. Family trout licence is going from $13 to $20.

A new fee, look, admission to Salmonier Nature Park is $3, and if you want to take a guided walk in Cape St. Mary's, it is going from $5 to $7. All of the camping has gone up. All of the camping that people would do in a provincial park has gone up. Even if you want to get a bit of firewood at a provincial park, that has gone from $4 to $5. The vehicle entry fee, if you are going to go in there for the day, is $5. A vehicle entry fee for seasonal, there was not one before, but now it is going to be $20. If you are interested in Crown land on which to build a cottage, the document preparation is going from $100 to $200. Assignment fees going up from $100 to $150; remote cottage license from $75 to $100. Well now, listen! They want consent and agreement of the minister. The consent and agreement of the minister is going from $100 to $200.

This is unreal! A home gardening license is going from ten dollars to twenty-five dollars. Can you imagine getting a license to grow a few vegetables and make yourself self-sufficient. It is probably on a community lot. That is the only thing I can figure out. I know that a lot of people like to try to garden and make themselves self-sufficient, to grow vegetables over the summer that they can use in the winter, and here now you are going to put a tax on someone trying to make themselves independent, going from ten dollars to twenty-five dollars.

Imagine! Vital statistics, a standard fee of twenty-five dollars for each certificate. If you want a birth certificate, a marriage certificate, a death certificate, no matter what you need, any certificate, it is going to cost you twenty-five dollars.

A driver's license is going from $80 dollars to $100; registration fees for passenger vehicles, $140 to $180. Even when you get your picture taken now - and you have to get that taken, there is no way out of it - that is increased from twenty to twenty-five dollars. If you are running a taxi business and you want to register your taxi, that is going from $120 to $150. Imagine a young person driving a motor cycle for the first time and trying to get a bike on the road. That has gone from fifty dollars to seventy-five dollars. A transfer of vehicle is going from fifteen dollars to twenty-five. My goodness! In transit permits for vehicles from eleven to fifteen dollars.

We can see clearly that you are talking about no taxes, but yet, in fact, there are lots of taxes here. There are 150 different categories of taxes here. No matter what you say, there are all kinds of taxes here.

What has this government done to generate new revenue except sock it to the people who are out there now using these services every day of the week? I can't find anything in the book that is going to generate new economic development. If there is, I would like for someone to stand and tell me. When you think about the spinoffs when someone brings in fees like that, it is totally negative.

We were able to stand here last year and talk about all the good things that were happening in our Province. There was absolutely nothing in this Budget that people could stand up and say that this is a good news Budget.

I want to talk a bit about health, because health touches every person in this Province. It does not matter what district you are from. All I am hearing when I go through my district is, what is happening? What is happening to the things that we have enjoyed for so long? It looks like this new government are going to close out health care boards, going to close out clinics, and we have already seen that because they have already blatantly come out and said that they are not going to defer the extension to the James Paton Hospital redevelopment in Gander. They are going to cancel it. Yet, I heard the Member for Gander on an Open Line show last week. He was praising government's decision, and he said that people in his district had no objection to the extension to the James Paton Hospital in Gander being cancelled.

MR. REID: What about the dialysis there? Is that being cancelled too?

MS THISTLE: I have not received an update on dialysis in Gander.

MR. REID: You would think the Minister of Health would nod her head yes or no.

MS THISTLE: Yes, and maybe she will give us some indication because I know a lot of people want to know that.

MR. REID: No answer, not allowed to talk about it.

MS THISTLE: No, there have been no answers from the side opposite there as to what is going to happen.

When I talked about - today, before the alarm went off here - I asked for members on the government side to stand and let me hear their support for the cancer clinic. I asked them to let me hear their support for the board education offices and their support for the health boards and their support for retaining the social services and labour branches. I never saw anybody stand. I never saw anybody nod. I never saw anybody say that was important to the economy of Central Newfoundland. It made no difference to people opposite. They have no feeling, no compassion. It is clear-cut. They are heartless, they are cold, they have no compassion; no compassion for the people of the Province whatsoever. They are just coming in with a slash-and-burn Budget. They are going to sock it to the people all over this Province, and all they are doing is preaching doom and gloom; doom and gloom every day of the week.

We are always accused over here of reckless spending. I would say, right here, Maintaining Priority on Health, total funding allocated to the Department of Health and Community Services in 2002 was $1.5 billion. I am sure that people in this House have heard me say on many occasions that when I was appointed as the President of Treasury Board, the budget for the whole entire Department of Health was $900 million. Today it is $1.4 billion, almost $1.5 billion.

Did that money come from the federal government, that extra $500 million or $600 million that is put into the Department of Health on an annual basis? I would ask members opposite: Do you think that money came from the federal government? No, absolutely not! In fact, all of us know that the federal government reduced our budget for health and education. Even in 2004 we are not up to the standards that we experienced in 1994.

What do you do when someone is coming to you and saying that they are travelling three times a week to go to St. John's for dialysis? What do you do when someone needs an increase - you talk about increases in the drug program. This government says that they are putting $8 million into new drug therapies and the drug program this year. The truth of the matter is, that $8 million is really an overrun of last year, that more drugs were used, it cost more. The people of this Province can really not expect any new improvements to their drug program this year. It is all glossed over in flowery words in the Budget, but the truth of the matter is that $8 million is gone. It is just reported there once again.

It said in the highlights of 2002, "Government is committing $2.7 million annually to provide a 4% wage increase to home support workers, beginning with a 2% increase on June 1, 2002 and a further 2% increase on December 1, 2002. $1.1 million is provided to implement a Wellness Strategy which will include expansion of the breast and cervical screening programs..." All of these are good initiatives. "Government is committing an additional $1.3 million..." so that people in personal care homes can have more money each month. That would bring that up to $13 million annually.

Health Facilities: Capital spending of $51 million. $31 million is to be spent on planning and construction of capital projects underway in Gander, Fogo, Stephenville and Grand Bank; $5 million will assist with renovations and repairs to existing facilities; $15 million will be spent on diagnostic, clinical and related equipment; $800,000 is provided for a psychiatric assessment/short stay in St. John's; $2 million for a Strategic Social Plan.

Other provinces around the country are in awe about the Strategic Social Plan that we launched while we were government. There is great information coming out of that plan which can be used for policymaking in the future. In fact, we have used some of this informaiton and already developed policies that will benefit the people of our Province.

For the second consecutive year, the income threshold for the Newfoundland and Labrador Child Benefit will increase; $2 million was set aside to assist low income earners to offset the cost of fuel oil tank replacements. I can tell you, too, there was a great initiative for seniors. The increased subsidy to seniors was increased from $350 to $700, which was a wonderful benefit that seniors look forward to every year.

We had $108 million in Municipal Capital Works Program in 2002. All around the Province there was money provided for municipal debt relief program. That has meant so much to a lot of communities around the Province in enabling communities to get a fresh start and being able to take on projects once again. A lot of communities around the Province have had to deal with large debt loads for municipal infrastructure, water and sewer. This has been difficult when you have a shrinking tax base and you cannot (inaudible) payments to the municipal financing board, but a decision was made by the previous government that we would allocate municipal debt relief, and that was done several years in a row. In fact, one of the communities which benefitted from that policymaking decision was the community of Badger. There was a writeoff of their municipal debt of, I think, $1.2 million or $1.6 million, which has given them a fresh new start.

I want to talk a little bit, too, how the federal government recently, in their budget, provided GST rebates to capital work projects in larger towns. Of course, this new provincial government, in their Budget, have decided to clawback the GST rebate. I have one town in my district that is going to lose money from that decision by the provincial government. The Town of Grand Falls-Windsor are going to lose $118,000 in their Municipal Operating Grant because the Province will clawback that GST rebate. How do you get back $118,000 that you would have been able to spend on projects? Well, you have one or two choices. You either do not do your projects or you sock it to the taxpayer again. That is what it is coming down to. They are downloading the provincial commitments to the municipalities and leaving it up to towns to do the work of dealing with those reductions in the Municipal Operating Grant.

Two-point-eight million dollars provided for implementation of Jobs and Growth Strategy. I did not see anything here in your Budget about Jobs and Growth Strategy. All I saw was job loss strategy; 4,000 jobs in fact. A job loss strategy. What does the loss of 4,000 jobs do to the economy? It means that young people today can forget about getting a job with government. That is what that means. For those who were planning to move up to a position that was held by a public service employee and hoping to get their job when they retire, forget it. You are stuck. If you thought you had a chance of being promoted, that is not there. It does not exist.

Over the next five years this new government intends to eliminate 4,000 jobs. If you had 4,000 people lined up outside the Confederation Building the media would say you had a huge crowd. In fact, 1,000 people lined up outside for a protest is a huge crowd. Now, you take 4,000 people outside - I do not think you can put 4,000 people outside the front of the Confederation Building. I do not believe you can. Well, for every 4,000 people you have out there you had better put a face to those numbers.

Look at the main employers in our Province, everybody knows their district better than anybody else. I look at how many people are employed at the biggest employer in my district, which is the hospital and the board; then the paper mill. Then you have the public sector after that, the service industries, and the schools and the colleges. You take 4,000 people and you multiply that by a spouse, and you also have a couple of children probably, what does that do to St. John's? I do not know if it would have the same effect in St. John's as it would have in Mount Pearl for instance. Mount Pearl is made up of a great number of public sector workers. I am sure the Member for Mount Pearl would agree with me because I would say that the greatest number of people employed in the public sector probably comes from Mount Pearl. Just take, for instance, there are 1,500 of those coming out of Mount Pearl.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Just take for instance that there are 1,500 workers that might come out of Mount Pearl who are currently employed in the public sector here in this Province. Now, 1,500 employees, everyone of those probably has a spouse or a partner and they probably have children. What does that do to the school system in Mount Pearl? What does that do to the retail in Mount Pearl? What does that do to the recreation facilities in Mount Pearl? What does that do to health care facilities? Look at the medical clinics in Mount Pearl. Look at the retail. Look at the young people. We are already hearing that the Mount Pearl Show Choir are looking at going to Japan. I just hope they do because they certainly deserve it. I have seen them in action and they are absolutely terrific. I hope those children get to go to Japan because they are just so good.

I am just saying, when you hear about numbers, of 4,000 jobs, sometimes you just forget for the moment what it means. It actually means 4,000 families. Four thousand people and their families are not going to use the services anymore in our Province. What will happen? Will they decide to actually leave Newfoundland and Labrador? Will they head for the mainland? Will they be the ones who are going to buy the salmon licence every year? No, I do not think so. They are not going to be the ones who are going to buy a trout licence and they are not going to get their vehicles registered here. They are not going to pay for insurance.

Last year, or the year before in Budget 2002, there was $2.6 million allocated for road projects; including upgrading of roads in Rigolet, Northwest River, Port Hope Simpson, Cartwright, Charlottetown and Mary's Harbour. Now, what did I see in the Budget this year for Labrador? I did not see very much. I did not see very much in there for Labrador and the people in Labrador too are making their views known. In fact, the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair has a real problem on her hands now, the fact that you are not going to even plow the roads in her district.

Then I saw $2 million that was allocated for a new courthouse in Goose Bay, while the young people in Goose Bay do not have their auditorium they were promised by this new government. That was in the election promises, but that is gone by the wayside.

I do not see anything there for how we are going to increase our tourists this year. There was $1 million set aside. One million set aside to increase the tourists coming to this Province. When you look at what you published in your Economy Book, that you expected tourism to remain on the same level that it was last year, my goodness!

I am sure there must be optimistic people over on the other side somewhere. I do not hear them, but there should be optimistic people over there on the other side. I think most of the people in this Province were expecting great things from the new government. They have not seen it yet.

Just look at consumer spending. In 2003, consumers spent an estimated $9.5 billion compared with just over $7 billion in 1996. Can you imagine? That speaks volumes of the confidence that consumers in this Province feel, or how they felt. I cannot say that they feel that way today because there has not been anything in the Budget that would give them that confidence level, but this is how they felt. This is definitely how they felt.

Look at the housing starts. Housing starts grew by 11 per cent in one year. I am seeing carpenters in St. John's building all winter in the snow, in all of the bad weather. Can you imagine that? Even in Grand Falls-Windsor there were over 100 houses built last year. Housing starts were at their highest since 1991. This new government, they had the nerve to come out and say that housing starts are expected to decline in 2004. What a pessimistic message to put out with the general public. What a pessimistic message! That is ridiculous for a government that was going to do wonders here in this Province.

Do you know something? I looked at construction. Construction investment totalled almost $2.5 billion in 2003. That was up10 per cent - 10 per cent - from 2002. Residential and non-residential construction spending increased last year. Non-residential construction spending rose by 7.6 per cent and of the estimated $1.6 billion in non-residential construction, about two-thirds was attributable to the mining and oil industries.

What you have here is a base. The Minister of Finance said himself, when he brought down his Budget - I think he got his own self confused. He said, the good news is that our economic fundamentals are strong. We have a good base upon which we can build as we endeavour to secure a better future for ourselves and our children.

Let me tell you, Mr. Finance Minister, prior to your Budget people were enjoying a level of confidence we had not seen for years in this country, in this Province.

I want to talk about what you are going to do. There has been no indication from the Minister of Human Resources and Employment where the twenty offices are going to close around this Province, within her jurisdiction. Now, I have heard it said in the media that people who use those departments and those offices will now be able to use their telephone or their own computer to get everything done that they need done. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that a lot of people who use - I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I did not realize that the Speaker's Chair had changed. I can tell you that a great number of the people I deal with, day in and day out, require the individual person-to-person contact in dealing with situations that are paramount to their concerns. A lot of them will not be able to get the necessary work done over the telephone, and many of them do not have access to a computer or would not be trained in computer usage. So, Madam Speaker, closing out twenty offices - that is another thing, closing out twenty offices. What does that do, when there are probably only one or two government services in a particular small rural community, and people depend on those services for whatever they need? Closing out a government service in a community, lots of times it is more than just for social assistance or drug card or questions on MCP. Lots of time when a person from a rural community would go into a government office, they ask questions that you probably would not even consider here in St. John's. That first front-line access provides a wealth of information that you would not normally find if you were here in a bigger city.

It is different when you compare rural Newfoundland to, say, St. John's. I heard it said that there is a certain member in this House who, if he got a call, if his phone rang, he thought it would be a fire alarm announcement, because most people in St. John's districts are not used to getting the constituency calls that members who represent rural districts would. Anybody who lives here in St. John's has total access to every government service that is required. They just pick up their telephone or they walk right into Confederation Building and it is done. If you are a member in a rural area you are the first person people will call when they want to get a birth certificate, a passport, a death certificate, if they want to get a drug card, if they want to look at home support, even if they want false teeth, they want glasses, they need a hearing aid, they want to look at transportation to bring them to and from a doctor's clinic or they have specialty services that they need in St. John's. All of these are questions that they would call their MHA about if they are from a rural district, whereas in St. John's you may not even get those kinds of calls, and more than likely you don't.

When I think back to the makeup of the provincial Cabinet, I look at the fact that you only have four members in Cabinet from rural Newfoundland. Now, does that tell me that members' interests are properly reflected when you have an urban Cabinet, you don't have an urban-rural Cabinet? A lot of those people who represent rural Newfoundland are living here in St. John's and I don't know if they have lost touch. Probably they have done their best to represent rural Newfoundland but I didn't see that when the Budget came out.

I saw two members who are in the provincial Cabinet representing rural Newfoundland, the Member for Lewisporte and the Member for Baie Verte, who really didn't use their influence at the Cabinet Table for making sure that the cancer clinic that was so well needed, much needed and urgently needed for the people in Central Newfoundland, they didn't offer their support, or if they offered it I don't think they had much clout. I don't think they had much clout.

Here we are talking now about combining school boards and hospital boards. I know in the particular district that I represent, there are two Cabinet members who are going to be affected as much as I am. Now, what are they doing for the people in Central Newfoundland, which leads me to believe it is a one-man show? I haven't heard or seen, in this Budget, anything that would indicate anything different. There is nothing there that would indicate that the Member for Lewisporte or the Member for Baie Verte stood up and spoke for the people in my district and, in fact, all of Central Newfoundland. They are prepared to slough off the fact that 4,000 people are leaving the public sector. They are not concerned about closing twenty offices that low-income support people and people unemployed, the people who need it the most - they are not concerned about the twenty offices going to close. They are not concerned that it is going to cost an enormous amount of money to renovate an office out in Gander, to move everything from Grand Falls-Windsor to Gander, and the school board owns the building in Grand Falls-Windsor. It is a school that used to be in existence. It has the capacity and it is renovated to computer standards. It is wired and in use now for development and training of teachers. It currently looks after seventy-five schools in that particular area. They are not concerned about that. They would just as soon go and dismantle it - and they are talking about being responsible and saving the taxpayers money. Yet, they will go out and spend a fortune to move that to Gander where there is a small office not able to accommodate all the teacher development and all the conferences the teachers normally have. They will end up having to go out and rent extra space.

They are not concerned that they are going to have to pay the people from the board extra mileage to cover all that territory right from Gander and all points in between to Baie Verte and the South Coast. That is the new approach. It is called justification. Justification, when you can get a report done by PricewaterhouseCoopers to paint the worst picture that was ever painted just so you can deliver a speech on January 5 to try and shock the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and go ahead and make the cuts and get people to believe we are in the worst shape we have ever been, and get people feeling like there is no hope. Is this the kind of government that the people of this Province really want? I do not think so.

The Open Line shows are full. They are full of disgust and discontent and disharmony. The people have been led down the garden path by this government who, in their Blue Book, promised a new approach. I can tell you what; there is nothing in their Blue Book that would give me any reason to cheer. There is nothing in that book that would give me any reason to cheer whatsoever. It is a Blue Book of broken promises, after six months in office. All I can see that this government has done so far is spend money on useless information, $115,000 for PricewaterhouseCoopers to give us information that - not us, we do not want it; we already had this information - to give the people of Newfoundland and Labrador information about a bad economy when in fact we generated $100 million more in our economy last year then we even predicted. What does that say about Blue Book promises?

One promise broken after the other. One of the promises in education - the Progressive Conservative government was going to cover increased operating costs of Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic so they could freeze tuition fees and maintain the current level and quality of programs. Now, what did they do when they put out the Budget? That is what I would like to know. What did they do when they put out the Budget? This is what they said: We have asked Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic to each identify $2 million in expenditure reductions this year.

Do you know what expenditure reductions are, when you ask the College of the North Atlantic and Memorial University to identify expenditure reductions? Well, that means that they are going to cut staff. Now, there are seventeen campuses of the College of the North Atlantic around this Province, so I would say: Which campuses are going to lose staff? That will be the next question, which campuses are going to lose staff? Because they are going to lose them. No matter what is said on the other side of the House, there are campuses going to lose staff.

Maybe it will be like last week when I saw people coming out of the Confederation Building with all their worldly belongings in a cardboard box; all their worldly belongings in a cardboard box and a pink slip under their arm. What is going to happen is that you will not hear about these layoffs. It will be done on a gradual basis, and bit by bit communities will be eroded. It does not take very many government jobs in a small town to make a difference to a small town, whether they grow or whether they perish. There are a lot of small towns that are going to perish based on what the Tories have brought forward so far.

I was looking at the increased employment in this Province. In 2003 there were 261,000 people working. In 2002 there were 257,000. In 2001 there were 251,000. In 2000 there were 245,000 people working. Now, we already know that next year, and for the next four years, there are going to be 4,000 people lose their jobs, but what we do not know is how many more people are going to lose their jobs because there are program reviews being done in every health facility in the Province right now. There are all kinds of reviews being done all over the Province. The Western Health Care one are having a review done, so how many more people will lose their jobs because of the cuts that people do not know about at this particular time.?

Where does it say that we are going to be hiring people? There was an initiative brought in while I was President of Treasury Board that we would hire fifteen young people every year for our Graduate Employment Program, so they would be well trained and be able to take their positions within the public service when the time came; but no, I do not see any mention made of that. I do not see any encouragement there for young people coming out. All I can see are cuts.

It says they are going to, ...reduce Municipal Operating Grants by $5 million over three years beginning with a $2.1 million reduction on the first of January 2005. In year one, only fourteen municipalities will be affected." Can you imagine, fourteen municipalities? I know of - I do not know, I cannot name them, I suppose, but I know St. John's, Mount Pearl for sure, and Grand Falls-Windsor, probably Gander and Corner Brook. That is only half a dozen but there are more than that.

What is going to happen when you look at equipment in hospitals? There is no mention of equipment replacement in hospitals. Everybody knows that even if you have a flat-line budget for health care, health care costs increase by 8 per cent every year. So if you only have a flat-line budget of no change, you are already behind the eight ball.

Madam Speaker, I think there is something that the people of this Province need to know. I think they have been hoodwinked by the new government into thinking that there was a larger deficit than there is. I think they are beginning to find out the difference of that now. There has been a lot of education on that matter. When you look at the fact that they provided $250,000 to do a White Paper on post-secondary education - now, $250,000 to do a White Paper on post-secondary education - the biggest revamp on post-secondary education started in 2001, and that was with the department which was made up just for young people, Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education. Now, this new government has dismantled Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education. A White Paper that is going to be done, $250,000. What will that tell you? They have already come out and asked Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic to find $2 million each in their budgets to cut. Do you think that study which is being done is going to contain any new initiatives for young people in post-secondary education? Not a chance! It is a stalling tactic with the dismantling of the department and no priority given to Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education. That $250,000 will probably tell the new government about more consolidation.

When you look at the fact that there was nothing in this for seniors; not a thing. They did not do anything about the commitment they made for $250 to assist seniors; not a thing. But they did provide $1 million. Oh yes, my goodness, Investing in Our Future, page twenty. "Leadership on business growth will come from the top. We are dedicating $1 million to establish a new Department of Business, led by the Premier, to play a leading role in attracting new business and investment to the Province." One million dollars with a travel budget of $775,000; a travel budget for the Premier of $775,000.

I cannot get a cancer clinic for Grand Falls-Windsor or Central Newfoundland, but we can open up an office in Ottawa at a starting price of $350,000 for one year. We can do that, but you cannot look after people who are going blind in this Province because we do not have the wherewithal to give the equipment to the St. John's Health Care Corporation.

Look at this, "We are taming the fiscal tiger while at the same time we are preparing to unleash an economic tiger that will bring prosperity and opportunity to communities and people throughout Newfoundland and Labrador." Well, if anyone is out there today and looking for that tiger, he is after turning into a cow.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MS THISTLE: If anyone is out there today looking for that fiscal tiger, I think that tiger is after turning into a cow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: That fiscal tiger is after going domestic. It is after going domestic. It is now a cow, because I will tell you, anyone who would write that gives you the impression there is going to be a whole lot of stuff going on here that is going to create prosperity and opportunity. Unless I missed it somewhere in the Budget, I would like for someone to show it to me, where the economic development policy is in this Budget. I cannot see it myself. I cannot see it, and anyone who has read this document must feel the very same way.

When you think about education, Budget 2001 said it all. Budget 2001 said it all, where we provided $160 million for new school construction in this Province.

Now, it is interesting, very interesting that the Premier tries to get people around this Province believe that he had no idea of the Province's finances when he took over this government. Well, I have been sitting in this Legislature for eight years, and all of 2001. Before the Premier became the leader in August he spent his time up in the gallery; up there observing. Of course, he had the contribution by the present Minister of Health, who was then the Auditor General. Even in her report - as late as March 2001, the Auditor General said in her own report, and stated in her own report, the financial condition of the Province. There is no mistake about it. If the Premier of this Province is trying to tell the people that he had no idea -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS THISTLE: I am going to have to ask the Chair to bring some order to this House.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It is hard to believe that right now we are in the midst of the biggest strike in our history and the people in this House are like a bunch of hooligans. They are laughing and shouting out and here we are trying to comment on the most important thing - people are standing around right now in this Province with an oil barrel in front of them trying to keep themselves warm, and tuned into the radio hoping for some good news to come over the radio that the strike is ended. All of the sudden this House is in an uproar, laughing, and here we are in the midst of the most serious situation that we have ever found ourselves in, in the Province's history.

On the heels of this situation, we have our nurses in this Province who have a contract expiring in June and we have our teachers with a contract expiring in August. They are, no doubt, watching the events and hoping that the collective bargaining they are witnessing here right now in this Province won't be the same when they get to the table. Hopefully the new government will have learned their lesson. I think they knew what they were in for, but they were trying a new approach, but the new approach, I can tell you, as it pertains to collective bargaining, is not working.

You have lost the trust of the union membership and you have lost the trust of the people in our Province. They are not going to accept the innuendo and the intimidation and the wrong approach to collective bargaining that has resulted in what we are seeing here today. This is April 5 and we are into day five of a public sector strike.

I can remember when I was Minister of Labour myself and we had a lab and X-ray strike, and I know from personal experience that within seven days the Province could not run.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: We know that when you are dealing with health care you can get through probably three or four days. We went a long time while the doctors were out but we had other people working and keeping our hospitals clean. We had kitchen staff working, secretarial and all the people who make up all of the important duties and take care of them - that need to be done in our hospitals, medical and home care facilities.

We all know, and I know from first-hand experience, during the lab and X-ray strike, that within seven days we were in a crisis situation. It is easy to forget, Madam Speaker. When you get past a crisis you forget what really happened, but sometimes it is good to reflect on what actually happens when we are talking about health care.

At that time the health care boards came to government, when we were government, and said: You must do something. You must end this strike. We are in a difficult situation here. People need these important tests done, diagnostic tests done, and they cannot get them done. We have people who have been flown in, have come by ambulance, and they have no way to get these important tests done. We cannot wait any longer. You must do something, government, and end this strike.

At that time it was the normal collective bargaining procedure that you did not talk, you did not negotiate, while people were out there on strike, but we had to act. We had to settle that strike. We had to, because the health and safety of the people in this Province was at stake.

This is day five and, let me tell you, if you go to day seven, day six and day seven, you will see cracks in our health care system that will be visible. You have people now in seniors' homes, staff now who are taxed to the limit. They are doing their best to take care of seniors with the help of seniors' families. All around every facility in our Province there are cracks starting to show. This is day five, but you just watch out for day seven. I hope we do not go to day seven. I hope that we do get a settlement tonight.

I think there have been a lot of misstatements out in the media, and our own Premier brought a lot of this on himself. I would be the first one to stand here and say it. I hope that he will admit that and move on, because I think there is a lot of innuendo that needs to be pushed to the back burner right now, because people need to get this strike settled. There are too many factors at play here.

We have children in our schools who really, within another day or two, will not have clean bathrooms. They will not have clean classrooms. They will not have the student assistants who do such valuable work. If we have a storm of any kind, which happened the last time, which forced the end to a strike - one of the many factors - if we have a storm right now, we do not have the right number of people to operate our snowploughs. We saw what can happen out around the Doe Hills, and get snowed in. We know what can happen up in Labrador. We know what can happen on the Northern Peninsula when it comes to bad weather. What would we do right now if we had a flood? - which I hope we never do. Just imagine if this was the time of the year that the Badger flood had happened, on the West Coast, or here in St. John's. Where would we be today without our valued public sector workers?

What I am saying, Madam Speaker, is that this is day five, but if this strike is not settled within the next day or two, I can tell you that the services we are coping with, the reduced services that the public are coping with today, and have been, they will crumble. There is nothing surer; they will crumble. Where will people be without proper services? Where will people be, who are out in rural Newfoundland and want an ambulance to come in here to get work done and they cannot get it done, and they can only get emergency work done?

A lot of people have planned for surgeries and have gotten time off from work and from school and they have planned their schedule around planned surgeries. A lot of people will say that is unnecessary, but if you have children who are in the school system, or if you are working yourself and you are planning surgery around those schedules, it is very difficult to change, and it is very difficult for you not to be able to see a specialist when you want to see one. All of those things are so important.

How far can we go into a strike for a public sector in this Province? I would say day seven would definitely be the turning point of this strike; if we can get to day seven. Madam Speaker, I would rather see our Premier decide on going back to the bargaining table and forgetting what has been said in the past and try to secure a proper relationship with our public sector and getting the strike averted and stopped; not averted because we are already into it, but getting the strike halted so people can get back with their daily lives.

I want to talk about whatever -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: No. I hear people opposite saying: What does she have to do to break the record? I am going to stand up here and talk as long as I want.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: False alarms, false fire alarms, wind and rain and fire, jeering from the opposite side, none of that is going to deter me. None of that. I am committed to letting the people of this Province know that this is a bad Budget. They had a lot of choices and they chose to hurt the people who depended on them to bring them a new approach.

I looked at this so-called Tory Blue Book, and it was interesting when I looked at the plan. It is called: Danny Williams' Plan for Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not the PC plan. It is a Danny Williams' Plan and, I mean, it says so. The Danny Williams' Plan. It says he has "...solid fundamentals..." He said he has "...acquired over 30 years in the private sector. And just as they worked in the private, sector, they will work in government." Now, I do not know what worked in the private sector, but I do not think you can treat government like the private sector. I believe our new Premier has just gotten a quick lesson that you really cannot treat government like you can treat business, because if he hasn't got the lesson by now, he is just not listening. This is what he says, "This plan is my vision of where I want to lead the Province over the next four to eight years." What a nerve! What a nerve to say the next four to eight years! That all depends on the voters. How can you squeeze eight years there in that?

What is he planning to do with federal and provincial relations? I think our Premier has to get out and develop the federal-provincial relationship much better than we have witnessed so far. Our Finance Minister has said that he hopes, and will, eliminate the deficit in four years. But, what he is not telling the people is that the only debts he is going to eliminate is the cash deficit.

I already said earlier this afternoon, in order for the long-term debt to be even slightly decreased would take a massive intervention from Ottawa. What has our Premier been doing developing the new provincial-federal relationship, I ask? I noticed one thing in his Budget, he is going to have an Ottawa office. That is one thing. Forget about the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor, but he is going to have an Ottawa office.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: No office in Labrador? I do not think there is going to be much in Labrador by the sound of things.

AN HON. MEMBER: Deferred.

MS THISTLE: Deferred. We all know the difference between deferred and cancelled. We certainly got a lesson on that in this Budget.

What is he doing to enhance the provincial-federal relationship, I wonder? We know he is going to put an office in Ottawa. We also know he is going to run the new Department of Business with a budget of $1 million, of which $775,000 is a travel budget for the Premier. Has he had any success with equalization with Prime Minister Martin?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Not yet. Okay, he is going to use the soft-pedal approach first where he is going to enhance the federal-provincial relationship because he said that roughing up relationships do not work. He is not going to do any of that. Now, despite the former Minister of Fisheries in the PC government who says this new Premier should get out and play hardball. He should play hardball. That is the only way that Ottawa listens.

MR. JOYCE: The Mike Harris approach.

MS THISTLE: The Mike Harris approach.

MR. JOYCE: Cut everything down.

MS THISTLE: Yes, cut everything down.

What is the new Premier doing to get a better deal with Ottawa on our offshore resources as if they were on land? Is there any progress on that front? I do not think so. Is there any progress with the CHST? I do not think so. Is there any progress with equalization? No. In fact, I looked at the Budget, and guess what? We are getting less this year for equalization than we did last year. I would have to give him a failing grade on that one, I guess.

What else has happened? Are there any changes on the Atlantic Accord? Well, we would say that that is a work in progress. The jury is still out on that one but we are hopeful that he will get a better deal on the Atlantic Accord.

What has the new Premier accomplished in his six months in government? If I were to put out a report card, I do not know. If I were to put out a report card on what this new Premier has accomplished in six months I would say he has poisoned the atmosphere. He has certainly poisoned the atmosphere for business people out there. He has absolutely collapsed the collective bargaining process. That is gone. That is definitely gone. He has turned off all the people who want to go camping in our provincial parks. Remember, if you are going into provincial parks take a cake of soap and stop at a pond before you get there, because you are not going to be able to take a shower unless you fork over five dollars. So, take your cake of soap and have a wash in the pond before you get into the provincial park. As funny as that sounds, it is true, as funny as that is, because you are not going to be able to get a wash there unless you are ready to fork over five dollars. You cannot bring in your own firewood. Do not be caught! Do not be caught with an armful of firewood in the trunk of your car. Do not be caught! That is not allowed, so don't dare have a yaffle of firewood. You cannot do that!

Now, if you want to go trouting in the morning, I will tell you, you thought DFO had a big job with poachers! Look out! look out!

AN HON. MEMBER: Firewood and (inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Yes..

Now, you talk about people wanting to get a moose licence, going from $40 to $52. Well, I think you had better hire some more conservation officers, because, I will tell you, there are going to be a lot of people who will not want to pay the $52.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MS THISTLE: They do not want to listen, because they know that they are dead wrong. They know that the people who are going to be suffering the most from this Budget are the people who really cannot afford to pay more. They are the same crowd who said they were going to look after the seniors and give them a $250 subsidy for extra costs they incur during the winter for heat and so on. They are the same crowd who wanted to claw back the pensioners' indexing.

MR. RIDEOUT: That is off the table. We are done with that.

MS THISTLE: The Minister of Transportation and Works said it is off the table. What did it take to get it off the table, I would say to you? What did it take? What did it take? What did it take to get it off the table?

AN HON. MEMBER: - (Inaudible) even though it is off the table.

MS THISTLE: Yes.

What did it take to get it off the table? The seniors were pooling their money and having meetings all over the Province, all over Newfoundland and Labrador, and parading around the Confederation Building. People could not believe their ears when they heard that you were going to claw back the pensioners indexing. I mean that is a bit low, that is stooping a bit low.

AN HON. MEMBER: The same thing, they would not lay anyone off in the Blue Book either.

MS THISTLE: That is right. They said they would not lay anybody off and now there are 4,000 people going to lose their jobs.

I do not know if there is anything in this Budget that is good news except what we left for you and that was all good news, because we started off with a vote of confidence for the people in this Province starting new businesses.

Now, what have you done for economic development? You started a Rural Secretariat. What is a Rural Secretariat going to do anymore than the economic zone boards, or are you saying that you are going to dismantle them? I guess that is the next thing, the axe is going to hit those. It has already hit them in one sense, because the funding for these boards was 70-30; 70 per cent by the federal government and 30 per cent by the provincial government. What have you done in six months to try to attract new money to keep these boards up and running? I do not know. I have not seen anything in the news anywhere. If there is something you have been doing that has not gotten the attention of the media, I wouldn't mind hearing about it.

I know one thing, the people in my district, economic zone board 12, have lost five specialists. In fact, one of them was an expert on agriculture and there was a new business of blueberry farming going ahead. There were two or three farms in my district that were doing very well with blueberry farming, and that person is no longer there. I think that has been the talk all over the Province. There have been a good many people who woke up one morning to find out they had a pink slip.

I do not know. The government of the day never said they were going to dismantle those economic zone boards, but if you are not putting any money into them and you are developing a new, what you call Rural Secretariat, I would venture to say, beware, because there is more bad news coming down the tubes.

Is there any good news in this Budget? No, there is all bad news. There is nothing there that would convince somebody to go out and take a mortgage. Can you imagine the people who, last year, built homes and decided to take on a mortgage? The interest rates were at their lowest in about thirty years, the economy was doing great, and they decided to go out and buy a house.

MR. JOYCE: And on the Premier's word, no layoffs.

MS THISTLE: Particularly, as my colleague just said, on the Premier's word that there would be no layoffs. How does a family cope with that today knowing that there are indeed layoffs and they might have to give up their new home, and no jobs? What does that do to a family, when they have to wait until the bank comes and forecloses on their mortgage, then sells off their house and they have to move out of town?

What does that do for seniors here around the Province? What is there in this Budget that seniors can feel excited about? Is there any new money there for drugs? For MS? Is there any new money there for Alzheimer's drugs? Are there any new increases in their pensions? Is there any new money there for fuel oil subsidy? No, not likely. Are there free passes for seniors to provincial parks?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, Sir.

MS THISTLE: No.

Have they gotten any reduction on their insurance?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MS THISTLE: No, no reduction on insurance.

How about their driver's licence? They are probably getting a reduction on them, are they?

MR. REID: Gone up forty dollars.

MS THISTLE: A forty-dollar increase for seniors.

What is going to happen to someone who needs to take an ambulance from Buchans? What is going to happen? Number one, you are an hour-and-fifteen minutes off the highway, so naturally you are probably going to take an escort with you. By taking an escort with you that is going to cost you more money, so you have to pay, I think, $115?

MR. REID: Yes, plus the cost of attendant.

MS THISTLE: Plus the attendant which is another $50. Are you going to think about those things when you need an ambulance? I do not know if you can just pass that off and say it is an increase. I do not think we can.

MR. REID: Sure, that is a tax.

MS THISTLE: That is a definite tax. One hundred and fifteen dollars a trip. Now, a trip may not be a round trip.

MR. REID: That is one way. They said it on TV the other night.

MS THISTLE: A trip is one way. So, can you imagine! If someone from Buchans had to go, only from Buchans to Grand Falls-Windsor, they would have to pay $115 one way, plus $50 for their attendant, and the same thing would happen again when they go back to Buchans. My goodness, can you imagine that? What senior around can pay that kind of money? Not too many. Not too many seniors can pay that kind of money.

Then there are the Alzheimer's drugs. A lot of people were expecting to get those in this Budget, but did they get them? No. Did the MS patients get their drugs? No.

AN HON. MEMBER: Alzheimer's didn't, and (inaudible) a written commitment.

MS THISTLE: Alzheimer's never got theirs and there was a written commitment, I am understanding, that the Progressive Conservative Blue Book or people in the Progressive Conservative government said. That is the new approach, I guess.

MR. REID: Setting the record straight, they are. The new approach.

MS THISTLE: Setting the record straight, the new approach.

Then, of course, when someone gets in here, if you have to go from Grand Falls to Buchans, it is $115 a trip, and if you are really seriously ill and you need semi-private accommodations it will go from $60 a day to $85 a day. Lots of people are very ill and they need the quietness of a semi-private room for their recovery. They cannot stay on a ward, especially when they are critically ill, so now you have $115 a trip and then another increase of $85 a day. My goodness, how can a senior or anyone pay that kind of money?

What this government is doing is that you are driving people from their homes in rural Newfoundland. You are driving people from their homes. You are cutting out medical facilities. You are cutting out social services, Human Resources and Employment. You are cutting out school boards. Putting a board in Gander to look after people in Baie Verte is almost the same - it is just as well to have it in St. John's, isn't it? But are you not the same crowd that did not want school boards anyway? I thought you were the same crowd that said it here in the House many times, that you saw no use for school boards in this Province and you felt it could be handled just as well by the Department of Education.

If that is what you are saying, this is only the first step into total elimination of school boards as we see it, and particularly as I see it, because if you are going to have a school board in Gander at more cost to the taxpayer, that is going to look after from Gander and Gander Bay and all points west right to Baie Verte, you are not going provide the individual attention that the boards are getting today and the students are getting today.

For a new government that is supposed to be fiscally responsible and making the right decisions, would somebody please stand on their feet and tell me this is a right decision? As expected, there is nobody going to stand on their feet and tell me that was a right decision. I cannot understand the Member for Baie Verte going along with that plan to close out the school board office in Grand Falls-Windsor and cost the taxpayers more money. No matter which way you cut it, there is more money for renovations to the Gander office. They own the building in Grand Falls-Windsor. They have a whole school converted with proper hookups for computers and technical training equipment that they use for seventy-five schools now in the district. Yet, this new government wants to spend the money that we do not have and renovate a rented space in Gander that is not adequate to house the needs, spend out more money in travel claims, spend more money in gas and be on the road longer -

MR. REID: For an inferior program.

MS THISTLE: - for a program that does not work like the program we have now, doing this all in the name of fiscal responsibility.

MR. REID: Fiscal blindness.

MS THISTLE: Yes, fiscal blindness is more about it, or arrogant approach trying to dismantle what is already there and put up something new that costs twice as much with a greater inconvenience for the students, the users and the people from the board office who have to travel. For instance, if someone from Gander is going to go to Baie Verte or La Scie -

MR. REID: Conferences, hotel rooms, cars.

MS THISTLE: Yes.

How long do you think that person is going to be on the road before they can actually go to a school in Baie Verte or La Scie? Tell me that one, will you. Oh, no, he doesn't want to tell me that one, he is leaving now.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that you should not refer to the absence of a member or a member leaving the Chamber.

MS THISTLE: He is not gone, Madam Speaker, it was an oversight. He actually didn't go, he is still here.

I want to ask the Member for Lewisporte, the Minister of Transportation and Works: How long would it take a person traveling from Gander to go to Ramea? How long would it take them to go to Ramea? Tell me that one.

MR. REID: Especially over the road in Ramea.

MS THISTLE: Yes.

Now, are you prepared, as the new government, to pay out more money in travel claims to board people who are going to be working out of Gander? Now, you never had the decency to come out and tell us if that board office was moving to Gander, but yet you gave forty-one people their pink slips. As a new government are you prepared, as a new approach are you prepared, to pay out more money in overnight travel? Who are you making rich here? Is it the hotels?

MR. REID: They are not doing much for education.

MS THISTLE: You are not doing much for education when somebody can spend a day on the road before they actually get to the school they have to visit.

Within Grand Falls-Windsor, no matter where you go, you are anywhere from two to two-and-a-half hours away from the school you want to visit.

We have a facility, a school board, that is completely wired for computers and conferences and development seminars that teachers need to and should attend.

I wonder if the Member for Windsor-Springdale and the Member for Baie Verte replied to an e-mail that they got today. I won't name the person, but the e-mail was addressed to myself and to the members I mentioned, and it is all about the possibility of the school board office going to Gander. There are some grave concerns about this. Put a face on what is being proposed here, because that is what needs to happen.

Number one, you are looking at forty-one jobs leaving Grand Falls-Windsor. That is what you are looking at. You are looking at a school board office in Grand Falls-Windsor that is owned, it is huge, and it is completely renovated to accommodate every need. You are looking at the geography. Grand Falls-Windsor is the centre of the Province. It is right in the middle of the Province and it makes economic sense to have the board office in the most central part of the region. The building in Grand Falls-Windsor is newer than the one in Gander. It is larger, it is newly renovated. The cost has been written off, and it is most economic in terms of the delivery of professional development to over seventy-five schools, but does that matter? Does that matter? Because it is all about justification. There is no justification. There is absolutely no justification for making this move - no justification.

What you are going to do is have one mega board from Gander to Baie Verte and the South Coast at a huge expense to the taxpayer in this Province. You do not have money enough to look after the payment on a cancer clinic but you do have money enough to spend to renovate, unnecessarily, a board office in Gander.

You are now in the process of looking at hospital boards. What is next? Nothing is going to remain untouched. I think it would do this government well to look at the gains this Province has made in the past -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

MS THISTLE: I think it would do this government well to look at the gains that have taken place in this Province. Look at your own material that you are putting out for public consumption. Look at your own material. If you are hoping to draw business into this Province - and the Premier thinks he is the man that can do it. He has written the economic plan for the Province and it is his vision. If the Premier thinks he is the answer to the financial woes in this Province, I can tell you there is nothing in this Budget and there is nothing in this Economy book that would bring people in droves to invest in our Province. If you are going to entice people in here, in Newfoundland and Labrador, you have to look at where we have come from and the confidence that consumers have placed in the previous government and in the Province in general.

Look at the new businesses that have started up in the past three to four years. Is there anything in your economy predictions for 2004 that would entice a large business from outside our Province to come in? I do not think so. You are painting the wrong message. If this works in private industry I will be surprised, because anyone who is doing a business plan should be doing a truthful one. The truth was in your base already. You talked about the base that you had to grow on. Well, there isn't much in your Budget that is going to encourage new investors to come here to this Province based on what they are reading in your book.

There have been a lot of things said in recent days about this Budget, but I think the most important thing about this Budget is what is not said. What is going to happen in the days and weeks ahead? There are several studies out there now being done that I think are very frightening to the people of this Province. I think it is what is not being said. There is a lot of bad news in the Budget, but what is not being said?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think what is not being said in this Budget is probably going to be the most alarming to people all around this Province. We already know that there are several studies out right now. There is also a study on the tunnel, isn't there?

MR. REID: Yes, and going nowhere because they have the road (inaudible).

MS THISTLE: The going nowhere tunnel. That is one block of money that is being spent. Is that a good way to spend your money?

MR. REID: What a waste! Close the road during the winter to save enough money to do the study. Boy, oh boy!

MS THISTLE: Yes. As my colleague just said, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, there was enough money saved this winter by not plowing the road in Labrador to do the study on the tunnel. Can you imagine? That is awful. That is terrible for the people in Labrador, to be subjected to that kind of a budget, where there is nothing in it for Labrador.

There is another $250,000 being spent on a White Paper for Post-Secondary. There is another study being done. Then they are telling the college and the university to save $2 million each while they are spending -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) study it.

MS THISTLE: They are going to study - spend $250,000 to study - post-secondary education. Can you imagine, $250,000? What it really means is that they are going to cut the guts out of post-secondary education. They already dismantled the department. I wonder what is coming next. Does that mean there is going to be a consolidation of campuses, or a reduction of campuses? Nobody knows.

I mentioned it before, and it is very important, that the young people in Goose Bay cannot get their auditorium for $2 million. They cannot get their auditorium for $2 million but we can put up a courthouse. We can put up a courthouse in Goose Bay, but the young people in Goose Bay cannot get their auditorium, which they deserve. There is no question, they deserve it. They have a new school with no auditorium and nowhere to host any kind of events or concerts or plays, or any kind of school activity events that would be normally held in an auditorium. There is nothing there. Now, is that a way to treat the young people in Labrador? I do not think so.

When you talk about tough choices, was it a tough choice to decide on whether you would put in a courthouse or a school auditorium? Is it a tough choice to decide on closing a school board office and pay out more money to move it to a further location, away from the people who are using it? I think that is a wrong choice.

How about combining hospital boards and closing medical clinics and inflicting pain on people who cannot afford to pay for it? Is that a good choice? No, that is a terrible choice for the people of this Province.

I think if you were to go back now, as somebody said here today, and pass that Budget out to the people of the Province, do you think the people of the Province would vote for that Budget? I think they would vote to get rid of that Budget as quickly as they could because for ordinary working people in this Province, the predictions that you are giving here with this Budget is that there are going to be less people working; rural Newfoundland is going to be gutted; hospital facilities are going to be reduced. There is absolutely nothing in it that would entice a new business to start up in this Province; absolutely nothing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Keep going Annie, you're dong good.

MS THISTLE: Adjourn debate?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: It has been brought to my attention, Mr. Speaker, that the House will be closing in a couple of minutes. Knowing that, I would like to now adjourn debate for the time being. Of course, I look forward to starting up again tomorrow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: I now adjourn debate, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The motion is that the debate now be adjourned. Is the motion acceptable? We will vote on it, if necessary. I seek direction.

All those in agreement that the House now adjourn the debate, signify by saying -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: I should repeat it.

All those in agreement that the debate should now adjourn, say aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against adjourning the debate?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The debate will continue.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I guess in compliance with the motion moved last week, I do move that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m., and that we reconvene at 7:00 p.m.

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, to the motion made by the Government House Leader.

We feel that this is absolutely unnecessary to continue the debate beyond 5:30, and I am assuming, by the way, that I will get to speak beyond 5:30, if necessary, on this point of order.

It is absolutely unnecessary. So much for commitments and cooperation. We, first of all, feel it is absolutely unnecessary. We have until May month, the third week of May according to the parliamentary calendar, to get done what business we need to get done in this House, or as long as it takes after that if we decide amongst ourselves that we need longer.

There is absolutely no necessity to go beyond the 5:30 time period. The cost involved in terms of overtime, the cost involved in terms of satellite time, we feel is not necessary. There is absolutely nothing that is on the agenda in the Order Paper today that is time sensitive. Anything, indeed, that was time sensitive, such as the Student Financial Assistance Act or the Interim Supply, the Opposition have been more than agreeable with the government whenever there was anything time sensitive and got it done last week. There was total, absolute cooperation. It is totally contrary to this government's published Blue Book commitment about a family friendly environment. In terms of the House of Assembly -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: - we feel that this is absolutely ‘pressureful.' There is no need of it. There is no need of proceeding in this manner. This is a very highhanded manner, especially against an Opposition who have been nothing but cooperative with this government in getting done what it needs to get done. There is absolutely no reason to endure any costs in coming back here tonight to have this done other than the government wanting to merely exert its will for the sake of exerting its will.

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

I should point out to members that by agreement we can hear the point of order but only if we agree to stop the clock, because under Standing Order 9 it says, "If at 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon except on Wednesday, the business of the House is not concluded, the Speaker shall leave the Chair until 7 o'clock." So, the Chair seeks direction that we stop the clock at 5:30, then we can continue to hear the point of order. If not, the Speaker has to leave the Chair now. The direction is that we will hear the point of order.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have to agree with the Opposition House Leader here. We have a bill before the House which is the general Budget motion which is not time sensitive, as is pointed out. When there were matters that had to be passed this House sat beyond 5:30 and ensured that the government was able to have Interim Supply so that the business of government would not be held up. A bill that, for political reasons - which we recognized even though it was time sensitive for them, on the Student Financial Assistance Act so that it could be passed during the last fiscal year, that was before the House and it was passed in a timely way and not held up. What we are doing right now is the general budget motion. We have the first speaker, and it is not uncommon for the first speaker to take quite a bit of time, as the current Minister of Finance did last year, to deal with the Budget motion. It is not necessary to sit long hours, late at night. We are not under any time pressure. There is no evidence of any pressure from other matters.

As was pointed out, the motion was that this particular House was going to look at family- friendly sittings which, to me, meant that we were going to only sit after hours when it was absolutely necessary to do so, to meet some government agenda. There is nothing going to be passed tonight, because this motion that is before the House on the government Budget is not going to be passed tonight regardless of how late we sit, because only one person has spoken so far and has yet to finish her speech. There is nothing to be accomplished by sitting longer hours tonight other than sitting longer hours and having this House sit at night for three hours. It is absolutely unnecessary. There is no crisis at work other than the public sector strike which we are not debating, and I see no reason why we should have to sit at night in the absence of some compelling reason.

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

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

It is not unusual for the House to sit from 7:00 p.m to 10:00 p.m. I am not going to belabour the speaker's point or the speaker's time with all the examples, but I do recall, actually, one time in the House where we sat-

AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible.

MR. E. BYRNE: I listened to everybody intently, I say to the Member for Twillingate& Fogo, and I would appreciate the same courtesy if you would not mind, please.

I remember being here one time and there were ten of us and we sat forty-six hours straight. Forty-six hours straight!

MR. SULLIVAN: We sat last year on the Budget in the nighttime, when I spoke.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, to a point today made by the Leader of the Opposition -

AN HON. MEMBER: On the Budget?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, sir.

MR. E. BYRNE: Just a second, Loyola.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: To a point made by the Leader of the Opposition earlier today, talking about we were trying to run them out of their seventy-five hour Budget time, the fact of the matter is, I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, that on this particular motion none of it comes out of your seventy-five hour Budget time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible.

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, then why did you put out the release?

MR. SULLIVAN: That is what the release said today.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, you did. The release is out. That is exactly right.

Mr. Speaker, let me say this, that according to Standing Orders in the House, I moved the appropriate motions on Thursday that gave full notice and a complete compliance with the Standing Orders of the House. I moved today that we sit beyond 5:30 p.m. and, Mr. Speaker, it is fully our intention to be back here at 7:00 p.m. We have a piece of work to do, we are not trying to run anyone out of time. We have a very busy legislative agenda planned for when the House reconvenes and it will be provided to everybody.

I will say, Mr. Speaker, that I did put Motion 4 before the House -

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, you did.

MR. E. BYRNE: - to move, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, April 5, 2004.

MR. PARSONS: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On the point of order, the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I will not repeat the reasons that I just gave the Chair as to why we feel it is unnecessary that this House reconvene here at 7:00 p.m. tonight. I think I made those quite clear, that it is absolutely unnecessary, it is costly, it is "bullyism" at its worst, to insist that we proceed -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: - but in the spirit of cooperation that we have shown in this House since this House opened in March, in the spirit of cooperation that we showed, and given that rational and not withstanding that the Government House Leader has done everything proper under the rules in terms of notice - nobody here is quibbling about the fact that he did not give notice or anything, we know that he did and he did that quite properly - but, in the spirit of cooperation, if the concern by the government side is that the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans might be taking too much time, and it is the intent to shut her down from speaking, we have no problem in saying at this time that we are agreeable that the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans would cease her comments and her time would be up. We see no reason whatsoever to continue this tonight if the only purpose that the government has is to try to wear down or wear out the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans. If that is the intent, in the spirit of cooperation, we fully agree that she will cease and desist from speaking further to the Budget Speech at this time. I cannot see what else we can do to be more fair, to be more equitable, to this House.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Opposition may feel that the motion is punitive, but I can assure them that it is not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The Member for Twillingate & Fogo, again, is continuously interrupting me as I speak. I sat down and listened to his House Leader make his points and I would again appreciate the exact same courtesy to make mine.

The Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, in her capacity as critic for President of Treasury Board and critic for Finance, it is up to her when she wants to say it is time. It is certainly not up to us, and I am not going to be put in the position to decide that. She can decide that for herself. I will say that at 7:00 p.m it is our intention - we have thirty-three members on this side of the House who would like to participate and get some points in before we break for a short time over Easter. We plan to do some of that tonight, Mr. Speaker, if we have the opportunity. If we do not, and the member wants to continue until 10:00 p.m. and then we go home after that, that is her choice. However, the fact of the matter is that there is a motion before the House, Motion 4, and we would like it dealt with, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Am I to understand from the Government House Leader that he will not be sitting after 10:00 p.m.? Is he prepared to commit to that, then, if we sit until 10:00 p.m? The notice he gave the other day was that we would not close at 5:30 p.m. and we would not close at 10:00 p.m. Is the Government House Leader suggesting now that we will not sit beyond 10:00 p.m.? If that is the case we will not have any problem with that, to give everybody an opportunity to -

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Opposition have not figured out yet that they are not the government, and the agenda -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Would you like for me to respond?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Would you like for me to respond? I ask the Opposition House Leader: Would you like a response?

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) very telling. Say some more.

MR. E. BYRNE: There is no question. I thought you woke up on October 22 and knew you were not the government anymore, I say to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, it is our intention tonight -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The House cannot continue if we are going to have constant shouting back and forth.

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Government House Leader making some concluding comments on a point of order, after which we will then proceed to have a vote on the motions that he has put forward.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: I am hearing concluding comments on the point of order. We have had comments back and forth and I do believe the Government House Leader has asked to make some final comments on the point of order and we are hearing him now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am attempting to answer. I was attempting to respond to my colleague's question about: Is it my intention or the government's intention not to sit beyond 10:00 p.m.? That is clearly our intention, that we sit between 7:00 and 10:00 tonight, not beyond 10:00 o'clock.

I will point out for members in the House, both new and old, or both new members and returning members, to remind them that there were many occasions when the former Government House Leader stood in this House and passed such motions.

The present Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, Mr. Speaker, on two different nights, during this very same motion, which every government must put forward after they present the Budget, was in his place 9:30 one night, quarter to ten another night. This is not unusual. It has nothing to do with trying to ram stuff through. How do you ram something through for three hours when the person who is up to speak has unlimited time to speak? It is a bit of an oxymoron, I say to the Leader of the Opposition. If you do not want to come back between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., then do not come back.

Mr. Speaker, could we put the motion forward, please, Motion 4?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is trying to be as tolerant as we can. I think we will hear one more comment and then I will rule on the point of order and then we will proceed to make decisions.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: The only comment I would make, Mr. Speaker, is, first of all, it is not a case that the Opposition does not know that the other side are the government. That is not the issue at all. We fully understand and respect that the other side are the government. We just want to see this institution work how it is intended to work, and nobody is going to run roughshod over anybody's rights in this House, particularly the Government House Leader!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Now, if I can just confirm from the Government House Leader that the plan is now, and the commitment is now, that we come back at 7:00 p.m. and we will conclude at 10:00 p.m., so that the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans will take up with her comments after supper.

MR. SPEAKER: On the point of order, I quote from Marleau where he says, "A point of order is a question raised by a Member who believes that the rules or customary procedures of the House have been incorrectly applied or overlooked during the proceedings."

In this particular case, there is nothing wrong with the point of order that has been raised. It is not a point of order that would cause us to proceed. So I rule there is no point of order, and the Chair would now put the question.

The question that has been put to the House is: To move pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, April 5, 2004.

I think there is agreement that we would not put Motion 5, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock. I will put them separately because they can be dealt with separately.

The motion: Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p. m., on Monday, April 5.

All those in agreement say, aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded to that.

The motion is carried.

In accordance with that, it is only by agreement that I hear comments back and forth, because this motion is very precise. It says the House not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock, which means that unless we have agreement the House now has to continue until 10:00 p.m. If we have an agreement we can recess for supper, but only by agreement. Therefore, the motion is very precise.

What is the wish of the House? Shall we recess for supper until 7:00 p.m. or shall we continue with debate?

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, we stopped the clock at 5:30 p.m. I moved Motion.4, which means that we recess between now and 7:00 o'clock; back here at 7:00, for between 7:00 and 10:00. That is what Motion 4 is all about.

MR. SPEAKER: I need to have consultation with the Table, because there may be some need for us to - the Clerk informs me that we have had an indication of agreement on both sides, that we would recess until 7:00 p.m.

By agreement, we can do anything. Therefore the House stands recessed until 7:00 p.m.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: I am delighted to resume debate here tonight. I am standing in my flat shoes, I have had my supper, and I am ready to go.

MR. HUNTER: You are recharged.

MS THISTLE: As the Member for Windsor-Springdale said, I am recharged, and I am. Excuse me for a moment. I would not want to lose any important information from my desk.

Before the supper break, we had a discussion here in this House, and the discussion was around the importance of keeping this hon. House open way into the evening hours. I, for one, do not mind standing up here and debating the Budget. In fact, there is lots to talk about, but I do certainly question why we are here in the evening hours. The time went ahead Saturday night, so it is a one-hour difference now for people who do not have themselves regulated. Let's face it, the issue we are discussing tonight is the Budget that was brought down by the new government. You would not know by members opposite, but that there was an important, urgent piece of legislation that we had to pass here tonight. This is how they are trying to frame what they are doing here tonight in this House.

For the viewers out there who may be watching, this is the House of Assembly proceedings and Orders of the Day. For the viewing audience out there, there is absolutely zero legislation to be debated here tonight. There is no legislation on our books to talk about tonight. The only reason we are here is that they are trying to make sure that I do not have the time that I need to respond to the Budget. That is the only reason we are here tonight. It is a waste of the taxpayers' money, it is a waste of the staff who are here from Hansard to record it, it is a waste of the money that is paid out to the television companies to broadcast it, and it is unnecessary. It is highly likely that we will be in this House up to the middle of May or the end of May, and there will be to and fro discussion on the Budget. There is no urgent piece of legislation here tonight to be passed.

What the government must admit, is that we were all accommodating when they wanted legislation passed. They had two pieces of legislation when they opened the House this spring. One was Interim Supply, which was necessary. In fact, government cannot run, people cannot get a paycheck, all the people who depend on government to be paid would not be paid, if Interim Supply was not passed. It represents about one-quarter of the Province's total budget for the year. We accommodated the new government and we passed Interim Supply. We did not go beyond the normal debating time, we accommodated this government.

We even accommodated government when they wanted to do a politically motivated bill. We accommodated them doing Bill 1. The first bill that came to the House of Assembly should make a really good impression on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Do you think that the taxpayers out there in the Province, the young people and seniors, are looking highly at this government for bringing in a bill, Bill 1, the cornerstone of their new government, which was politically motivated?

The Government House Leader was set with a very important task by the Premier. He had to make sure that bill was passed. It started out to be March 30 and then, with the Budget being moved up earlier, he was charged to have the bill passed by March 29; nothing but political motivation to do it.

It was not necessary for the students of this Province. If you went out and did a survey from all the students who are currently attending post-secondary education, and you asked them today, April 5, by passing that Bill 1, what affect did that have for you in this Province, what do you think they would say? They would say: What bill? That is what they would say. Let's face it, the students around this Province had no idea about Bill 1, most of them, and it had zero impact on students; absolutely zero impact. They are still able to get their student loans if they need them, and they are still able to attend post-secondary institutions.

I do not think this bill, and I know this bill, did not pay off any student debt. It did not give students any breaks on their cost of education. It did not make any difference to the Bank of Commerce, if you paid it off by March 29. They were collecting the interest from you, from the government. They did not care if you paid it off March 29 or if you waited until next summer or if you waited until next year, as far as that goes, as long as you paid the cost to those people, the banks, doing the administration for you.

This is how we accommodated the new government. In fact, during the course of debate on the new student loans assistance act, do you know that new government, at no point, denied that what they were doing was just a political cover-up; at no point denied that. I raised that question several times during the course of the debate and, at no point, did they deny that it was a political cover-up and political blackmail. They admitted it. They absolutely admitted it.

What the viewers out there may not know is that this report by PricewaterhouseCoopers was done for that reason only. If I had the money that it cost to do this report, I could make about four months' payment on the new cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor. Based on last year's interest rates, it would only take $421,000 a year to make the payment on the cancer clinic.

This report first was going to cost $115,000 but, based on that special trip made by Mr. Michael Gourley, based on that trip to St. John's on January 5, and the cost attached to doing it, I think that now this report is up to about $130,000. I guess if you had to pay to get that report done, this phony report, so you could bring in your legislation, and you could make the cuts, and you could put in your Budget book that you are going to cancel the cancer clinic, you are going to cancel the health care facility in Grand Bank, and you are going to cancel the one in Gander - but, according to the Member for Gander, the people in Gander do not mind. They do not care. They are agreeing with the Member for Gander, that he did the right thing, yes. He did the right thing. In other words, if you had your time back, the Member for Gander, I guess he would erase that $65 million that was spent on Gander. There would be no need for it. Is that what you are saying?

It was interesting, I was looking at our own newspaper in Grand Falls-Windsor, called the Advertiser. There was a section in it on October 23, 2003, and it contained probably an older picture, or a younger picture - an older picture and a younger picture - of the current Finance Minister when he was sporting the moustache. I think that was probably a ten-year-old picture. They were interviewing the current Finance Minister, and at that time he was saying: With an estimated 18 per cent to 25 per cent of the civil service eligible for retirement within the next five years, the Province could well face added pressure on its growing pension commitments. He said: Mr. Sullivan figures that some of the pressure will be alleviated by older retired workers dying.

Can you imagine? Imagine saying that. Mr. Sullivan figures some of the pressure will be alleviated for government by older retirement workers dying, so they will not collect their full pension. My gosh, that is an awful statement to make. That is an awful statement to make.

There will be a good many of the retired people, or the people who will not be collecting the full pension because they will be laid off. There will be a good many out there who will not be collecting a full pension because, as we are hearing in recent days, 4,000 people are going to be leaving the public service in this Province and they are not going to be replaced. So there will be a good many people, and the ones out there today who have gotten the pink slips over the past few days. How about the people in Grand Falls-Windsor, the forty-one who just got their pink slips with the school board? Are they going to be able to collect their full pension? I doubt it. Do you need to accrue their employee benefits for when they retire? Well, they are going to be retired, according to this new government, so you might have to pay that out next week, not five years down the road or not ten years down the road.

What I do know is that the infamous Tory Blue Book, blueprint, talked about no layoffs. If you see all the ads that are on television, and I saw a new one during suppertime, they talked about no layoffs. It looks like that was one of the first promises made and one of the first ones broken.

It is easy to see that the government that is in place today fooled a lot of people. They fooled a lot of people. They were cozying up with the union and were going to respect unions and leaders and members' rights. What did they do with collective bargaining? Out the window. Total intimidation from the start, and it is not finished yet.

I think what the people of this Province want, I think they are tired of all the talk that has been going on in the media, on both sides, but the real issue is, people are out there today on strike, and there are 20,000 of them.

I notice that during the news at suppertime the nurses have the same concerns that the public sector workers who belong to NAPE and CUPE have. They are concerned that this government may strip concessions that are now currently in their contract. They have the same concerns that the strikers have out there today. Then, of course, we have another group of very important workers in our Province: teachers. Teachers are going to be facing the same dilemma in August, and I am sure that the whole country will be watching to see how this new government deals with unions, and what kind of a conclusion they can come to in ending the strike.

I think it is like I said this afternoon, the first sector that will show the cracks in this strike is definitely health care. A lot of other sectors can stay intact and they can function but I think the first sector that is going to show the cracks in this strike will definitely be health care. This is day five. If a strike goes on past Wednesday, I know for certain that you will have a visit, the Health Minister and the Premier and whoever else is involved with the planning and priority committee. They will have a visit from the Health Boards Association and they will be asked to do whatever is necessary to end this strike. Now, union people know that. They have been down this road before. People will only wait so long to get necessary health care help. If people have to prolong surgeries, if they have to wait for tests to be done and if they cannot see a specialist when they need one, and surgery is put off and only emergencies are dealt with, you are going to have a public demonstration that you have never seen before. I do not think there is anyone in this Province who will not say that health care is the number one issue on everyone's plate. You put yourself in that type of situation, if you or any member of your family were unable to get the medical help they needed tonight. What would you do? I do not think you would sit around too long and let the normal bargaining process take place. You would do anything you could to end that strike.

I think you have to put yourself in the position that strikers are in out there tonight. There are 20,000 of them, and while it is true they have had frozen wages for a long, long time, ten years, and while it is true that their wages have not kept pace with their Atlantic counterparts, and while it is true that we have a fiscal situation that needs co-operation, all of that was thrown out the door with the Premier's approach on January 5.

Instead of looking for co-operation from unions and their members, the Premier stated in his address to the people that - he spent two-thirds of his speech on negativity and one-third on talking about building the future with generic statements and no real action. No real plan. I think what poisoned the atmosphere from that evening, January 5, was the fact that he came out without any consultation with the unions and talked about a wage freeze. He did not give timelines. He talked about a wage freeze with no timelines and no consultation with unions or their members.

Now, that was a pretty adamant, arrogant and bold statement to make. Your first address to the general public where you would expect to hear from the new Premier on how he intended to do something different in this Province; how he intended to use his new approach to build the economy. I do not think there is anybody on that side opposite who could say that - the economy reached the best proportions it ever has in any year in our history, I think, was last year 2003. It was so exciting to walk around the Province or visit communities and feel the excitement. You can pick that up when you take in events such as special days and festivities and different days that would represent a particular community; like, for instance, Badger Day which we had to curtail last year because of the flood.

There was a general upbeat feeling all around the Province. I think that it is easy to know where it was coming from because people felt good about their situations. We had record-breaking employment. People were employed. We had new stores springing up everywhere. In fact, you look here in St. John's, I mean go down to Stavanger Drive and look at all the stores, the chain stores and the box stores. People on the Avalon Peninsula know that not only the people in St. John's and surrounding areas support those stores.

If you decided to close out a school board in Grand Falls-Windsor, people who would normally be getting their paycheque from that school board, they are not going to come into St. John's and spend their money on Stavanger Drive. They are going to stay and make the most of what they have or leave the Province - stay in their own community. They are not going to have any disposal income.

If you close out twenty Human Resources and Employment offices around this Province, government people who were employed in those operations: What is that going to do to local economy? Everybody knows full well that when there is a government job in place there are always two or two-and-a-half other jobs which spring from having that government job in their community. Now it may not sound like much when you talk about closing twenty regional offices for Human Resources and Employment. If you have not been in this House of Assembly for very long you probably do not feel the impact. Let me tell you that everyone of those jobs are important to rural Newfoundland. Those regional offices are not centered in St. John's, in the biggest area, they are centered in small places. Those communities have not been notified yet where they are going to be. If you take those jobs out of those small, rural Newfoundland communities, I can tell you, there is going to be a big vacuum left. The loss of that economic benefit will be felt. It will be felt within the community and it will be felt here in St. John's, where this is a hub of activity out here.

I know that St. John's could probably take a bump in employment. They would not notice it but I do not think Mount Pearl can lose 1,000 or 1,500 civil service jobs without finding it. I do not think Clarenville could either. I do not think Gander could, and I do not think Grand Falls-Windsor can, or Corner Brook, or Labrador City, or Goose Bay, or Carbonear, or Marystown, or Grand Bank. Most of the people who sit in this House, they are coming from two main professions. They are teachers, a lot of them, and most of them have had municipal experience. We have an overabundance of lawyers, I have to say that, compared to per capita here, but most of them are teachers. There are a few business people, but I have to say that it will be felt, taking teachers out of the economy, over 400 teachers. There is no way that you can lose 400 teachers.

I have had lots of young people come and ask me what were their chances, what are their prospects, of finding employment in teaching. I said: You are going into the best career opportunity possible, because we all know that our teaching age of teachers is around the middle forties now, and I said your chances of getting a job in the teaching profession are excellent.

Little did I know that new government had plans to cut out 4,000 jobs. I did not know that, and I did not know that they were going to cut out almost 500 teaching positions. If you do not have those teachers in the schools, you will not need as many student assistants either. You will not need as many people servicing that school. You will not need as many school buses. You will not need as many supplies for your schools.

What you are going to see is - do we want Distance Education to take over as the recommended educational alternative to teachers in the classroom? I do not think so. I know from a school in my own district in Buchans, which is an hour and fifteen minutes off the highway. Do the people in rural Newfoundland have to resort to Distance Education? Is that what they want this new government to do, to bring in Distance Education, a substitute for teachers in the classroom? I do not think so, and I do not think people expected school boards to fold, like we are hearing today. They only want four mega-boards in the Province.

MR. REID: We certainly did not expect teachers to be laid off, after all the ranting that the minister did last year.

MS THISTLE: No.

If I were to look up - and I do have it here - the questions that were asked during the Budget Debate by the Minister of Finance today, who was the Opposition critic - but, I don't think I will bore you with that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS THISTLE: There is going to be some disappointment, is there, by me not giving you that information?

MR. REID: Read into the record what they said.

MS THISTLE: I can tell you, I have what the Finance critic last year, the Minister of Finance this year, talked about when he was on his feet and spoke during the Budget Debate. Let me tell you, he should be reading it himself; because, if he did read it, he would not have prepared the Budget that he delivered last week.

MR. REID: He fooled everyone.

MS THISTLE: I guess he did fool everyone.

MR. REID: Misled the entire population.

MS THISTLE: Misled everyone out there. He was the same Opposition critic who was on his feet day after day saying that we need more doctors, we need more nurses.

MR. REID: More teachers.

MS THISTLE: We need more teachers. We need more money for cardiac surgery. We do not pay our doctors enough. We do not pay our health care professionals enough. We want these people to be on par with their Atlantic counterparts.

Day after day he was looking for more money, more money every day of the week. He was the first one to criticize if there was a hole in the Budget, what he is calling a structural deficit because of one-time money - one-time money that came to this Province - and what did the former Administration use one-time money for? They used it for health care. They used it to put in dialysis. They used it to reduce the lineup and the wait list for cardiac surgery. They used it for equipment for breast screening. They used it so that women could go in and get a bone density test and would not have to go to St. John's and get it. They would be able to get their bone density test done in Grand Falls-Windsor, and Corner Brook and Gander. I can remember a time when doctors were telling us that the equipment was out of date in most of our health care facilities. We made a conscious decision, as the former government, to use that so-called one-time money to buy new hospital equipment.

If we can be raked over the coals for using one-time money for health care, I am guilty. I have no problem standing on my feet tonight and saying that we used one-time money for health care. Unlike what we are hearing now, that this new Finance Minister decides that he is not going to honour commitments made by the former government. He is not going to honour commitments made by the former government, but who is impacted? Who is impacted when the Finance Minister will not honour commitments by the former government?

I can tell you that I will not be put off by the fact that this new government has cancelled the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor. If anybody watched television tonight, you can understand that the people in my district will not be put off either.

What I am expecting, I am expecting to see members opposite cross the floor on this issue. It has been such an important issue to the people of Grand Falls-Windsor and the Central area, that they have put their hopes on the people who represent our town and our area. I would not be the least bit surprised. I know that the Member for Windsor-Springdale feels very bad that this cancer clinic is not going ahead. I know he feels bad about it, because he has a close connection with the hospital and the people who work there. He knows how much it means to the people in Grand Falls-Windsor and surrounding area. I know he is in the backbenches, in the nosebleed section, and he has to toe the party line, but I know in his heart he feels really bad about this. He should feel bad enough to cross the floor and say: Yes, you are right, I really do feel bad and I am going to do my utmost to make that cancer clinic a reality. Instead of that, we have a member who is in the back and he is muzzled, he cannot really give his own opinion on how he feels.

It is different with the people in the Cabinet, the Minister of Transportation and Works and the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, who also use the services of the cancer clinic. Well, they do not but their constituents do. I bet you, even if those two ministers were to ask their constituents, what, in your opinion, do you think is the most important thing we can do for health care in Central Newfoundland, their answer would be: Look after that cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor. That is what they would say. I think anyone, who has any conscience or any heart, would understand and find a way to do this. If I had a mind to stand up here, I could find lots of reasons why government made the wrong choices in this Budget.

I am sure that Central Newfoundland members will be under considerable pressure to stand up and be counted on this issue. There are some things you can say no to, and it does not make a great lot of difference if it happens this year or if it happens next year or if it happens the year after.

In this Budget, the current government gave no indication to the cancer patients, to the cancer survivors, in the Central Newfoundland area, as to when they could expect the cancer clinic. In my opinion, it think that was a cruel heartless act. How could you stand up in the House of Assembly and say that the health care facility of the Grand Falls-Windsor hospital was cancelled. You did not have the courage to name it by the project that it was, the cancer clinic, which leads me to believe that you are not putting a face on this project. Then again, there is more than one face to this project, there are hundreds. There are hundreds of people who need those services and there are thousands of people who will need their services in the future. If you do not put a face on issues like that, there will be no trouble making decisions. I do not think you have put a face on the fact that the health care facility in Grand Bank is cancelled.

It means nothing, I suppose, that plans were drawn up, steel was ordered and steel is on-site. Does it mean anything that the steel will have to be dismantled? Dismantling the steel for the health care facility in Grand Bank is dismantling the hopes and the dreams of everybody who wanted to use that facility. If you do not put a face on the people who are going to use that facility, and what it means to people in the area, well, you can make that decision pretty easily.

It is just like all the fees that you have brought in that are going to impact people who can least afford it. If you do not put a face on the people who are going to have to order an ambulance in the middle of the night and wonder if they can pay the bill, if you do not put a face on a person who is going to - there might be an elderly person who cannot take their husband or wife with them and they will need a medical escort. If they do, they are going to have to pay a new increase. They are going to have to pay fifty dollars instead of twenty-five. You know, if you do not put a face on it, if you just unilaterally make a decision to increase fees and say, well, there is a good way that this government can generate $26 million in new revenues - there is nothing about new economic development, but this is a way that this government can generate $26 million.

If it means that a person, a senior, has to call an ambulance in the middle of the night - and, hopefully, they will not get to the point, and this government will not get to the point, where they have to pay before they get into an ambulance, because, if you do have that, pretty soon seniors will not call an ambulance. I am just wondering if you are going to get to the point where you have to use your Visa card to get into an ambulance. I mean, are you going to have to prepay to get into a hospital room? You are talking about a senior or anyone who is in critical condition and needs the quietness and the privacy of a semi-private room, and you are talking about increasing that from $55 to $80. That is unreal! No, that is from $60 to $85, $25 a day increase to have a semi-private room. There may be somebody there who needs private accommodations, someone who is terminally ill and wants to have the remaining hours with their family, and that price is going up from $75 dollars a day to $100 a day.

These are the kinds of fees that really hurt people in this Province. They were unexpected and, in my opinion, uncalled for. There must be a way, with thirty-four members on the government side, that you could have come up with ways to generate new revenue for the government. There must have been a way to do that without sitting down and deciding: Well, alright then, here is $26 million we can get easily, all we have to do is increase the fees. We look over half the usage of this system, and we know how many people have been using the ambulance in the past, but what they are not taking into account is that our population is aging and that there will be a whole lot more people using ambulances in the future, or maybe they have taken that into account, because, if they have, they know they are going to gain a lot of money through that one avenue of fee hikes.

If somebody needs to take an air ambulance - and there are lots of people around this Province who might need to take an air ambulance. It might be urgency and it might be someone who is not able to actually go over the highway. If they need to take an air ambulance that is going to go from $55 to $80 a trip. What is unusual here is that the air ambulance is priced less than the road ambulance. Now, that is kind of unusual. If you need an air ambulance it would be $80 a trip. If you need a road ambulance it would be $115 a trip, and we all know the price of operating an air ambulance.

They say they are not bringing in any taxation. No taxation increases. Well, I guess the fee schedule increases - 150 reasons is definitely tax increases. I wonder how people feel who cannot afford to take a holiday outside the Province and they use our provincial parks? Every time they use the provincial parks, whether it be day use, overnight, weekly, monthly or all season, every part of that has increased. Absolutely every part of that has increased.

If you want to get a big game licence now for a polar bear it has increased from $105 to $137. I wonder how many polar bears were actually taken in this Province last year? That would be interesting. It must be - from the way the fee has increased there must be some volume there.

Licenced guides will now pay $10. Commercial caribou harvesting, $75. If you are even going to the Salmonier Nature Park it will be $3. So everywhere you look there are 150 reasons where you can say that there are tax increases this year.

I must look at the so-called Blue Book. I wonder what the update is now on what you have done in the way of promises? Oh yes, you said you are going to, "Eliminate the total capital and current account deficit by 2008." But, what you are talking about is reducing or eliminating the cash deficit. I think anybody could do that. You are going to do that, that is not within - anyone could do that. We had a plan for that. We were going to do it but we were not going to tax people to the hilt and we were not going to drive people out of rural Newfoundland trying to do it, and we were not going to kill the education system and the health care system in the Province trying to do it.

One of your key commitments for tourism, you are going to, "Appoint a Chief Information/Innovation Officer who will be responsible for enhancing and streamlining service delivery..." Well, I do not know if there are going to be any tourists wanting to come here when they see those rate increases. Of course, you already said in your book on the Economy for next year that you are expecting tourism to be flatline on par with last year. So I do not know why you made this recommendation, "Convene a panel of rural IT experts and practitioners to develop a short-term, medium-term and long-term strategy for rural IT development..."

What we are doing now is studying a study. That is exactly what we are doing, studying the study. We have a study of $250,000 for the White Paper on Education. We have a study on energy, $80,000. We have a study on the tunnel, I think that is $350,000. The feds are kicking in some and I think the Province is putting in seventy-odd thousand dollars That is another study and we are studying health care, a program review on health care. I thought the new government were going to come in with new ideas but all we are doing now is studying the study. We are not doing it. The new government has embarked on study the study. The new policy, for the new government, study the study.

One of the key commitments was to, "Establish a Rural Secretariat as the focal point for government to work with local and regional partners to build strong and dynamic communities." Now, would you tell me how you can build a strong and dynamic community when you have laid off the public sector, you closed out the medical clinic, you closed out the Human Resources offices and now you are going to dismantle the school boards? You would have to be pretty creative to find enough infrastructure to create a strong and dynamic community when you know the odds are against you.

"Support small and medium sized businesses to create and retain long-term jobs." Well, you know something, that is motherhood and apple pie. It does not say how you are going to do it though. How are you going to do it? Nobody knows. What are you going to do with - here is another thing they are going to do, "Establish a Health Quality Council made up of recognized experts to provide objective and timely advice in providing the highest possible quality care for the people of the Province." Well, blessed redeemer. This is another study the study. Isn't there enough people in health care today to advise this government how to provide objective and timely advice in providing the highest possible quality care for the people of this Province?

Here is one that seniors were hoping to get. It says, "Our seniors have given so much to this Province and asked for so little in return." Is this the same crowd who were going to claw back the $5 a month from the pensioners? This is the same crowd who were going to claw back $5 a month from the pensioners. It says, "Our seniors have given so much to this Province and asked for so little in return. It's time for government to show that our seniors' contributions to society are valued, appreciated and respected."

Well, now, if that is the respect you gave our seniors when you had them out on a limb from January to April, thinking that they were going to lose their indexing that they got so rightly in the last contract, is that the respect that you gave seniors? I would like to leave that question out there tonight.

You say that you are going to, "Develop a strategy to upgrade long-term care facilities in Newfoundland and Labrador." As far as I can see, there was only one long-term care facility that was going to get any preference in this Budget, and where do you think that one was? In the Premier's own district. Even before the Budget came down, pretty much, he was on his feet saying that he was going to make sure that the people in his district had a long-term care facility.

Now, what is going to happen to Clarenville? What is going to happen to the people in Grand Bank? This government was going to develop a strategy to upgrade long-term care facilities in Newfoundland and Labrador. I did not see anything in this Budget for upgrading long-term care facilities - nothing.

"Redirect spending to increase supportive housing alternatives for seniors and expand home care services." Zero, in this Budget, for that promise. "Ensure seniors have adequate income to meet their basic needs by reducing taxes..." - I did not see that happen - "...and introducing a special needs assistance program of up to..." - up to - "...$250 to assist with home heating costs for low-income earners."

Now, there was no caveat there that said that the price of fuel oil had to be a certain price in order for this new government to provide a subsidy for low-income earners. There is nothing there like that. There were no conditions attached to the Blue Book promise that said that they were going to introduce a special needs assistance program of up to $250 to assist with home heating costs for low-income earners. Well, I will tell you, there were a good many people who voted for this government and they expected that, if they did, they would end up getting a $250 subsidy toward their home heat. Well, they did not get it. Instead of that, they got an increase in every fee on the book, and some new ones along with it.

Low-income earners and seniors hung on to every word that was stated by the PC candidates, and they expected they were going to get a subsidy of $250; but, as per all the Blue Book promises here, they were left out in the cold.

It says, "Spend an additional $1 million to protect more seniors from high or catastrophic drug costs." Where is that $1 million for seniors, for high or catastrophic drug costs? It is not there, absolutely not there. The $8 million that was talked about for drugs in this Budget has already been spent. It is an overrun of the cost of drugs last year, so there is no new money for drugs. There is money for a cancer drug. That is the only new drug that was on the formulary.

"Advocate for a national home care plan and a national pharmacare plan to help seniors cope with the escalating costs of home care and prescription drugs." I do not see anything about that. "Establish a Division of Aging and Seniors...." Well, that is another study to study. If there are not enough people in the Department of Health and Community Services and the Department of Human Resources and Employment, combined with all the people around the Province who advocate for seniors, if there are not enough people to tell you in this Province what seniors need and must have, then there is something wrong. That is another case of sloughing it off for another study.

This new government is good at sloughing off stuff to another committee, or another study. If they do not have a policy developed: Oh, slough it off to a committee and let them study it for a few months and come back. That way, we will cut the guts out of that program and no one will be any wiser. That is all they are thinking about.

They go on now for more of their key commitments. "Key Commitments: Establish a Division of Early Childhood Learning within the Department of Education..." Isn't there enough experts now in the Department of Education? There should be, but then again I suppose there will not be because we have already heard it said that a lot of people in the Department of Education already got their pink slip, and the pink slips are going out to the teachers. You soon will not need to establish anything for early childhood learning because the childbearing age of people in this Province, according to your own records, will soon be eliminated. There will be more people leave this Province of childbearing age, based on the Budget that you just brought down. So you will not need a Division of Early Childhood Learning, based on what you are doing to the people in this Province.

You have no place for young people in the public sector. Young people can forget about getting a government job in the future. You have eliminated that. All the people who are here now working for the public sector will have no chance of moving up the ladder and getting promotions. You are going to freeze wages. So will their skills be as keen as if somebody were being able to move up the ladder and train for different parts of their job? Will they stick around to have children here in this Province? What are you saying? You are saying in your own words, black on white, that you are expecting a population decline. Are you going to be presiding over, as a new government, of population decline? I thought for sure that you would want to be presiding over population growth. You are expecting, and it says: Modest population declines are expected.

When we had broken the trend of out-migration - and I think that was probably one of the proudest moments a couple of years ago, because when the present government were in Opposition, day after day they would stand on their feet, and they would say: What are you doing as a government for economic development in this Province? When are you going to stop the brain drain? When are you going to stop the out-migration? When is that going to turn around? What are you doing for economic development so more people can stay in their home communities? Well, do you know something? That time came. That time came two years ago.

Apparently, the new government had no confidence. The new government had no confidence in their ability to expand and grow on that base because in their own book they are predicting modest population declines. That does not say very much. Of course, they always said that Tory times were tough times. Tory times are hard times. But, I tell you, if I were a young person today graduating from Memorial University, the College of the North Atlantic or a private training institution I would say: What has this government done to give me a reason to stay in this Province, start a family here, and contribute to the economy? Because you have done everything, as a new government, within the space of five months to encourage young people to leave, not to stay.

One of the other key commitments that you have made, you said you are committing "...$2 million over four years towards upgrading the school bus fleet with a goal of reducing the number of buses that are more than 10 years old." Well, I think you are going to achieve that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think this is one Blue Book promise that you are going to achieve. You are going to achieve this one. It says, "Commit $2 million over four years towards upgrading the school bus fleet with a goal of reducing the number of buses that are more than 10 years old." Let me tell you, there are going to be fewer and fewer young people travelling on school buses in this Province based on the gutting of rural Newfoundland that you are about to do and you have already started. There will be no reason to have the number of school buses that we currently have because you are doing your utmost to make sure that rural Newfoundland withers away.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: "Establish a code of conduct to ensure proper student behaviour at school. We will also provide support to teachers and principals to reduce disruptive behaviour." How are you going to do that when you cut out 500 teachers out of the school? How can you do that? Teachers have their hands full today trying to provide an interesting and exciting curriculum, be involved in extracurricular activities -

AN HON. MEMBER: Doing a fantastic job.

MS THISTLE: Doing a fabulous job.

I think it was on March 27 that I had occasion to be at the Arts and Culture Centre in Grand Falls-Windsor, and I must congratulate the Kiwanis Club of Grand Falls-Windsor, who have been, for thirty-nine years, providing a cultural stage in our community for young people to be able to get up and be a part of the arts. Whether it be music, choral speech or drama, the Kiwanis Club of Grand Falls-Windsor have been doing a marvelous job. Hundreds of thousands have been on the stage, and now it is getting to the point where we are looking at second and third generations who have actually performed at the Arts and Culture Centre in Grand Falls-Windsor, as a part of their extracurricular activities at school, and a lot of them have gone on to be music teachers, opera singers, musicians, playwrights, and have gotten a well-rounded education by just that medium being in the community where they can go and have exposure to music, song, dance and the arts, and have done so well.

I want to congratulate the Kiwanis Club of Grand Falls-Windsor for such a marvelous presentation that they give year after year - the volunteers in the club. Next year, they will be celebrating their fortieth anniversary. Can you imagine? Forty years ago, they started providing the Kiwanis Music Festival in Grand Falls-Windsor. Next year, our town, the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor, will celebrate 100 years of being in the newsprint business, so there are a lot of activities planned for next year and I am hoping that it is going to be a big event. From all calculations, it will be.

One of the other key commitments was, "Reinvest savings from population decline into programs and services to ensure that all children have access to a quality education". Does anybody out there in TV land think, for one minute, that the so-called money that is going to be saved, as they are saying, from the consolidation of school boards, will be reinvested into education? I would say the jury will be out on that one. The jury will definitely be out on that one.

"Identify students who have special needs and provide support for schools to reduce the need for bureaucratic assessment processes." Well, I think we would go along with that one. Anything that is of benefit to a child, and they do not have to go through the red tape of getting an assessment for different criteria in education, I would definitely go along with that one as well.

It says, "Expand distance education offerings to broaden the curriculum and facilitate excellence in learning for high school students." Now, is that your real motive? I would question that. I would definitely question that, whether or not Distance Education will be meant to broaden the curriculum. I would expect that it will probably be meant to substitute for teachers in the classroom; because any student in this Province would prefer, I know, to have a teacher teaching them in the classroom than to be looking into a monitor for Distance Education. I am getting those nods and okays from a lot of people. I know that to be a case because I have, in my district, a school that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is a little bit too much noise in the Assembly. It is difficult to hear the hon. member.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure this hon. House would not like for me to lose my voice yet. I know they are trying to raise their voices so that I will lose mine, but I am not going to lose my voice. I am going to take as long as I need, because the people of this Province need to know what this new-approach government is planning to do with their tax dollars.

"Eliminate and reduce taxes for low-income students." I guess that is on the back burner. "Introduce a loan remission program and needs-based grants...." Well, that is definitely something you are not planning to do.

Creative and Cultural Industries. Well, I heard on the radio today that a lot of people are effected by the postponement of the opening of The Rooms. The Rooms was and is still needed today. It is going to be a facility that everyone in this Province is going to be very, very proud of. Once they open the doors and go inside, I think every Newfoundlander and Labradorian is going to be proud of The Rooms. A decision was made at the time by former Premier Brian Tobin, to go along with the approval of The Rooms and, I can tell you, that was a big commitment to make, to go along with the approval of The Rooms. I remember being part of Cabinet when that decision was made.

There are always reasons why you should not invest in certain areas, it might be considered, when there are so many needs pressing in health care and education. A decision was made at that time to go ahead with The Rooms, and that required a huge commitment from the Province. I think it started out to be $40 million. By the latest count, I know it is at least $56 million by the Province, so it was a very huge investment.

I notice, too, that we are honoured this evening to have Mr. Stelman Flynn, the President of the Cruise Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, in the gallery. This is another great organization that is bringing business to our Province. We have so much to offer in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is exciting, the prospects of huge cruise ships that are going to visit here for the first time this year. I know the Princess line, I think, are supposed to visit this summer for the very first time.

Can you imagine how much money could be dropped in this Province by cruise ships actually coming here to port? A lot of them, when they come into port, spend between five and seven hours, and sometimes longer, depending on what the itinerary is. Most of those cruise ships today have a minimum of a couple of thousand people on them. It depends on the size of the cruise ship. A lot of them go as high as 3,500 people.

We are a place on the map that most people who take cruises have not seen. Most people who take cruises know about the Alaskan cruise. They know about cruises in the Carribean. They know about cruises on the Panama Canal. They know about cruises in South America and all across Europe, but very little is known about Newfoundland and Labrador. Can you imagine how this industry could change Newfoundland and Labrador? Especially if you have a big cruise ship line like Princess, which is now owned by Carnival Cruises. They, of course, own all the Carnival line, and they own Celebrity and several other lines. They own Costa Cruise Lines. I think the only one that remains independent, so far, is the Royal Carribean. Can you imagine all the cruise ships that are out there and have not travelled yet to Newfoundland and Labrador

I would say to Stelman Flynn, who is now in our gallery - I know he will be doing his utmost to promote Newfoundland and Labrador to the cruise line industry. There is so much potential. It is common knowledge that anyone who is travelling on a cruise ship, they will want to pick up souvenirs. That would be the normal thing to do. Can you imagine what that would do for people - and everybody wants something that is made right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: They cancelled that program.

MS THISTLE: The new government cancelled that program: made right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Nobody wants to pick up an item that is made outside of Newfoundland and Labrador. That program: made right here in Newfoundland and Labrador, encouraged people to make souvenirs and also to manufacture products, export them and sell them to the local economy and so on. One of the things that has been working so well in our Province, the new government has decided to axe that program. Axe that program!

AN HON. MEMBER: So much for encouraging entrepreneurship.

MS THISTLE: Yes. How do young entrepreneurs and existing businesses feel about axing a program? We had a showcase every year: Manufactured Right Here in Newfoundland and Labrador. I tell you, we were all so proud to walk through that exhibition. I think we were impressed and amazed and in awe. The quality was superb, the presentation and the variety. That exhibition did several things. It told the world what we are doing here as a Province, and it gave encouragement for would-be entrepreneurs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pride.

MS THISTLE: There was pride and respect for being self-sufficient and promoting our own products, but here you have a program that is working and the first thing the government wants to do is axe that program. Another one on the chopping block. I do not know how you can sit there and say that program was not effective. That program was very effective. In fact, all of us were proud to see a label on a product: made right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We were very proud of that.

They were part of a provincial program that gave them marketability by just that very wording: made right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. They were able to piggyback on advertising that was provincial in scope. But, you have decided to axe that. When you look at the fact that this Province did $100 million better in generating new revenue than we even predicted last year, I am sure that a lot of it came from manufacturing. Made right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

This new government wants to reduce the size of government and wants to reduce government's part in growing the businesses in this Province. If you do not promote, like we have promoted, how can you expect to grow the economy? But, you are not expecting to grow the economy because, by your own words, you have already said that we are going to have modest population declines. You have one goal in mind, and that is to centralize all services in this Province. You have one goal, centralize all services so that the people in Burgeo - they are not going to have access probably to government services. You are planning on cutting out Human Resources and Employment offices.

MS FOOTE: Twenty of them.

MS THISTLE: Twenty offices are about to close and you have not had the courage to come out and tell these communities which community can expect to have an office closed in their region. No, you have not had the courage to tell communities. Your plan is to gravitate all people to central areas. You are planning on making a few big areas central, mostly St. John's. Then, again, maybe we should not expect anymore, because we don't have Cabinet representation from rural Newfoundland.

MS FOOTE: Ten of the fourteen.

MS THISTLE: Ten of the fourteen are from St. John's and large urban centres; ten of fourteen. We have four people who are supposed to represent rural Newfoundland, but judging from the closures and cancellations that we have seen in the Budget recently, they have absolutely no clout.

Without question, the people who are going to be most affected by the decrease in public sector employment, the closure of Human Resource and Employment offices, the downsizing of health care facilities, and the cancellation of projects - I didn't see any cancellations for anything here in St. John's. I didn't see any cancellations for St. John's; not one.

MS FOOTE: Going ahead in the Premier's district.

MS THISTLE: Definitely going ahead in the Premier's district. That was the one commitment that came out of this Budget, that there would be a start to the long-term care facility in the Premier's district, and the MRI would go ahead for Corner Brook. Now, I don't begrudge the people in Western Newfoundland improvement to their health care, because they definitely need it. I walked through the O'Connell Centre, and I would be the first one to say they need a long-term health care facility there, and they need an MRI, but when times are supposed to be tough, as this government is reporting, a mobile MRI would have been the answer, a mobile MRI that could have been used between Clarenville and Corner Brook, not one that is stationary in Corner Brook.

Have they made the right decision on this MRI? No, I don't think so. The dollars are scare. It could have been spread over more users, right from Clarenville to Corner Brook. A mobile MRI could have looked after that population. It would have taken the pressure off the MRI that is currently in St. John's, and people from Clarenville to Corner Brook would have had access without driving to St. John's. It is all about choices, and making the right choices. I think there is more to this Budget than people are seeing. I guess it is what is not in this Budget that would probably cause the most alarm in the coming months.

I know that the Government House Leader had a meeting with the West Coast chicken farmers on Friday, and I think he was non-committal. He used the non-committal approach.

MS FOOTE: He is not going to (inaudible)?

MS THISTLE: No, as far as I can understand, he has made no commitment to honour the previous commitment that was made by the former Administration.

I looked through the Budget, and I do not see any money that is tucked away under miscellaneous for the West Coast chicken farmers. Now, he did say that he would not leave them dangling for weeks on end. I think they have been waiting for an answer, especially since October 21, 2003. I guess, when the Premier returns and Cabinet goes back to meeting this Thursday, they might have an answer for the chicken farmers. It is difficult to say.

MS FOOTE: I hope it is a good one. I hope it is a positive one.

MS THISTLE: Yes, I hope it is a positive one, because they had that commitment from the previous government.

There are a lot of unanswered questions out there. I think the frightening part is going to be health issues, when the study to study gets released. When the study to study gets released and people really find out what is out there, and what is going to be happening to them, how are they going to feel about making long drives to get medical attention when they need it?

MS FOOTE: The CAT scanner on the Burin Peninsula, why would you defer something so vitally important?

MS THISTLE: Yes. You know, you have to look at geography and climate. Lots of times when I am driving from St. John's to Grand Falls-Windsor, every weekend, you might have a foggy day when you leave St. John's, and by the time you get to Clarenville it would be fine, and by the time you get to Norris Arm we might have snow again. Can you imagine what the weather would be like on the Burin Peninsula? The residents of Grand Bank and surrounding area were promised a CT scanner.

MS FOOTE: That is right. (Inaudible) Burin, the regional facility.

MS THISTLE: How are they going to feel in Burin when they are not going to have that regional facility, they are not going to have the CT scanner? They are going to have to go over the road in all kinds of weather. The decisions affecting the Burin Peninsula, where are they going to be made? Not on the Burin Peninsula. The decisions on school boards, they are not going to be made on the Burin Peninsula.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: I think the Member for Burin-Placentia West understands that. He is an educator by profession.

MR. REID: He was on the board.

MS THISTLE: He was on the board.

MR. REID: A board employee.

MS THISTLE: A board employee.

Well, I would say to the Member for Burin-Placentia West, it is a good thing that you got in politics when you did because you would be on the unemployment line now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Yes, you would be definitely on the unemployment line, singing a song. You would definitely be singing a song by now.

MS FOOTE: Solidarity forever.

MS THISTLE: Solidarity forever, because you would definitely have the pink slip, because there are forty-one pink slips after being handed out to school board number five in Grand Falls-Windsor. Forth-one pink slips. It is a good thing that you got in politics when you did, because you definitely -

MS FOOTE: They have all been laid off, haven't they?

MS THISTLE: They have all been laid off.

MS FOOTE: They all have to reapply.

MS THISTLE: They all have to reapply. Judging from what I am hearing, even though Grand Falls-Windsor have the best facility, they have a renovated school that can accommodate every need for a school board office, and is already doing so - they look after seventy-five schools - they do not need any new money from government to renovate or put in electrical services for computers for training - that is all done - they have adequate parking, you can reach any school from Grand Falls-Windsor in two or two-and-a-half hours, still, for all of that, this government who is cash-strapped, as they say, are going to fork out money for renovations to an office in Gander, and put the school board office out there, and have people travelling on the road for a day at a time before they reach their school destination.

MS FOOTE: They must be trying to appease the Member for Gander, because they cancelled the project in Gander.

MS THISTLE: Well, I do not know. Does it take that much to appease the Member for Gander, because he is not going to have his hospital completed on time? They would rather spend money on a school board office? I do not think the Member for Windsor-Springdale is going to stand for that. I do not think the Member for Windsor-Springdale is going to stand for that. I think the first casualty in the new government is going to be an across-the-House move by the Windsor-Springdale member, because he is upset.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Thank you very much.

The hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, I think the first casualty of the new government will be an across-the-House move by the Member for Windsor-Springdale. He knows full well, Mr. Speaker, that a move like the one that is proposed is insane. There is no other word for it but insane. When you have a system that is working and you want to take money from a cash-strapped government, as they call themselves, and spend more money and put the services further away from the users, tell me if that is a right decision? I can tell you one thing, I do not know how people will accept that decision.

Yesterday we saw people lined up in front of Confederation Building, and there was some dispute as to the numbers. I can tell you, if there was half a dozen or twenty there - and people are rising up and are not going to take the nonsense that they are hearing from this government. There is no legitimate reason why someone would not agree to a cancer clinic when they are almost self-financing. The payment that would be made on a mortgage for a cancer clinic is the same as putting an office for the Premier in Ottawa, the very same. Imagine spending $350,000 a year - to start with, mind you - for an Ottawa office, because that will not suit the Premier. He will be adding offices and offices on the office in Ottawa. That will mushroom from $350,000 a year to $1 million. Here the people in Central Newfoundland will not have cancer clinic, a cancer survivor who was looking forward -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We should have a little less noise in the Chamber. The Chair is having difficulty hearing the speech given by the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The decisions this government is making is like a flatty on a prong.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS THISTLE: This member next to me does not know what a flatty is on a prong. Having grown up in Carbonear and spending a lot of time around the wharf, I can tell you, I know what a flatty is on a prong. This government is waving so much they are like a flatty on a prong.

The Member for St. John's North, does he care if the salmon licences go up? No. I would not say he ever had -

AN HON. MEMBER: He certainly never had a flatty on a prong.

MS THISTLE: No. He never, ever had a fishing rod in the water; a line in the water, not one.

Anyway, what this new government is doing is socking it to the people in the Province. No tax increase, but by goodness you are going to get 150 new charges. Everything that you are going to do every year you can expect to pay more. What are you doing to the people of the Province to justify why they should pay 150 new charges? Can you tell me that? Are you trying to improve the health care? No. You are trying to reduce the health care. You are trying to have everybody gravitate to St. John's where if you decided to cut out anything in St. John's, I do not think it would have very little effect because every office of government is here and you would not mind a bump in the road. But, I can tell you, if there are health care services taken out of any part of Newfoundland and Labrador, rural Newfoundland and Labrador, people will notice it. People will really notice it.

It was interesting that you are going to use $1.7 million to develop a Rural Secretariat. Can you imagine? You are going to spend $1.7 million to develop a Rural Secretariat. Of course, the new Deputy Minister of Innovation, Trade and - is rural mentioned anywhere?

MS FOOTE: Rural Development.

MS THISTLE: Oh, Rural Development. Innovation, Trade and Rural Development it is called now. Deputy Minister, Doug House -

MS FOOTE: Oh, I thought he was a minister.

MS THISTLE: No, not yet.

This is his policymaking area, Rural Secretariat. It sounds impressive, doesn't it? Rural Secretariat. What have all the people been doing in the economic zone boards all around the Province in the past five years? We have grown the economy to the highest proportions in the history of our Province. So something must be working. Absolutely! Something is working. Even last year, when we predicted, in our own budget, that we would have a shortfall of $286 million on a cash deficit, do you know the truth of the matter, when everything came in this year, and even in the new government's own figures, the previous administration grew the economy by an extra $100 million. The actual cash deficit was $197 million.

It is interesting that the new government were trying to put the fear of God in the taxpayers of the Province, thinking that the credit rating agencies around the country were going to lower our credit rating and put us on bankruptcy watch. Can you imagine! It is interesting how they were trying to fabricate the books. They did their best, with their phony report by Michael Gourley. They were trying to go with the line and saying: We have no choice, we are almost bankrupt. This is the line that they are trying to feed to the people of this Province.

It is interesting that a Moody's representative said today on CBC Radio that: We don't give A credit ratings to bankrupt provinces. Now, what does that say? We had the best credit rating ever in the Province's financial history. The best financial rating ever in the Province occurred under a Liberal watch. Moody's credit rating agency said, today, on CBC Radio: We don't give A credit ratings to bankrupt provinces.

Here is the Premier and his ministers out telling the people that we are bankrupt. That couldn't be further from the truth. They fabricated the Michael Gourley, the guy who was Pokaroo for Ontario t.v - Ontario t.v. had Michael Gourley dressed up as Pokaroo, and he was the same guy who had the Tory connection with Ernie Eves in the Province of Ontario and who was totally out of whack with the budget that was done just after Ernie Eves was defeated. What they found after that, when the Liberals came to power in Ontario, was that Mr. Michael Gourley's predictions - Polkaroo - were out by guess what?

MS FOOTE: How much?

MS THISTLE: Not a few million.

I tell you, when the interviewer from The Telegram called me and asked me: Did you hear about the Michael Gourley report? I said: Yes. He said: He was out in his estimate. I said: How much? A few million? He said: No, $5.6 billion.

MS FOOTE: This is the guy they hired.

MS THISTLE: This is the guy they hired to do the so-called independent audit. He was out $5.6 billion. Now, if we had $5.6 billion in this Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: He wasn't an accountant, was he?

MS THISTLE: He came highly recommended by the Tory connections, I can tell you that. I guess billions and millions had no significance to him.

MS FOOTE: He made a good penny off it, too, didn't he?

MS THISTLE: He made a few dollars off that report.

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

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

MR. HARRIS: I cannot believe what I just heard. Are you saying that the Conservative budget in Ontario, proposed budget, was off by $5.44 billion, based on what they projected and what was actually there? Who was involved with that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is an interesting comment but it is certainly not a point of order.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, continuing her address to the House.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer that question from the Leader of the New Democratic Party. He asked a very valid question, a very credible question to ask. I wonder, was the person who authored this report so credible?

MS FOOTE: It is the same person who did the report (inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Absolutely, it is the very same person.

This was a report that was sent back because what Michael Gourley found out in his phony report was that the figures that were reported by the Province's own Department of Finance, the Province's own Treasury Board, were identical to what Michael Gourley discovered, but that was not part of his mandate. He had to find a difference. Michael Gourley was charged with finding a difference in the Province's own figures.

It is interesting that he was hired, I think, on November 6, the same day the Cabinet was formed, and he was charged to go back. Look, Michael Gourley, you go back.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mike Harris hired him.

MS THISTLE: Yes, Mike Harris probably hired him originally. He worked for the Ontario government for a long time.

AN HON. MEMBER: He worked for Ernie Eaves.

MS THISTLE: He worked for Ernie Eaves.

AN HON. MEMBER: And now for Danny Williams.

MS THISTLE: Yes, he did all of that. He was charged with - tasked with, I guess you should say - tasked with finding some error in the Province's books.

Now, our own Department of Finance has one of the best records of economic forecasting. Any economist in the country will say that the record of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador's own Department of Finance, they have been spot-on in actually predicting the economic growth in our Province.

Now, this phony report author, Michael Gourley, was a close friend and a key advisor to former Premier Ernie Eves, and he was paid.

MS FOOTE: Was this after he was Pokaroo or before?

MS THISTLE: No, I do not know. He was definitely Pokaroo, too.

MS FOOTE: Yes, but I am wondering, before or after he came up with this report?

MS THISTLE: It is hard to tell isn't it?

Guess what? He was paid almost $1 million by the Conservative government last year.

MS FOOTE: What, just for doing the report or was he on staff?

MS THISTLE: He was on staff with the Conservative government.

MS FOOTE: Did he get a severance too?

MS THISTLE: A big severance, $917,699.

Gourley, now working for PricewaterhouseCoopers, left his job as CEO of the Ontario Financing Authority November 7. Now, that is a key date. November 6 was the date, I believe, that this new Cabinet was sworn in. November 7, Mr. Michael Gourley left his job with the Ontario Financing Authority after a little more than fifteen months on the job. He left with a salary and buyout of $917,699.

MS FOOTE: After fifteen months?

MS THISTLE: After fifteen months on the job.

Guess what? His salary was $289,000 for the year and he had a buyout of $628,415 that was brokered by Ernie Eves' office when he was the Premier. Of course, this was only one of the jobs that Michael Gourley had. This was only one of the jobs. He held several jobs during his first years in Ontario's public service. That was right from 1973 to 1992. Guess what? That included a stint while he was with Ontario's public service, mind you. That was the question you asked.

While he was still working with Ontario's public service he was on TV Ontario as the mascot Pokaroo. Now, he was on Ontario TV as the mascot Pokaroo while he was with the Ontario public service.

AN HON. MEMBER: He ‘pokarooed' us, too. He ‘pokarooed' the public service right in the eyes.

MS THISTLE: Yes, definitely.

Anyway, Gourley was Vice-President of Administration at the University of Western Ontario. Then he left that to advise the then fledgling Tory government on taxation and economic policy as Deputy Finance Minister until 1998. So, how independent is this independent study?

This independent study, so-called independent study, was information compiled by our own Department of Finance and our own Treasury Board. But, the problem with the information they got was two things: It did not paint a bad picture and it did not go deep enough to look like our financial position was as bad as they were predicting. So, what happened? They said: Now, Pokaroo, Mr. Michael Gourley, this picture is not black enough. We want you to go back, Mr. Michael Gourley, and see what else you can find because if we are going to slash and cut -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) $220 million.

MS THISTLE: Yes, and it all goes back to what I am trying to say here about our fiscal position. I think Moody's confirmed that today. What this Michael Gourley phony report reported is that our own figures were correct. They wanted to fabricate. They wanted to pad those figures, and they said: Is there anything else there that we can add into this so we can make the Province's position look much bleaker than it is? They searched and they searched because they had a problem, in the Blue Book they said they were not going to do any layoffs. They had to have a reason why they could do layoffs. Justification; so-called justification.

There was one item that they thought they would politically manoeuver into the Budget. That was the first test of the Government House Leader. Now, if he did not pass that test he would have been out of Cabinet before the end of March. He would have been out of Cabinet, without question. He was under tremendous pressure to get that legislation passed. That legislation was the Student Financial Assistance Act, Bill 1. The cornerstone legislation that should have been something exciting, something innovative, something new, something that was going to make a big difference to the people of this Province. But, what did it do? It had zero impact on students in this Province. Zero impact.

The Government House Leader was tasked by the Premier of the Province. That was his first test. If he did not get that legislation passed by March 29 he would have been in the nosebleed section and the Member for Windsor-Springdale would have been the Government House Leader. That was the plan.

AN HON. MEMBER: He interviewed the staff.

MS THISTLE: He interviewed his staff?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, that is right.

MS THISTLE: He was starting to feel that he was going to get somewhere, was he?

MS FOOTE: Yes.

MS THISTLE: Yes.

That was the first test for the Government House Leader. He had to have that legislation passed by March 29 or -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: No, he would not have had a pink slip. There is one thing about it, if you are a member in the House of Assembly you cannot pay into employment insurance and neither can you collect employment insurance. The Government House Leader, if he did not get that bill passed by March 29, would not be sitting in the front row. He would have been in the nosebleed section.

MR. BARRETT: Right back.

MS THISTLE: Right back to the bitter end.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MS THISTLE: The Government House Leader.

The $220 million had to be added to the bottom line. We all know that our deficit last year was $197 million, and you confirmed that in your Budget. Anyone can pick up a copy of the Budget. It says so, that our deficit last year, the former administration - it is on Statement I and Statement II in the Budget book itself. It was $197 million last year.

You had to inflate, you had to pad, you had to fabricate, the financial position of our Province, so you could actually make the cuts that you are proposing in your Budget. Now, that wasn't good enough, you weren't satisfied with the $220 million going on that unnecessarily. You had to have two things so it would look like you really had justification. You decided that the actuarial study that was underway to find out how much money was required for the civil servants who left this week - how much would we pay them. All the civil servants who left this week, I think that was a plan, because the new government wanted to find out how much would have to be paid out to civil servants once they left the employment of the provincial government.

Take someone who is hired today and they work with government for thirty years. Government, starting in 2005, not this year, 2005, must make accommodation for paying out severance, paying out sick leave, and paying out health care benefits to employees who will leave the employ of government thirty years down the road. Now, maybe they were so intent on getting this information because they certainly intended to lay off a lot of people and they wanted that information available. With regard to the Auditor General's requirement, that was not a requirement. That was not a requirement that this information be included in the Budget.

I think if the current Minister of Health would stand in her place, she was one of the ones, being the former Auditor General, who was insisting that this Province go to the accrual method; but she knows full well, and that government knows full well, that they were under no obligation to include accrued employee benefits in this year's Budget - absolutely no necessity.

Their plan was to inflate, fabricate, and politically motivate, it to do what they did. Now, why would a government stoop that low, to do these kinds of things? I think it is what is not in this Budget. There was enough bad news in this government, heaven knows, but I think the people of this Province should be on alert. They should be on alert for what is going to come out of this Budget in the months to come.

You talked about the cows coming home. I think the people of this Province have been led down the garden path, and maybe they will meet the cows on their way back. People already are disillusion, and they have lost their feeling of trust for this new government. They feel that they were betrayed.

It is a very important thing and people are very sincere when they cast their ballots. People are very sincere. With the overwhelming mandate that this new government received in October, 2003, you would almost think that right away they would do what people elected them to do. They have a Blue Book, or a blueprint, they have changed it -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER (Osborne): Order, please!

MS THISTLE: I would say to the viewers tonight, out there in TV land, why would you change from a Blue Book to a blueprint? There is only one reason. A Blue Book is promises that you made; a blueprint is constantly in a state of flux. It can be changed. You have already seen a new government that have reneged on their promises by changing the Blue Book to a blueprint, for a start.

Out of all the promises that have been made, how many have been delivered? I do not think you have one a month of promises delivered. I do not think there is one a month. This is what? You got elected in October. You have October, November, December, January, February, March and April, six months. Have you delivered six promises in six months?

MR. REID: What? They have broken 600.

MS THISTLE: I am just asking them now, have they delivered on six promises in six months? Well, I can think of one that they delivered on. After a massive protest in the Premier's office in Corner Brook and on Prince Philip Drive, they did two things. They said: Okay, we are going to freeze tuition at the College of the North Atlantic and Memorial University. What did they do in their Budget? That was the first promise that they delivered on. What did they do in their Budget? They broke that promise. They said: Memorial University, you go back and find $2 million; and, College of the North Atlantic, you go back and find $2 million.

One day they said, we are going to freeze tuition, and the next day they said: You go back, Memorial University, and you find $2 million. You find $2 million. You cut your expenditures by $2 million. College of the North Atlantic -

MS FOOTE: That is real leadership.

MS THISTLE: That is definitely real leadership. You give on one hand and you take away on the other hand.

What have they done for the young people in our Province? They gutted the Department of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education - dismantled. What does that say to young people? That you have no interest in young people. You are going to lump them in with everybody else and you are not going to tell them that they have a future here in this Province. That is what it says. Instead of developing new programs and finding new ways to assist our young people, you have another study to study. You have a study to study for $250,000 for post-secondary education.

What are you going to do? Study the study, for $250,000. What will that do? Will that buy you six months of doing nothing for young people? Will it buy you a year? Study the study.

There is a study going on right now in Grand Falls-Windsor, $70,000, that was funded for the Central University Committee, and the report of that study was supposed to come out in another few weeks. Do you think that Mayor Walwin Blackmore and his committee have any encouragement to bring along that study to government?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MS THISTLE: I did.

Do you think that Mayor Walwin Blackmore - the first thing he had to do was find funding for that study, and we were able to assist him in that regard. The study was about the post-secondary needs of students in the Central Newfoundland area. Now, the results of that study I have not seen and are not available yet, but do you think that Mayor Walwin Blackmore is going to get any encouragement to bring that study to government, after you have already dismantled the post-secondary education department here? You have given no money for improvements to post-secondary education. The only money that you found was $250,000, a White Paper to study the study on post-secondary education.

I do not know how people around this Province feel about deferrals and cancellations. There is a lot of difference in deferrals and cancellations. You outright cancelled all the health care facilities that were about to go ahead in our Province. You have deferred some other things.

I can tell you one thing for certain, that the young people of our Province do not need any deferrals and they do not need any cancellations. What they need is action, and they need affirmative answers that you are genuinely interested in their futures here in this Province.

I wonder, is that program that we had in Treasury Board protected, for hiring fifteen new graduates every year? Several years ago, when I was President of Treasury Board, we instituted a new program to hire fifteen new graduates every year, so they would be well trained and be able to take over positions from senior level officials in all departments of government. That has been going well for the past, I would think, five years. Now, I don't know if that program will see the light of day this year. I don't know if that is hid away somewhere in Treasury Board estimates, but I know one thing, that there was always a lot of competition for those jobs. They always received anywhere from 500 to 1,000 applications from students who were exceptional. Exceptional young people all across our Province wanted to make sure that they had a chance at getting those jobs. They were always interviewed and every application was screened by the Public Service Commission. To actually make a list of possible interviews was really outstanding. You could actually get to a list of fifty screened for interviewing. That was young people who thought that they would have a career in the public service in our Province. How do young people feel today, when they know they have no future with our public sector? They know that 4,000 jobs are going to hit the chopping block, and they are not going to be replaced. Those 4,000 jobs will probably cross every sector within our public service.

It has been said that young people are getting into non-traditional roles, and that is true. One time in the medical faculty at our medical school, the majority of applicants were males. Do you know something? That has since reversed. The majority of applicants, the candidates, now in our medical school are females, females feeling that they have a shot at actually getting employment in our Province.

Everybody knows their district best, and I have to say that our board in Central West has been so successful in attracting rural doctors. The decision that was made in this Budget about cutting out 4,000 jobs in our public sector, what does that do to entice rural doctors? What does that do to entice young people to work with doctors in our health care system?

I have to talk about our Student Employment Program, because this is April and normally April would be the month when students get out of post-secondary education, and they had always expected to get summer employment in this Province. I think, if you look back over our SWASP program, student employment where you could actually attain a tuition voucher and also a stipend as well, the majority of jobs that came out of student employment went to rural Newfoundland. Most of the summer employment for students came out of rural Newfoundland. What can we expect from this new government in the way of student employment for this summer? I have not heard a word about student employment. I know that every community out in my district has applications on file with Human Resources and Employment, and I have not heard any commitment from this minister or this government telling the students in our Province that this will be a good year for student employment. Also, employers around our Province depend on students to work in their establishments. I have not heard from employers who expect to hire students for work in tourism, in our provincial parks, or with forestry.

It has always being an opportunity for our students to actually have an inside view on how government is run, and then they would make up their own minds whether or not they want to pursue that career. I have not heard if there is going to be any money invested in student employment in this Province this summer. There are students e-mailing me every day wondering whether or not there is going to be student employment this summer. I wonder, how important does this government feel that student employment is? How much money has been put into the Budget for student employment for this summer?

I am looking at the Minister of Education and I know that he is handling from K to 12 and post-secondary as well. I do not know if he has used student employment as being one of the priorities for his department. It should be.

MR. REID: What about the 400 education graduates who are coming out about a month from now looking for teaching positions?

MS THISTLE: Well, I think that decision has already been made for the 400 graduates who are coming out from the education faculty this spring.

I think it is discouraging for young people. It is disheartening when they know right away that there are going to be 4,000 jobs less than there were. There is not going to be any advancement through the civil service, because any jobs that were there are going to be cut out. They are in the dark. Students are in the dark about summer employment. The Cabinet ministers who represent rural Newfoundland are few in number. Will the same thing happen to student employment?

MR. REID: That is the reason they are opening an office in Ottawa - an unemployment office for graduates from Newfoundland.

MS THISTLE: Probably. The Member for Twillingate & Fogo said that is the reason why they are opening the office in Ottawa, the graduates from Newfoundland and Labrador looking for employment in Ottawa.

In fact, I wonder, with only four rural Cabinet ministers, will there be so much attention paid to student employment this summer? I am doubtful. I am absolutely doubtful.

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible) Grand Falls going down to Boyd's Cove.

MS THISTLE: Well, do you know something? Do you know what the Minister of Transportation and Works just said? There will be no student from Grand Falls-Windsor going to Boyd's Cove, in the Interpretation Centre.

MS FOOTE: He didn't say that?

MS THISTLE: He did say that, that there would be no student from Grand Falls-Windsor go to the Interpretation Centre in Boyd's Cove for employment. Now, what kind of fair and equitable treatment is that for students? Students do not have any partisan politics affiliation. They want employment. They want employment for the summer so they can get on with their studies in the fall, but I have not heard this government say that they are committing any money to student employment. In previous years we have had really big years of student employment. I do not know if that is a priority for this government or not. I have not seen any indication that it will be.

Let me tell you that most of the people in St. John's can find their own employment. There are a lot of opportunities in St. John's in the retail sector and other areas of employment where students can get employment in St. John's, but you take a small place like Seldom or Fogo. Take a place like Lamaline. Take a place like La Scie. Take a place like King's Point. Take a place like Cartwright. Take a place like Torngat Mountains. How about Fortune-Cape la Hune? Change Islands? What kind of employment can you expect to find for a student in those areas? That is the reason why, as a previous government, we put the focus on student employment in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. There are more advantages to finding employment in a bigger area like St. John's. There is so much retail business. There are so many housing starts going on in here that you could pick up a summer job. Then, again, in their own words they said that housing starts were going to decrease this year.

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible) seven new housing starts on Bell Island.

MS THISTLE: Seven new housing starts on Bell Island?

MS FOOTE: That's right, yes. People are moving back.

MS THISTLE: People are moving back, but yet for all that, they have raised the fees on the ferry. People, by their own initiative, have started to build new houses on Bell Island.

MS FOOTE: Yes, seven new homes.

MS THISTLE: Seven new homes. And what did this new government do? They said: Too bad, we are going to increase your ferry rates now. So if you are trying to get back and forth to St. John's to work over here - despite the promise they made in their Blue Book, and they have reduced the number of trips per day. So it is a double whammy.

People are trying through their own initiative to stay on Bell Island and find an opportunity for themselves and their families and build new homes, invest in Bell Island, and what did government do? Decreased their ferry times, reduced the number of ferry crossings and increased the rates. That is what you do to people, is it? That is what the new approach is.

I am surprised that people do not rise up against this government because what good news is there out there?

MS FOOTE: Well, the people on Bell Island are really upset.

MS THISTLE: Yes, I know people on Bell Island are upset because I hear them on the Open Line shows all the time. I do not know what government was thinking about. By increasing a ferry rate you are saying to people: Don't cross on that ferry. Stay home. Don't spend any money.

The economy on the Avalon Peninsula, St. John's, depends on people from all around rural Newfoundland. What would happen if the people from rural Newfoundland did not come into St. John's to spend their money? All you have to do is go down to the Price Club, or the Avalon Mall, or the Village Mall, Water Street, anywhere, and you can see people there from all over Newfoundland and Labrador. People who come in here, for whatever business, they all gravitate to St. John's. Whether it be a medical appointment or a business appointment, they all come in here and they all spend money.

The people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador have made it possible for the people on the Avalon Peninsula to have a single-digit unemployment rate because the people from all over Newfoundland and Labrador contribute to the economy inside the overpass. Don't let anyone, for a minute, say that you do not depend on rural Newfoundland because you do. When rural Newfoundland dries up the economy in St. John's will dry up.

This government has a right-wing agenda, there is no question. They are only in office -

MS FOOTE: Right-west wing.

MS THISTLE: A right-wing. A right-wing agenda. Their agenda is to slash the guts out of any services in rural Newfoundland today and centralize. They have already said that they are going to make mega school boards. Someone in Gander is going to sit down to a school board office at a cost to the taxpayers of hundreds of thousands of dollars in travel claims by going extra distances and making renovations. Then they are going to make a decision for somebody in La Scie or they are going to make a decision for somebody in Ramea, when they are going to sit down in an office miles and miles away. Well, you could almost do the same thing from Confederation Building, couldn't you?

MS FOOTE: All government owned assets will be reviewed to determine if it can be provided by the private sector. Does that mean, like the ferries? Are they going to be looking at -

MS THISTLE: My colleague has just brought another Blue Book promise to my attention. The Blue Book said they are going to be, "Reviewing all government owned and leased space with an objective of rationalizing space requirements. Similarly, all government owned assets will be reviewed to determine if it can be provided for a lesser cost by the private sector or if it should be sold."

The ferry service as we know it today, the ferry services that run on several islands in our Province, does that mean that the current government are thinking about privatizing our ferries? Are you thinking about privatizing our roads? Are you thinking about privatizing our hospital services? Are you thinking about privatizing Human Resources and Employment? We already know that you are planning for your users to use a telephone or a computer. Are you so impersonal that you do not want the face-to-face interaction with a front line worker in our Human Resources offices?

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible) to the public education system, it will all be private.

MS THISTLE: Well, that is the greatest fear. That is the greatest fear, that services are going to be cut so much in our Province that we will not recognize the education system that we enjoy today, that we value and cherish. There will be so many cuts to government services that we are already leaning in the direction of privatization.

Did the voters of our Province vote for privatization? I do not think they did. Did they vote for mega school boards with impersonal interaction, where a board office worker has to spend a day on the road before they can actually go and visit a school they were supposed to visit? Is that the reason why the Premier is negotiating a higher mileage fee as part of the public sector's request that they need more mileage paid to them because they are going to be travelling greater distances? Of course, the price of fuel has gone up over the past few months.

I want to talk about the extra cost that it costs to have this House open tonight. I hope the viewers out there in TV land can see this exercise tonight for what it is worth. Can the viewers actually see this exercise tonight?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MS THISTLE: The government would have people believe that this is a necessary session of the House of Assembly, and this is nothing but rubbish. It is nothing but rubbish. Can you imagine what is happening here tonight? There are extra security working overtime. There are hundreds of dollars in meals. We have four people in Hansard. We have four people who are compiling whatever is being said here tonight. Four people work in the Hansard office. We have TV staff, four people, who are currently working, producing this program for the viewers around the Province. We have Commissionaires. There are ten people in this House making sure that everything is orderly, as it should be, and there is TV satellite time, can you imagine, of $5,000 for this production? You know, the estimated cost to the people of this Province for having this House open could be as high as $30,000.

Can you imagine that? If I had that $30,000 to make a payment on our cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor, or maybe offer it to the young people in Goose Bay so they could have an auditorium - I am just wondering what the situation is on dialysis in Carbonear.

The cost of keeping the House open this evening could save one or two jobs that were cut in last week's Budget. Can you imagine? I think what the government is banking on is this feature: They are hoping, from their propaganda, that the people in the Province will feel that it is necessary to have this House open tonight, when in actual fact that is entirely incorrect.

For the viewers in the Province who are watching this program here tonight - because it is a program - the House of Assembly will actually be open until some time in May. It could be the end of May as far as we know. Do you know that there is no bill that is going to be passed here tonight? There is absolutely no urgency. I held up the House of Assembly Order Paper to show the people of the Province that there is no legislation on this Order Paper. Zero! There is absolutely no legislation on that Order Paper. There is no reason to keep the people's House open tonight at a cost to the taxpayers of this Province.

This is the same government that does not have money enough to put a cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor. Yet, they can spend up to $30,000 televising and keeping this House open when there is nothing urgent and we are going to be open until the month of May, probably the end of May, to debate this Budget. Yet, for all of that, the real object of having this House open is only one thing: They are trying their best to wear down the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans so she will sit down and there will be no debate on the Budget, but let me tell you one thing: Growing up in a family of twelve children, I learned how to stand on my own two feet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: I learned how to stand on my own two feet, and there is nobody across the House going to sit me down before my time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: I can tell you, I do not want to waste the taxpayers' money. My voice is not even gone after seven hours. I used to sing in the choir, mind you. My voice is not gone yet tonight, but I can tell you one thing, you are wasting the taxpayers' money no matter how you play it. You are wasting the taxpayers' money.

You have people working around the clock here, paying them overtime. There are people out there today who are looking for more home care. I have people calling me every day looking for more home care, people who are just getting home from surgeries and they cannot get the home care they want, and you have this House open here tonight at a cost to the taxpayer of probably up to $30,000. For what?

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

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Madam Speaker, I have listened three times tonight - the Member for Bellevue on his feet saying that the charge to televise the House is $5,000 an hour. I have listened to the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans go from tonight it is costing $20,000, $25,000 and now $30,000.

The fact of the matter is that television time is $300 an hour. Tonight's cost will be $900 for television time. Now, it is not a problem if we ever have night sittings again and you think it is too much money and you want not to have the place televised. We can accommodate that. The fact of the matter is that it is not going to cost $30,000 tonight to have the House open. If that was the case then the former government who sit over there probably would have wasted $20 million, if it was costing $30,000 a night, over the term; but, Madam Speaker, they did not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Do you know why they did not? Because the cost associated with having the House televised at night sittings is not nearly, nearly, what the hon. member is talking about. If she does not know it then I will provide her with the figures personally, but I believe she does.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, to the point of order, again, I do not know. This is not Reaganomics or ‘eggonomics', or whatever it is, but I think for the Government House Leader to try to suggest that the only cost to this Province of having this session open in the night is $300 per hour for satellite time is certainly not an accurate reflection of what it costs.

We made it quite clear here this afternoon that this session was absolutely unnecessary. We have been totally co-operative with the government in anything they wanted done in this session. There is nothing to be accomplished here tonight by having this House open, that would not be accomplished before the scheduled time in our calendar, which is some time the third week of May. We are dealing here tonight with additional satellite costs. We are dealing here with extra security guards who are outside the building here, no doubt management people who have been here all day at very high wages, who are no doubt getting overtime for being here so that we can sit here in an unnecessary sitting. There are meals that have been brought in to these people coming here tonight. We have Hansard staff working here, four people, preparing the transcripts of what is being said here tonight. We have TV staff here, four people who are being paid. We have Commissionaires here, ten of them here tonight, and the satellite time itself. So, it is very costly to have this unnecessary session. For a government that has been preaching restraint, and we do not have the money, and we are on the verge of bankruptcy, I would say it is totally unnecessary to have this sitting and the money could have been much better used to look after people who need it in our health care system rather than being here in this wasted exercise.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: I think Madam Speaker made an expert ruling here tonight, that there is no point of order, absolutely no point of order.

You said it did not cost $30,000 to have this televised -

MR. GRIMES: The estimate (inaudible) $30,000 provided to us.

MS THISTLE: That is right. You named one item. The Government House Leader indicated one expense alone totalled $1,000. One expense alone, just the TV time, came to over $1,000, so what would it cost to have extra security here on overtime? What would it cost to have all the meals brought in to all these people? What would it cost to provide overtime to four Hansard people? What would it cost to provide overtime to four TV staff people? What would it cost to pay ten Commissionaires? What that comes under $30,000 is precious little.

I have people calling me every day of the week looking for more home support. If we had $30,000 to give somebody in my district who is looking for an extra hour or two, who is out there recovering from surgery, or had cardiac surgery or heart failure, or had some other type of illness.... Yet, for all of that, this House is going to stay open from 7 o'clock to 10 o'clock tonight because the Government House Leader thinks it should be open, and spend the people's money needlessly. The people's money that is so important for a cash-strapped government, as they call themselves, and here they are, willing to look at jacking up the fees, 150 different fees, for the people of this Province, to rake in $26 million, and here they are going to spend upwards to $30,000 tonight to have this House open unnecessarily.

How about all the health care fees that they are going to be charging the people, that they were not paying before April 1? How about all those fees that will mean so much to people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador? It is easy here to sit down and, with the stroke of a pen, for the Minister of Finance or his people in Cabinet to say: We need to generate $26 million, and this is what we are going to do.

Do you know something? There are people out there who are going to be affected by those fee increases. It is not just numbers on a paper.

MS FOOTE: It is a tax by any other word.

MS THISTLE: It is definitely a tax, no matter how you want to cut it or how you want to get around it. It is definitely a tax. People around this Province are going to rise up. They already rose up on Sunday, ordinary people who are disillusioned and distraught at how this government is riding roughshod over people who have taken government services for granted and enjoyed the government services over the years and now a lot of those services are going to be phased out in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I know that the members on the other side of this House, from rural Newfoundland and Labrador, are in the dark, probably, about these decisions. It was clearly evident on January 5. Even the Cabinet were in the dark on the Premier's speech of January 5. The caucus themselves, they were in the dark on the Budget decisions a week ago. I do not think there is anybody who can stand in their place - who represent rural Newfoundland on the other side of the House - and say they are not concerned about the cuts that are coming to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. If they can do that they are not telling the truth. They have to go back and face their constituents, and their constituents will tell them plainly they are concerned that there are going to be cuts to their health care. They are concerned that there are going to be cuts to education. They are concerned that their offices for Human Resources and Employment are going to move out of their communities. They are concerned that there is no hope for young people when they graduate from high school and they graduate from post-secondary. They are concerned that they are not going to have the money to pay the high fees that are being instituted by this government.

They thought that this government - which had an overwhelming majority of thirty-four members brought to this House. The record was beat only by Brian Tobin who brought thirty-six members to the House of Assembly. Former Premier Brian Tobin brought thirty-six members to the House of Assembly and this current government, which has thirty-four members, they had better get used to making short-term plans because a lot of those members, from what I am hearing already, will not see a second term unless government changes their policy making. It is easy enough to sit down in a Cabinet room and make decisions that you think will have no impact on the majority of people but the decisions that you have made, as a new government, has major impacts on all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

MS FOOTE: Of course, they have a new approach now. They are bringing back Dr. House with his twelve year old thinking.

MS THISTLE: Yes, it is interesting to see what will come out of the hopper when Dr. House begins to draft his first policy on rural development. That is a revamp or a recycling of the twelve year old vision, is it? The twelve year old vision. So, it will be interesting to see what Dr. House will come up with for the new Rural Secretariat.

It is a big name, Rural Secretariat. Actually, what does it mean to the people out in rural Newfoundland? Is it what the current government planned? Jobs and the Economy - Building a Real Future. What did this Budget do to build a real future for the people in Newfoundland and Labrador? I think it is going to drive away the people from rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

The commitment that was made by the now Premier of the Province as part of the Tory Blue Book, he is going to, "Increase the small business tax credit from $200,000 to $300,000 over 4 years." I did not see any evidence of that. "Implement strong and effective policies to promote small and medium size business..." I do not know where that one is. That is probably hid under a rock. No commitment!

"Create a regulatory regime that is efficient, flexible and transparent while maintaining high regulatory standards." Now, what does that say? Would somebody interpret that statement for me? What does that statement say? He is going to, "Create a regulatory regime that is efficient, flexible and transparent while maintaining high regulatory standards." What is that anyway? What does that mean? I guess nobody knows. I did not see it come up in the Budget.

"Make use of Research and Development (R&D) partnerships and tax incentives to encourage greater private and public investment..." Now, that might be in the hopper but I have not seen any evidence, any commitment.

I do not know where this came from but it looks like this is a piece that was written in the paper The Western Star. It was written by reporter Frank Gale and it was done from Stephenville. "Dr. Douglas House, deputy minister of the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development...". That was April 3, so it is pretty recent. He was the first to speak. Do you mean to say the minister never spoke first?

MS FOOTE: No, the minister (inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Oh, the minister never spoke? Okay, he "...was the first to speak at the opening of the Bay St. George Chamber of Commerce-sponsored symposium. His keynote address was entitled Beyond Dependency and Entitlement..." Interesting! "The New Approach and its Implications to the Bay St. George Area." He said - this is a quote from Dr. House now mind you. "He said there is a new era in post-Confederation Newfoundland..." - welcome to the new era in post-Confederation Newfoundland - "which is to get beyond dependency on Ottawa..." Does that mean federal-provincial relations have broken off? "...which is to get beyond dependency on Ottawa and the debilitating sense of entitlement that has been engendered in too many of our people. Such as having the right to employment insurance..."

MS FOOTE: Is he suggesting we should not have that right?

MS THISTLE: Is Dr. House saying that we should not have the right to employment insurance? Have no right to job creation monies? Have no right to sick leave and pay increases, even as a Province cannot afford such benefits? In other words, is this what Dr. House is proposing for the people of this Province in rural Newfoundland? He was speaking to the Bay St. George area., basically rural Newfoundland.

"He said that is where their Blueprint for the Future applies." He said that. In other words, is Dr. House suggesting that the Premier has not had any success in developing his provincial-federal relationship and he says that we should not have the right to employment insurance? We all know that rural Newfoundland is a seasonal economy. We all know that rural Newfoundland and Labrador is basically a seasonal economy. They are fisherpeople. They are loggers. They are forestry workers. They are seasonal workers.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

I ask that the member be heard.

MS THISTLE: It is interesting that Dr. House has said to the Chamber of Commerce that we should not, as a people, have the right to employment insurance and job creation monies. He does not believe in job creation monies. He does not believe in sick leave and he does not believe in pay increases. What should public sector workers expect to have in their legislated settlement? Well, this is like déjà vu, we are going back in time. We are going back twelve years in time.

Dr. House said, "... that is where their Blueprint for the Future applies. He said that there are implications of strong urban regions..." Now, look at this. I think the people in the Bay St. George and Stephenville area should read this paper. Just take a lesson from this one. This is what Dr. House is saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Deputy Minister, did you say?

MR. GRIMES: Minister.

MS THISTLE: Oh, excuse me.

Dr. Doug House said, speaking to a rural part of Newfoundland, to the Bay St. George Chamber of Commerce - I do not know if his minister agrees with this or not - he said, "...that is where their Blueprint for the Future applies. He said there are implications of strong urban regions and they are looking at Stephenville-Corner Brook-Deer Lake as a second urban corridor in the province." Now, this is their plan.

Well, what name are they going to put on my district and the District of Exploits and the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune and the District of Gander and the District of Windsor-Springdale and the District of Baie Verte and the District of Twillingate& Fogo and the District of Lewisporte? What are we going to be called? Are we going to be like robots? Is it resettlement by anther word? Are you or this government looking at drying up, cutting the guts out of rural Newfoundland and Labrador? This is Dr. Doug House's vision.

I wonder does the Minister of the new Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development agree with what her Deputy Minister said? I would like to know the answer to that question. If she agrees that people in Western Newfoundland -

MS FOOTE: He wrote the economic blueprint for them.

MS THISTLE: Yes, he did write the economic blueprint. It was a Blue Book then and now it is a blueprint. But, he said in his own words that, "there are implications of strong urban regions and they are looking at Stephenville-Corner Brook-Deer Lake as a second urban corridor in the province." Where is the first one? Is he going to bypass Central Newfoundland? He is looking at Stephenville-Corner Brook-Deer Lake as a second urban corridor.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that a Ministerial Statement?

MS THISTLE: That is the second one.

He is saying, next to St. John's where all the Cabinet ministers are from, he is looking at Stephenville, Corner Brook and Deer Lake as a second urban corridor of the Province.

He adds this piece. It is interesting. He adds this, "But it would require overcoming traditional rivalries, jealousies and distrust." Now, who wrote the book on trust.

MS FOOTE: I think that was Ross who wrote the book on trust.

MR. GRIMES: The Member for Trinity North must had a hand in that speech.

MS THISTLE: Yes, indeed.

He came out, this Dr. House, who is the Deputy Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. I wonder if his minister agrees with the statement that he made because he basically talked about resettlement. He is asking all parts of Newfoundland and Labrador - right now there are only going to be two urban centers. He forgot about Central Newfoundland. He is saying the second urban corridor should be in Stephenville, Corner Brook and Deer Lake.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is the Premier's area, though. The Premier's district is in that area.

MS THISTLE: We know it is the Premier's district.

AN HON. MEMBER: He has to pleased the Premier.

MS THISTLE: Absolutely! That is the only place there is any spending going on right now, in the Premier's district. There is no spending going on in my district. Is there any spending going on in Windsor-Springdale? No. Is there any spending going on - let me see - Gander? No. Is there any spending going on in Terra Nova? No. Is there any going on in St. John's Centre? Well you might get a chance to look at The Rooms through the window. Is there any spending going on in Trinity-Bay de Verde? I do not think so.

MR. GRIMES: Is there any truth to the rumour that they are going to take down The Rooms, like they did with the hospital in Grand Bank?

MS THISTLE: Well, I say if they are planning on taking down The Rooms they have a lot of steel to dismantle and no buyer in sight.

Can you imagine having the steel on site to build a new facility and having the people geared up for a new health care facility, and, with the stroke of a pen say, get down there and take that steel and send it to the lowest bidder? My goodness, how does the Member for Burin-Placentia West feel?

MS FOOTE: He does not care about that.

MS THISTLE: He does not care?

MS FOOTE: No, not about that.

Ask him if he lobbied for the cat scan?

MS THISTLE: Yes, I would like to know. I wonder what support did the Member for Burin-Placentia West give to the cat scan, the CT scanner for Grand Bank, for the entire Burin Peninsula? Does he care that people will have to travel over the road and head for St. John's when they want to get a test done? No.

MR. GRIMES: He did not know it was gone until he heard the Budget Speech.

MS THISTLE: That is a good looking fact. I guess the first time that you realized that the CT scanner was gone was when you were in the lock-up on Budget morning.

The Member for Burin-Placentia West was in the lock-up. He was in the dark. He was absolutely in the dark. It is clear that he had no input.

MS FOOTE: Did he know the school boards were going?

MS THISTLE: No, that was a big surprise.

AN HON. MEMBER: I think he knew that, and that is the reason he bailed out of there.

MS THISTLE: That is probably why he ran in the last election, because he knew he would be without a job if he stayed around. He knew what the score was. He said: I think I will run for politics, now that my job is on the line. He knew. That is the one thing that the Premier shared with him. He said: Listen, sonny....

AN HON. MEMBER: That is why he is laughing.

MS THISTLE: Oh yes, he is over there laughing. It is a big joke now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: What we are talking about here tonight are not numbers on a page. It is people. People matter. People's health matters, people's employment matters, people's communities matter, people's recreation matters, and people's access to government services matter. I think people got a big dose of reality.

It is too bad those people in the nosebleed section are not allowed to speak. Maybe I will ask him this question after the House closes tonight: How does he feel, as a former educator and a member of the board -

MS FOOTE: Employee.

MS THISTLE: Employee of the board, rather. I do not know the name of that board.

MS FOOTE: The Peninsulas.

MS THISTLE: The Peninsulas school board. This government now has cut the guts out of education and they are going to eliminate over 400 jobs over the next couple of years. Guess who is going to make the decisions for the Burin Peninsula when it comes to education? Guess who is going to do that? Who is going to do that? St. John's! Can you imagine? Then again, that was part of the current government's plan, because I can remember when you were over here as the Opposition. You never did agree. You always wanted to dismantle education boards. That was their plan. Now what is happening? They are trying to soft-pedal this one and develop mega-boards this year, but in their next budget they are going to cut out all the boards. That is the plan.

AN HON. MEMBER: Then the health boards after that.

MS THISTLE: Then, when you are finished cutting out the education boards, you are going to cut out the health care boards; but, in fact, that is already underway. That is already started, because you have another study to study going out now. That is what is called real leadership, when you study the study. You cut the guts out of rural Newfoundland and you cut the guts out of our health care system. You take away any hope that young people had. You take away any hope of civil servants building a career with the provincial government. You take away any possibility of people improving their own situation in their own community. You have no incentive for municipalities to operate voluntarily. You have cut the guts out of Municipal Operating Grants. You have taken a GST rebate that should belong to communities around this Province and you decided to rein it in and use it for your own reasons.

Here we are, on April 5, here in this House tonight, costing the government thousands and thousands of dollars for a useless exercise when they know full well that the House of Assembly does not need to be open, it is a waste of the taxpayers' money, and there is absolutely no legislation on the books to be passed. In fact, I thought they were going to be a new government coming in with all kinds of new legislation, new initiatives, for this Province, but I expect the only legislation that we are going to see when they bring their legislation forward is cutting out what is already there. That is the only kind of legislation we are going to see, the cutting out of what is already there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: I thought they had plenty of time over here in Opposition to drum up some new ideas. They had plenty of time. They had plenty of time in Opposition. Instead of that, they recycled old ideas that were twelve years old.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Yes, we saw that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) it should not be there. Take it away.

MS THISTLE: That is right.

AN HON. MEMBER: And sick leave.

MS THISTLE: Sick leave. I have already said that. Can you imagine?

Yes, Dr. Doug House said -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS THISTLE: I would like to ask government members: Is this an admission -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members if they would be kind enough to contain themselves for another fifteen minutes and they can have the rest of the night to holler and shout all they want. Until that time, I ask that the member be heard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if this is an admission by our new Premier that the federal-provincial relationship has soured. I wonder, is this an admission by our new Premier that our new federal-provincial relationship has soured? He has sent out the Deputy Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development to make a statement, saying that the people in Newfoundland and Labrador should not have access to Employment Insurance, that people in Newfoundland and Labrador should not have access to job creation monies.

MS JONES: Who said that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Minister House.

MS THISTLE: Who was that, the deputy minister?

MR. REID: No, it was the minister.

MS THISTLE: Oh, it was the minister. I wonder does the minister agree with what the so-called deputy minister said.

MR. GRIMES: We will come back to that tomorrow. We will adjourn the debate now and come back to that tomorrow.

MS THISTLE: I don't really want to adjourn.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Stay tuned for the next chapter tomorrow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Another revelation will start tomorrow for certain.

What I want to do now, Mr. Speaker, is thank hon. members of this House for their attention and I would like to adjourn debate at this time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Before I move the adjournment, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to the Critic for Finance, she is on a mission. She has indicated I am, but I can tell you she certainly is. She is closing in on the former Finance Critic's record of twelve hours and some odd minutes. That is really what is at stake here. I hope she does, because records are always made to be broken.

The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, when he came in, said: I know she has been on our feet for some time, but the real question is, have we learned anything new, and I am not sure we have.

I want to say to the critic, it is not easy standing on your feet for six and a half hours straight, but before we move adjournment, Mr. Speaker, I want to move, just in case she wants to proceed again tomorrow night and continue on - this is just in case - I want to move Standing Order 11, that the House do not adjourn at five-thirty tomorrow or at ten o'clock.

With that, I move the adjournment until one-thirty tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is made that this House now adjourn.

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The House now stands adjourned until one-thirty tomorrow, Tuesday afternoon.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.