MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for Bonavista South; the hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile; the hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale; and the hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, recently the Bonavista Volunteer Fire Department held an occasion to celebrate forty years of firefighting service, not only to the Town of Bonavista but to the surrounding communities of Spillars Cove and Elliston.

Mr. Speaker, at that particular occasion, there were two members of the volunteer fire department who were recognized for their long-term service: Mr. Keith Shirran and their Fire Chief, Mr. Gerry Russell for twenty years of service.

Mr. Speaker, what was particularly, I guess, noticeable or enlightening about that anniversary was the guest speaker who was in the Town of Bonavista to preach the word of fire prevention. The guest preacher was a young man by the name of Michael Gaultois, a young man from Irishtown who was involved in a fire, a tragic event back in 1991, where four young people went to a cabin and, during that night, a candle that they had for light, had burned out and caught fire to a chesterfield, resulting in one death and this young man with burns to over 80 per cent of his body.

I thought, Mr. Speaker, it was one of the most enlightening and one of the most moving speeches that I have ever heard in my life, where this young man talked about his challenges and talked about the hurt that he went through because of the fire, talked about losing his friend and how he went on and got on with his life and went to university and became a preacher, if you would, to preach the words of fire prevention. Now he travels around the Province going to activities like firemen's functions, going into schools to preach fire prevention and the important message that comes from what fire departments are putting forward on a daily basis.

Mr. Speaker, this young man, Michael Gaultois, opened his delivery with the news item that was brought forward in 1991 by the CBC, Ms Debbie Cooper, reporting on the fire. From that, he led up to his experience of dealing with his burns, the trauma that he went through by going to Boston, coming back into his community and being accepted again by other students. It was a very inspiring speech.

It fell right in line with what the fire departments preach on a regular basis, and I am sure everybody in this Legislature will join with me in saying congratulations, not only to the Bonavista Fire Department, but to all other fire departments right across Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate Peter Skinner, an Isle aux Morts native and a former Port aux Basques minor hockey association player, on becoming a member of the Ontario Hockey League's Kingston Frontenacs.

Peter's grandparents, Jack and Melita Lawrence from Isle aux Morts are extremely proud of their grandson's accomplishments. Peter joined the Frontenacs, the third ranked hockey team in the Eastern district in Ontario, in November of this season.

Mr. Speaker, support from family, particularly his father, Alfred Skinner, over the years is also credited to where he is today. His dad put him into minor hockey when he was a young child. There were many, many early morning wake ups and drives to the rink in Port aux Basques. Growing up in Isle aux Morts, Peter was always interested in physical activity. With continued support from his family, he developed a passion for hockey, which helped set the stage.

Peter moved to Mississauga, Ontario, with his family when he was a teenager. It was a very difficult transition for him, but he knew it was for the best. During his initial years of high school, he played for the St. Michael's Buzzers where he won South East Division Player of the Year, as well as the South Division Gentleman Player of the Year.

Mr. Speaker, Peter still spends much of his time on the ice, up to fourteen hours a week. On top of that busy schedule, he attends university and tries to fit in time for family and friends. Despite the challenge, he is determined and at the age of nineteen he strives to excel with the goal of making it to the NHL.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating one of Isle aux Morts' finest, Peter Skinner, a member of the Ontario Hockey League's Kingston Frontenacs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to welcome Cherie Wheeler as the new editor for the Nor'wester newspaper which services the Green Bay area. Cherie was in Harbour Breton as editor-manager of the Coaster, a sister paper to the Nor'wester. Ms Wheeler has her Bachelor of Journalism from the University of Kings College in 2003. She has worked for CBC Radio; east link news and several Nova Scotia publications.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome Ms Wheeler to the Green Bay area and hope her influence is as profound and as far reaching as our past editor, Mr. Randy Edison.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to rise to congratulate Jeremy Parsons, a Bay Robert's native who is a fourth year pharmacy student at Memorial University, and this year's winner of the National Drug Compounding Competition held in Montreal earlier this year.

Jeremy Parsons and his group of fellow fourth year Memorial Pharmacy students: Lorrie Duggan, Justin Peddle and Jody Pomeroy, won the regional competition at MUN last fall and was awarded the trip to Montreal in the national competition during Pharmacy Development Week earlier in January of this year.

Mr. Speaker, the National Drug Compounding Competition is a one hour competition consisting of three compound preparations. Nine teams competed, one from each of the Canadian pharmacy schools.

Team members were awarded cash prizes of $100 each and an engraved plaque to be displayed at Memorial. This is the first time Memorial has won since 1997.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating Jeremy Parsons and his team who were this year's winners of the National Drug Compounding Competition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today to provide detail to the House of Assembly on a recent visit to Conne River by justice officials. The purpose of the trip was to sign an extension to the Police Services Agreement that was entered into last year between the provincial government and Saqamaw Mis'el Joe. This agreement provides an RCMP Officer to Conne River, and this extension is a great step forward and proof positive that the relationship which the Miawpukek First Nation Band has been able to build with the RCMP is of continuing benefit to the community. The Constable provided by this agreement, Fabian John, is a positive influence in the daily life of all the residents of the community.

The interaction and mutual support between the Band and the RCMP generally, and more specifically between Sgt. Jackman, the NCO in charge, and the Bay D'Espoir Detachment, is exemplary. The leadership role which all parties have played in ensuring that this relationship has been and continues to be positive, is very crucial. All are to be congratulated.

During the visit, Justice officials received a very informative presentation on the general governance structure of the Band, an historical background of Conne River, and were treated to a traditional sweet grass ceremony and also traditional song and dance. I was particularly impressed with the work they are doing in the area of restorative justice. Many disputes are best resolved using the non-adversarial techniques of the healing circle. The work which they have been doing with the Provincial Court in sentencing circles is also very, very progressive. Both projects are very worthy of note and I wish them continued success as they develop both further.

If we work together in good faith, outstanding obstacles can be overcome. Special thanks to Chief Mis'el Joe, General Manager Tammy Drew, Justice Manager Irene Joe, and Mr. Rod Jeddore on their outstanding hospitality.

On numerous occasions, Mr. Speaker, I have heard that Conne River is a model reserve and now I have witnessed that sentiment first-hand. I encourage every Member of the House of Assembly who has not had the opportunity to visit that community to do so.

Mr. Speaker, government will continue to take the necessary steps to assist and enhance the delivery of justice services in Conne River and everywhere in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for a copy of the Ministerial Statement before coming to the House.

It was great to see the minister in Conne River, to sign an extension of the police services with the Band. It is also good to see Constable Fabian John, formerly of the Lewisporte Detachment of the RCMP, transferred back into Bay D'Espoir, and a satellite office from the Bay D'Espoir Detachment going into Conne River.

The minister also talks about the support of Sgt. Don Jackman, whom I know very well. His actions, no doubt, are exemplary, and they have done a tremendous amount of work into Bay D'Espoir and in Conne River.

The minister also talks about the sort of justice. I would like to thank and make mention of Chief Justice Robert Fowler, now of Happy Valley-Goose Bay. When he was Provincial Court Judge in Gander some time ago, his work with Chief Joe and the Band established appropriate sentencing techniques, and it is nice to see these types of initiatives still continuing.

There is no doubt about it, as the minister said, the community is a great community under Chief Mis'el Joe. They have made great strides and are a model community. As he said, if anybody has not gone to the community, it is worth the visit just to see what these people have been able to accomplish.

It is also nice to see that dialogue is -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is nice to see that dialogue is continuing between our justice system and our citizens. It is only with constant communication that we are able to appreciate justice issues and devise initiatives to address them.

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

MR. R. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

It is good news, Mr. Speaker, and it is important that Aboriginal communities in our Province be involved with their own policing and their own justice systems, because many times they understand more about their own people than we would, as outsiders, so it is important that they play an active role in that.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to say that the argument could be put forward, I guess, now that we have our own training facilities, training programs, at MUN, for the RNC, there is probably room for the Province to look at expanding the role of the RNC in this Province as well, seeing that they are part of our own and we train them ourselves. It is good to see that people are involved in policing and providing justice to their own people.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

Oral Questions.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier.

Yesterday, outside this House, the Premier mentioned some new stumbling blocks in the failed negotiations with the Hebron-Ben Nevis partners. During the media scrum, the Premier stated that the Province and the company were 30 per cent apart on the number of engineering hours that would occur in the Province during the project development phase.

I ask the Premier: Could you please elaborate on this newly-stated stumbling block? What was the Province looking for, and what was offered by the oil companies?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just for the record, it is not in the sense that it is a new stumbling block. When I indicated in response to the questions of the hon. gentleman opposite when this first broke, I indicated that on the Thursday evening - I cannot remember the date right now - when this fell apart, the companies came back and reverted to the January 26 letter, which was a letter two months previous which had been negotiated to our benefit over that period of time.

In that letter there were several terms. One of them, of course, was the investment tax credit, another one was the fuel tax credit, and another part of it and another component of it was the total engineering hours. We had been at a position of total hours which I am not prepared to disclose now, because again if these negotiations go back to the table we don't want to have everything laid out here at this particular point in time, if the other side has not disclosed what their position was. I don't think that is a fair method of negotiation. We would be truly negotiating in the public with them. Having said that, I did give you an indication of what the measure of difference was and there was a 30 per cent different in the number of hours. So, that was an issue.

Another issue that came up in the January 26^th letter was the wording that they were using, and government had a genuine concern that they could probably move in, in the middle of the construction of a module, and pluck the module out of the Province and move it off somewhere else, which is a situation that happened before. We weren't agreeable to that and we weren't prepared to condone that. As a result, negotiations broke down for several reasons.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

That was indeed my second question. The Premier referenced yesterday that another issue was the construction of the accommodations module in this Province.

I wonder if the Premier could elaborate as to what exactly the Province was looking for, what was offered by the oil companies, and where this work was intended to be done in the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The big issue for the Province and the companies here is: What can the Province accommodate? What the Province was truly trying to accommodate was 100 per cent usage of our facilities and our workforce. That was our goal. If, in fact, the companies had a concern, that once we got over 100 per cent we wouldn't be able to complete certain components of the module or certain parts of the project, that they would have the ability to move elsewhere, from our perspective, if we are at 100 per cent then we can't do anymore than that work anyway.

Having said that, one of those components was the accommodations module. As the Minister of Natural Resources knows, on the Terra Nova project with regard to Petro Canada's construction and revamp of their own facilities, the accommodation module, a significant part of that is going to be done in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. If we can do it for them, who are a partner in this new project, then we can certainly do it under the new circumstances.

The accommodation module was a component that we had asked to have constructed in Newfoundland and Labrador, as opposed to the GBS and/or the super module, one of which will be construction in the Province and one of which will be constructed outside the Province.

When you in that stage of negotiations, it is a matter of trying to find an accommodation, a balance, that works for both sides, given the fact that we can do what we can and perform to 100 per cent of our ability, and that the companies have the ability to get the project done on time with whatever facilities they have to use.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Eighty-four per cent of the White Rose work was done in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: A final percentage was never finalized because agreement was never reached, but, suffice it to say, there would have been a significant amount more work done in our Province on the basis of the government's position in this particular negotiation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: It take it that was more than 84 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier stated yesterday that he spoke to the Prime Minister regarding legislative changes that would have to be approved by the federal government before the Province could expropriate ExxonMobil's share of the Hebron-Ben Nevis project. He also stated that a meeting will be taking place tomorrow.

I ask the Premier: In your initial meeting and discussions with the Prime Minister, did the Prime Minister actually express his support for these legislative changes, and can you provide us with the details of same, or if it is a matter to be discussed tomorrow instead?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The purpose of my discussion, my conversation, with the Prime Minister was to basically inform him of what the status quo was of the negotiations, where negotiations had broken down, the same information that this hon. House has, and also to indicate to him that the fallow field issue was an issue. At that particular point in time, he was not asked for a position.

In all fairness to him, it is something that, obviously, he would have to have researched, just as we are doing with our own Justice Department and others. So, that is something that will be discussed tomorrow but I do not even expect a final position from the federal government tomorrow. This is on a go-forward basis and it assumes, first of all, that the project does not go ahead. Second of all, that the Exxon Mobile does not sell to their partners. Third of all, that ExxonMobil does not sell to us. Then, a fourth position would be: we will work through the existing legislation to enforce the fallow field component of that; and if, in fact, that is going to take too long or that does not work, then we will have to look at new legislation in conjunction with the federal government to shorten the time frame and force them to use it or lose it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While in Opposition, the Premier promised that he would release information related to project negotiations in an open and transparent manner. Last week, he stated that he would check to see if he could release details such as the Province's so-called super royalty regime. Yesterday, the Premier seemed to backtrack a bit on that and not be prepared to release those details.

I ask the Premier: In view of your earlier stated desire to have this information released to the public so there could be a complete and full and open discussion, as per your comments even of November 18, 2002, in this House, why are we not getting the information and why are you refusing to table it here in the House?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: There is some inconsistency that I am having some difficulty with. The hon. gentleman opposite is basically looking for information.

In a news release by the Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr. Bennett, he has indicated that he is concerned with the nature of the secret negotiations. Then he gets on Open Line and he basically says you do not have public volatile negotiations.

I do not know what they want, Mr. Speaker. On one hand, the House Leader opposite is basically saying that he wants all of the information. The leader of the party, who sits in the gallery when he is in town, who decides to drop in from Windsor, Ontario, and pay us a visit once in awhile, he goes on Open Line and he indicates that he does not want public negotiations, he does not want public information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: It is very difficult, from my perspective, as Leader of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, to know exactly what they want.

If they do not know what they want, how am I supposed to figure out what they want, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have asked questions of the Premier on this issue now for the past number of days, at least for the last two weeks, and there has not been any political rhetoric from myself on this issue. My questions were simple. I say again: Why the change of heart?

We had a Premier, a person who was Leader of the Opposition, who is now the Premier, who, on page 1755 of Hansard, on November 18, 2002, said, and I quote, "Voisey's Bay all over again. Everything is done in secret. No information provided. I call on the Premier to make all the information available, to have a full debate, but let's do it before that agreement is signed and let's have a real shot at it this time around."

Those are the Premier's own words. I am just simply asking the Premier: Given that was your stated position regarding negotiations in this Province, and the level of information that the public had to have, why are we seeing a turn of faith here from you?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: If we are going to go that route, let's compare apples and apples.

When the Voisey's Bay negotiations were on the go, we were on that side of the House and we knew absolutely nothing. We were given absolutely no information. The deal was concluded. Deal or no deal. It was deal, and you already had one done.

Come down to the second one; let's go to the Lower Churchill. That was all being done behind closed doors. We just managed, as an Opposition, to stop you from giving away the Lower Churchill, big time!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: That was very secret, no disclosure, no information whatsoever. The former Premier - most of you were in the Cabinet at the time - the big celebration, the big announcement was all done. All the media was all done. All the public relations were all done. We were going to get it rammed down our throats. We stopped that, and fortunately we saved the Lower Churchill from being given away after the Upper Churchill had been given away by a Liberal government.

In this particular situation you know what the equity stake was, you know what the super royalty issue was, you know that engineering is an issue, you know all the issues in this deal. The only thing you are missing are some of the numbers on that deal. This negotiation had not concluded, and I am not going to jeopardize this on behalf of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to satisfy the political needs of that crowd on the other side of the House!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is funny how things change when you go from one side of the Legislature to the other.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

Paramedics with the Eastern Health Authority demonstrated yesterday and again today in the gallery to highlight their concerns respecting understaffing issues which are well below the Canadian standard and which they, as professionals, feel are seriously compromising public safety.

Minister, you indicated yesterday that $250,000 would be made available for dispatch services. I understand that is divided between four boards in the Province, which leaves a very small portion of this fund for the Eastern Health Authority - the same authority that today is overstressed, has too much workload, and the same authority that your department is now about to transfer all the air ambulance dispatch services to as well.

I have to ask you, Minister: Do you feel that the funding you have allocated to them is adequate to meet the demands they now have, and the future demands they will have with the air ambulance dispatch service as well?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I also indicated in yesterday's questions that this government, in this year's Budget, had allocated an additional $60 million to the four regional health authorities to deal with issues such as this.

This Budget, Mr. Speaker, has increased the amount of health care money by 10 per cent. Last year, the amount of health care money was increased by 7 per cent. I would indicate to the member across that these two years, last year and this year, have seen the greatest increase in health care spending in this Province's history.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, no answer on the dispatch services, so let's talk about the $60 million the minister claims he is putting into the Budget for other utilization in the health care sector, again divided between four boards.

As of yesterday, the Eastern Health Care Board is not aware of how much of the $60 million they will get. They are not aware of how much of that $60 million will be for discretionary use, or if any of it can be put into ambulance services.

I ask the minister today: In light of the situation, are you prepared to commit a portion of that money to address the ambulance service needs in the city right now?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: What I am prepared to commit is what I committed to the ambulance operators, who I met with at 8:30 this morning, which is the first time - I contacted them, in fact. I was not even contacted for a meeting with them. It is the first time we have talked about this.

Officials in my department and officials with Eastern Health are in the process of discussing this very issue. Eastern Health have been carrying out a review of the ambulance services that are provided in the Eastern region to determine whether or not they are adequate to supply the needs of ambulance services in the region. I committed that within two weeks we would have answers to the ambulance operators on what type of funding or what types of issues can be addressed that they have raised with me today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the facts are these, and that is that in other places, like Halifax, like Sudbury, like Saint John, New Brunswick, there is one unit per 22,000 people in those cities. In our city, there is one unit per 53,000 people. The paramedics are stressed. They are concerned about patients' safety, as they have indicated. They feel that this is not adequate, Minister, and I am asking you to move immediately to address the problem.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: What I can say to the member is, in the meeting that I had with them this morning they did indicate that in the previous two years they did not approach government because they knew that fiscally the Province was strapped, but in the previous Administration, for fourteen years they have been going and asking for these services and their requests have gone unheard.

I did commit to them this morning that I did hear their requests. I thought that they put forward a reasonable argument and that I would address their issues with Eastern Health, which I am going to do. In conversations with Eastern Health today, I can commit to the ambulance operators that they will get the additional attendant for night services. What I cannot commit yet, because we are still discussing it, is whether or not ambulance services will increase. But I will commit to the ambulance operators that it is an issue that I intend to follow through with Eastern Health, something that your Administration did not do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the minister that this issue is being raised on his time as a minister in the government and it is his responsibility to deal with it and not talk about what happened in the last fourteen years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Let me say this, Mr. Speaker, the St. John's ambulance services is on a cost recovery basis, as the minister knows. Last year, what did you take in? Forty-five or 55 per cent recovery on that particular service.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue, very serious for the residents of this city. If there is money in the Budget, if there is money being allocated to the Eastern Health Care Corporation, Minister, why don't you just say: a portion of that money will definitely be allocated to deal with the ambulance services? I would like to hear you say it today.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Again, Mr. Speaker, we have one of the issues addressed, which is the nighttime attendant. What we do not have addressed yet is the additional ambulance services. I am not going to make a decision by the seat of my pants. That is not the way I operate. I am going to follow through with Eastern Health. We are going to review the issue. We are going to look at all of the options that are there and we will have a decision for the ambulance operators within two weeks. I think that is reasonable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Education.

As you are aware, the Eastern School Board announced some of its decisions last night with respect to school closures. Despite parents' protests, the schools at English Harbour East and Grand Le Pierre are slated for closure this June.

I ask the minister, if this school board has requested any money for a new school for the Terrenceville school system?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. member that there was a motion put forward by the board last night that they voted on, and they will be requesting funding to build a new school in Terrenceville. The official request has not yet come to government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BARRETT: Minister, these two schools will be closed down against the wishes of parents and students in the area. A new facility was promised to them to help ease the transition. You are the Minister of Education, when can they expect a new school to be approved by this government? They are putting their request in, so how long is it going to take before the new school is approved by this government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, once the official request is made to the Department of Education we will look at that matter and we will act on it. I cannot give an official date right now of when we will give a response, but I can indicate that we will consider the matter very important when it comes before the department and we will make a decision and notify the public at that time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Given that this government has set a precedent on rescinding a school board decision by this government, particularly in the Bishop's Falls area, will the minister now take the same step and rescind the decision of the school board for Grand Le Pierre and English Harbour East closures until a new school is built?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I will, as I had indicated to the hon. member, review the request for a new school when it comes in. That will be looked at when it comes in and taken very seriously.

The school board has just gone through a process where they have met with the stakeholders. The information was reviewed by the trustees, the motions were put forward last night, and they voted on it. It is my understanding that the school closures will be effective as of this September, and in all fairness, there will not be a new school in Terrenceville this September coming.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the Minister of Education again.

The people of this area are going to a very old school, with lack of facilities within that school. Kindergarten students from English Harbour East and Grand Le Pierre, small kids, are going to have to get on a bus and travel for a great deal of time over not very good road conditions. What the government should do is, before you make the decision at least construct a new school in the Terrenceville system.

I ask the minister: Will you rescind the decision of the board and be fair to the people of Grand Le Pierre and English Harbour East as you were to the people of Bishop's Falls?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated, the board made their decision last night. The information was vetted through the trustees and they had their vote. Another motion was put forward last night as well for money from the Department of Education to build a new school in Terrenceville. We will look at that request when it comes in.

Mr. Speaker, as I had already indicated, that request will come in, it will be looked at, but even if it is approved time will not permit to have a new school there for September.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

A recent report on wind generation activity in the Province of Quebec indicates that Hydro Quebec expects to provide 10 per cent of its power by wind in 2013, which is only seven years away.

Mr. Speaker, where is this Province in terms of wind generation proposal? I know the minister had a call for proposals report about a year ago. Where are we on our wind strategy and when can we expect to see some action from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro in terms of wind development?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question the same way I answered in our public consultation in Grand Falls-Windsor at which he made a presentation.

The fact of the matter is this, that with respect to wind power in Newfoundland and Labrador there is no question that our Province is going to move in that direction. When the public consultation is completed and the energy plan is put on the table, we will know exactly how much wind we want to put into the system and over what period of time. The reason we are taking that strategic approach is because not only do we want to construct windmills for the reasons that are evident in terms of being environmentally friendly and sound, but we also may have an opportunity to build a secondary industry in terms of fabrication and supply.

With respect to what we are doing right now, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro put out a Request for Proposals some time ago for a small megawatt farm of wind to do one thing, and one thing only, to understand the technical and engineering challenges associated with putting wind power into our grid system. The member knows this. The member was at the public consultations. It is a long-term strategic approach that we are interested in, and we will not dismayed or put off course from achieving that objective.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, in the development of its wind strategy in Quebec, they have stipulated in their contracts that 30 per cent of the equipment investment must be done in a particular region of Quebec, where they are building blades in Gaspe, towers, and housing is also in that area. Is his proposal going to be robust enough to ensure that we will have development here, or will we be buying parts and specifications built in Quebec, Mr. Speaker, instead of here in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, we have taken considerable time to look at, first of all, what is the body of our resource? It is significant. We have amongst the best sites in North America and some of the best sites on the planet. Because of that, we have an obligation to ensure that our approach to the development of wind is both consistent and long-term. Long-term for this reason: because, not only would we like to see wind as part of the benefit mix with our energy system as we supply rate payers and industrial customers, but we truly believe that if a long-term approach is adopted we have fabrication facilities in Marystown, at Bull Arm, in Placentia, and potentially in Labrador.

From our perspective, a long-term approach would not only put good energy into the grid system but it could develop into a very strategic plan that will provide thousands of jobs for fabrication and assembly in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the objective of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, nothing more, nothing less.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, three weeks ago, while ranting and raving from the pan of a truck, the Minister of Fisheries stated that he did not know, or he had just learned, that FPI was shipping unprocessed fish to China for further processing without the permission of government.

Last Thursday, the minister told a group of people from New Harbour that he did not know there was a market for filleted redfish.

Yesterday, the minister stated that he did not know if any negotiations had taken place with FPI on the future of the Burin Peninsula operations over the past three weeks.

I ask the minister: Now that it certainly appears that you are not doing ministerial due diligence when dealing with fisheries issues, can you please explain why you are not on top of these very serious issues in the fishery?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to disappoint the hon. gentleman. I cannot rant and rave today, because I have a very severe sore throat, but that does not stop me from meeting with people.

One of the things you can do in public life is tell the truth and it comes back to bite you. I told somebody I was off to pick up some laundry the other day and the Opposition have not stopped talking about it since, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of being on top of major issues in the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, I can assure the hon. member that he can sleep tight at night. He need not stay awake wondering what is going on. The minister is on top of every issue in the department, every single issue, Mr. Speaker, every single day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can understand what is wrong with the minister's throat, but he says I can rest assured that he is on top of every issue, every day. Well, I think the public will judge if that is the case, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, the minister said that he was too busy picking up his laundry to speak to a group of fish plant workers who were looking to go back to work. On Saturday, FPI took out a full-page, or pretty close to a full-page, ad in the local newspaper asking government and the union to go back to the table in good faith to find a solution to their problems on the Burin Peninsula. Yesterday, outside this very House, the minister told the media he was too busy to do a follow-up with FPI about their ad, and their request for them to come back to the table.

Could the minister tell us what he was doing yesterday that was more important than talking to FPI about putting 1,000 people back on the Burin Peninsula?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to sit here and allow the hon. gentleman opposite to attack this minister who has been working around the clock on this particular job and this particular issue.

I want to assure the people of the Burin Peninsula as well that we also have a minister in Cabinet and a member of Cabinet concerned about their interests on a daily basis. I happen to know that this gentleman, yesterday, was involved in meetings all day yesterday, with the exception, maybe, of lunch, and maybe he went right through lunch, with regard to trying to find solutions for the Burin Peninsula and for FPI generally.

I happen to know that today, when he was in my office for meetings this morning on the fishery, because we have spent the last two days, basically, working on the fishery, that he was in contact with the union, and spoke to the union, that he was in contact with the company.

This minister and this government is doing everything it can to make sure that the interests of the people on the Burin Peninsula are taken care of, and any of the people who are affected by FPI's operations in the Province.

Just so you do not have to just take his word for it, you now have my word for it, that I have seen this man in action and he is doing a great job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, we are really delighted to hear that the Minister of Fisheries, by your admission at least, is earning his income like he should.

Mr. Speaker, by the minister's own admission yesterday, he has not spoken to FPI in over three weeks. You can talk all you want about what he is doing about FPI. He admitted outside the House of Assembly yesterday that he has not spoken to anyone over there in three weeks.

I ask the minister: With the future of the Burin Peninsula in the balance, why have you not spoken to FPI in over three weeks? Is it because you are going through a cooling-off period as a result of the rant and the rave you have in this House and in the back of pickup trucks around the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, that hon. gentleman has the gall to get up and talk about a rant and a rave, and he goes into a tizzy every other day on his feet over there. I will put my credibility in any forum in this Province up against the hon. gentleman's any day of the week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I will also put my credibility as Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture up against his performance when he was in that department, too.

In terms of FPI, the Premier is correct. We spent all day yesterday - except for an hour in the House for Question Period - the Premier, other ministers, MHAs, and myself, working on issues related to FPI and the Burin Peninsula in particular.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke to the acting CEO of FPI today. I had a great cordial chat with him. I understand they are working on perhaps presenting some new things to us fairly soon. I spoke to the president of the union. I don't need any suggestions from the hon. member when it comes to performance and doing my job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

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

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Government Services Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have approved, without amendment, the following Heads of Expenditure: the Department of Finance; the Public Service Commission, the Department of Government Services; the Department of Transportation and Works; and, the Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further reports by standing and select committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

MR. J. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House of Assembly the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans presented a petition on behalf of the road going to Buchans, and it is my understanding that any petition presented in the House has to be signed by the member presenting the petition. I have gone through all the signatures here and there is nothing here that can be recognized, certainly, as the member's signature. It is probably just an oversight on her behalf, and I thought I would bring it to your attention.

MR. SPEAKER: Responding to the point of order?

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am surprised that the Minister of Municipal Affairs would recognize my signature because whenever there is a request for funding from my district, I think he throws it in the garbage.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair rules that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to take his seat for a second.

On the point of order raised, I remind members that the guidelines for presenting petitions are contained in the Standing Orders 90 to 97. I refer members to these Standing Orders but remind them that, yes, it is required that a petition presented to the House shall be signed by the member presenting. Also, when giving commentary on petitions, members should be guided by Standing Order 92.

The Chair rules that we will look at the petition and come back with a commentary on that particular petition at a future time.

MS THISTLE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the best of my knowledge, that petition was cleared by the Clerk and I would suspect that it was in order.

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to this point of order?

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, clearly, the petition has not been signed by the member opposite. Further to the comments that she made earlier with respect to correspondence from my department, just an e-mail from the hon. member opposite in dealing with issues in my department; this is a refreshing change, Mr. Speaker, thank you, when she is referring to the actions that I have taken on her behalf.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Speaking to that point of order?

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, the only e-mail I sent was to Veronica Hayden, an official in his office. He wanted to know what capital works were going to go on in my district. I outlined the fact that there is no capital works in my district, only for the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor, because he would not accommodate anything more. I usually have 100 per cent financing for small communities and he would not (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

While there is a disagreement between hon. members as to the pertinent facts, there cannot be a point of order.

The Chair recognizes and calls again for petitions.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today again with a petition asking this government to provide funding to upgrade the highway in Buchans, on the Buchans highway. I should not have to do this today. I should not have to get up on my feet and present this petition today.

I had a letter from the Minister of Transportation and Works two days before this government brought down a Budget with a surplus of $76 million on it. Here I am today, asking for upgrades to the Buchans highway when a couple of nights ago the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, who is trying to grow the economy with millions and millions of dollars and all kinds of funding initiatives she is offering, but when asked a question: How many jobs, minister, have you created in this Province? She said: Oh, just a minute now. I will have to check on that.

Here is a Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development who could not tell this House that she had created one job out of all the millions of dollars that was put into that department. Here I am up in my district with 200 permanent jobs with oil resources, forty-five jobs with the barite plant, more jobs with Messina mining and here we do not have a road to go over because that crowd over there, who say they are committed to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, did the same thing as the Minister for the Status of Women did the other day in this House. They are not committed. They are only paying lip service only because there is no sense to this decision. If they were thinking it through, they would say: Here is an opportunity. We have 250 permanent jobs that are paying money into the public Treasury of this Province. We had a surplus this year. Just imagine what we are going to have next year. From those permanent jobs they are trying to grow the economy, but still, for all that, they do not want a good road so workers and equipment can drive to their work site. They do not want to do this. Now, that is stupid. It is ridiculous and it is incompetent. I think the Premier should take those ministers aside and tell them: Look, if you are going to say that you are committed to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, do something. Do what you should be doing and upgrade that highway to Buchans.

Mr. Speaker, this is penney-wise and pound foolish. It is ridiculous for me to be getting up here day after day asking for upgrades to the Buchans highway when it should be so apparent in the front of their eyes, if they are committed to this Province. Don't be like what we heard this morning. There are people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador who cannot get financing from banks, cannot get insurance from banks, because they are driving people out of rural Newfoundland and Labrador and shutting the doors. Do what you were elected to do, support rural Newfoundland and Labrador. You have $76 million in surplus. Spend a million or two and do what you should be doing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

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

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

Motion 1: Move that this House Approves in General the Budgetary Policy of the Government, commonly known as the Budget Speech. I believe it is one of the member's opposite turn in the sequence that we have been going.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in the Budget Debate for this year's Budget, which is an astounding document because this year, for perhaps the first time in our history, we have produced a Budget which shows a surplus under the accrual accounting method. Now, I have called it in the past the cruel accounting method, because it does and has been used in a cruel way, I would suggest, in the last couple of years, as an excuse, in some ways, used by government to fail to take measures that were needed by the people of this Province. Mr. Speaker, it wasn't invented recently but it was only adopted by governments as a result of pressure from the accountants' institute of Canada and Institute of Chartered Accountants, a public finance group. Across the country, governments have been adopting the accrual accounting method as a way of doing business for government.

Just to give you an example of what difference that is. If you or I operated our household budget on the accrual accounting method, you wouldn't be buying car, Mr. Speaker, and you wouldn't be buying a house unless you could save up enough money to do it in one year, and still have a balanced budget. The accrual accounting method says that you have got to account for your commitments in the year in which you make them. If you bought a house for $100,000 -

MR. WISEMAN: It is amortization.

MR. HARRIS: It is amortization, says the Member for Trinity North. It is amortization, but not in government. There is no such thing as amortization in government. If you built a school today that is going to last you thirty years, and it is going to cost you $5 million, that is a $5 million expenditure for this year, and if you amortize it over thirty years or the life of the school well then you still have a deficit for this year. That is the difference between the accrual accounting method and the cash method, Mr. Speaker. If you bought a house of $100,000 and borrowed $80,000 from the bank by way of mortgage and paid it off over twenty-five years, that is a sensible way of doing things in your household budget, but governments are no longer allowed to do that.

When this Minister of Finance and the government talk generally about bringing in balanced budget legislation, what they are saying is, for all time they are not going to be able to make expenditures of a capital nature that might last you fifty years or twenty years or thirty year. You have to have the money in your coffers raised through revenue in that particular year. When I say that, Mr. Speaker, I am just saying that is the affect of it. When people start talking about how you operate your own budget versus government, the comparisons really don't mean anything.

The reality is that governments in this Province - this government has done, revenue wise, so remarkably well over the last two years that we have seen the planning for a deficit be exhilarated by about six years, at least, because initially when this government came in, this government as well as the two Opposition parties in the election, said we should have the cash deficit under control in four years. The cash deficit under control in four years. That is what this Minister of Finance said in the fall of 2003. In fact, where we are now, Mr. Speaker, the cash deficit has disappeared and now, with the increase in oil revenues, the accrual deficit has disappeared to the point that we are now having a budget surplus projected for 2006-2007 of some several million dollars.

That is the first time in our history we have ever had that happen. That is to be credited to the rebounding in oil prices, world oil prices, perhaps the historic highs, and to the fact that we, under the new Atlantic Accord arrangements, can keep that money. That is a very positive thing, Mr. Speaker.

It is a little bit of luck in that the oil prices kind of came our way, but it is also, Mr. Speaker, very positive in that this government has been able to, was able to, take advantage of the minority government situation and the co-operation of parties like the New Democratic Party in getting and securing a promise from the then government of Paul Martin, and then following through on it in terms of changing the Accord, but we are still behind the eight ball on a number of matters.

Why I say it is lucky, Mr. Speaker, we are still behind the eight ball when it comes to issues like royalties because, even though the royalty revenue is very high, our generic oil revenue, oil regime for the offshore, is based on the wrong concept. Our oil revenue royalty regime is based on the oil sands, and there is a very substantial difference between the oil sands and our offshore in terms of royalty regimes, or there should be, and it is this, Mr. Speaker: In Alberta the tar sands development, the heavy oil development, requires a very considerable capital cost. The capital cost may be comparable to our capital cost offshore, but when it comes to actual operating costs, the amount of money that it costs to get the oil out of the ground once you have spent the capital expenditure, the per barrel cost of extraction, not counting capital expenditure, is very, very low offshore when compared to the heavy oil sands in Alberta.

The difference, Mr. Speaker, is astounding. In the Newfoundland offshore, oil is being lifted from the seabed at an operating cost of between seventy-five cents and $2 a barrel, depending on who you talk to, and depending on which platform we are talking about, and depending on which period of time. In Alberta, the per barrel cost of extracting oil from the tar sands runs about $10 plus per barrel. So, it is five, six, seven, perhaps eight, times per barrel cost of taking that oil out and, hence, the profit on a per barrel of oil, because there might be some difference between what you achieve in the market, but the per barrel cost of producing that is quite significantly different and therefore the profit is higher. So, our oil regime ought not to be based on that. The fact of the matter is, that ought to change. That ought to change.

Despite that oil regime, despite that royalty regime, we are making a considerable amount of money in our offshore and we will continue to do so for the foreseeable future, at least over the next seven or eight years while oil is in production at its peak. We do hope that we are able to proceed with the Hebron-Ben Nevis, provided agreeable terms can be brought forward.

It is that regime, Mr. Speaker, and it is that oil money that has allowed us to get into a position where, this year, the government was able to budget for expenditures of $450 million this year more than last.

Yesterday, my colleague, the Member for Labrador West, expressed his approval of government's expenditures, particularly in Labrador and in particular in Labrador West. He outlined them: the hospital being one; change and money to be invested in the College of the North Atlantic; money in the Labrador Highway. These are things that my colleague from Labrador West has fought for, has brought to the attention of government. As he said yesterday, not a minister got through Labrador West without being shown the state of the hospital and the condition of the roads, et cetera, as well as to outline the problems that are there, and I want to congratulate the Member for Labrador West on his very effective representation of the people of Labrador West. I am glad he was able to stand here in this House yesterday and acknowledge and thank the government for their response to the problems that he has raised, and to the fact that his constituents are being listened to, and they have a very effective representative who has been able to do that. That is a very positive thing, Mr. Speaker.

There are a lot of positive things in the Budget. I do not want to be considered to be a naysayer. When it comes to spending $450 million more this year than last, it is pretty hard not to make a lot of people happy, and there are a lot of people looking at that Budget, Mr. Speaker, who are seeing money for roads, for schools, for infrastructure, and things like that for their district, that have been long overdue, and they deserve to have them. It is very easy to be positive when you have lots of money to spend.

Let me outline some of the positive things, even on the social side, before I get to my criticisms. I was very pleased to see the changes being made in the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, the fact that the Housing Corporation has changed its policy on rent by basing their rent for working people on their net income as opposed to their gross income. Everybody knows there is a big difference in people's take-home pay and the gross pay and the nominal pay that they are receiving in a particular job. It is a very positive incentive for those who are tenants of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and who are working, who are now able to have a break on their rent by changing the method of calculation. That has to be a very, very important move for tenants of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

Equally significant, and an innovate program, I must say, is the one which gives a rental rebate based on people pursuing full-time education, whether it be a young person in post-secondary education or even in high school, or an adult seeking greater training through a program at a college or university. Receiving a rental rebate per adult engaged in this kind of training, that is again very significant. It is very positive to see incentives being given to people to increase their education and have some incentive, immediate, on a monthly basis, and allowing that to happen. It is an incentive, it is positive, but it also can provide a little bit of motivation, I should think, to individuals who might be inclined not to continue their education, and that motivation may make a significant difference in a young person's life. I think that is very positive. I have to say, it is innovative. In fact, I took the time to call the Chair of the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation to compliment him and the Corporation on that program. I understand that it was recommended by the tenants' associations and the process has been ongoing for a couple of years. It is very, very positive to see that happen.

It is also positive to see that government has eliminated school fees. It has been a real, significant difficulty, hardship, for so many parents throughout this Province in the fall of the year, come September, when they have had to buy new sneakers, when they have had to buy clothes, when they have had to buy school supplies, even the pens and papers and pencils. Any parent who knows - and they have seen the list, they come out in June. It is probably a good thing they do for many parents, because sometimes it takes families, who do not have a lot of money, time to get together and fill out that list, so that by September they can send their child to school with the right things.

Mr. Speaker, that then was compounded by a request by the school for a cheque or money for materials that would be used during the year, sometimes $50, sometimes $60, sometimes $70 or $80. A considerable expense, particularly if a parent had more than one child in school. So, it is a positive thing that that has been eliminated. I am very happy to see that happen. It should have happened a long time ago. In fact, I think the Liberals, just prior to the last election, made that announcement - after September, mind you - for the following year and this government initially reversed that decision for fiscal reasons, fiscal reasons were stated, and have now, in the face of the kind of a flush with cash - I think is the expression that the Official Opposition critic uses - but in the face of the kind of revenues that are forthcoming, it would be very difficult for them not to have done what they did in this Budget with respect to the school fees. So, these are positive.

Other positive things are the - obviously, the new Prescription Drug Program is positive. I have some problems with it, which I will get to shortly, but obviously it is a step in the right direction, recognizing that many people have no access to a drug program and have unfair access to health care as a result, Mr. Speaker. It has been identified as a barrier to employment. It is more than that, it is a barrier to good health. It is a barrier to good health not having access to a drug program. Yes, obviously, it is a disincentive to someone seeking a job if they are going to lose their drug card, but that ought not to be the primary reason for having a drug program. The primary reason for having an extended drug program should be to level the playing field for access to health care because, as we know, many diseases and conditions and health problems are now treated by drug therapy as opposed to hospitalization or operations as much more of a prevalent method of treating illnesses. Also, of course, the drug costs have spiraled over the last number of years, now representing some 16 per cent of overall health care costs whereas physicians costs, the doctors who are providing the service, their cost is hovering around 12 per cent drug costs. Drug therapies are now 16 per cent of health care costs.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, these are positive things. Whether or not we support the overall budgetary strategy, I guess that is the budget question. I have to say that I do not, because what we have seen happen here is an extra $450 million, but when you look at that amount of money and compare it to the amount of money that has been directed at alleviating poverty, dealing with social unfairness, I find the numbers do not add up very well.

The minister, in the Budget Speech, talked about $62 million on an annualized basis committed to a Poverty Reduction Strategy. Well, Mr. Speaker, when you break that down it turns out that $32 million of that $62 million is the Prescription Drug Program, of which only $8 million is being spent this year. We can subtract $18 million from the $62 million and get us down to - what is that, $44? - $44 million out of $450 million being devoted to eradicating poverty, or attempting to deal with some of the problems of poverty. That seems to me, Mr. Speaker, not to be placing a significant priority on the problems of poverty in our Province. This government, itself, recognized in the Budget Speech that over 66,000 people in Newfoundland and Labrador live in poverty; 33,000 families identified. Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the stats are based on there. That sounds a bit low to me but even if that were the only number, it seems to me to be a very modest attempt to deal with that problem.

Let me tell you some of the things that I did not hear in the Budget that should have been. First and foremost in the Budget, a Budget that is supposed to recognize the needs of men and women, and families and people who need to get a job, I did not hear any mention of child care in the Budget. I do not think there was a word. I do not believe there is a word about child care in the Budget, when the Government of Canada, which signed an agreement with this government a couple of years ago, in September 2004, which was to guarantee this government an additional $55 million in child care expenditures, and the new government and Mr. Harper is saying he is not going to recognize these deals. We did not have - not a word about child care. When we have 47,000 women in this Province, with children under six, in the workforce and about 4,600 or 4,700 registered child care places, it is obvious that there is a problem. Yet, not a word in this Budget about child care. Astounding, Mr. Speaker!

Anyway, while we are dealing with some of the issues of education in the K to 12 system, I would have expected that this government could deal with the textbook issue. In Ontario, every child who goes to school gets free textbooks all the way through. Not in Newfoundland and Labrador. In high school, students have to pay for their own books. That is probably one of the reasons, one of the additional pressures on families trying to keep kids in school, that the textbooks costs are a deterrent. I would like to see this Province take that on as an issue. Why isn't textbooks available to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on the same basis that they are in Ontario?

What about the school meal program, Mr. Speaker? Less than a quarter of the students who go to school in this Province have access to a school meal program. The Province is talking about a healthy eating strategy in schools, supporting a physical education strategy, supporting a good nutrition strategy. Well, the best place to start that is to have a good, decent school meal program throughout the Province so that everybody has at least one good, nutritious meal a day. In fact, it can be a way to teach nutrition in the most direct way possible by putting forth good, positive examples to children as to what can be done by way of providing a nutritious meal.

We have all heard the arguments, Mr. Speaker, hungry children cannot learn. There is not a single person in this House who would disagree with that statement. It has been proven time and time again, yet we have statistics available that a quarter of the children in the Province go to school hungry. The reality is, Mr. Speaker, that around 16,000 to 18,000 students have access to a school meal program and it is not always the place that need it most. It is not always the places that need it most. It is the places that are able to respond the best and easiest to the available programs. We should have a universal program, and the cost would not be significant in a Budget such as the one that was just produced. In fact, to make sure every child in this Province has access to a school meal program, we are talking about an expenditure in the neighbourhood of $10 million.

Another thing that should be considered for the K to 12 system is the introduction of a full day Kindergarten. A full day Kindergarten is a way of ensuring that children have a better chance in school. It is a way of making the school experience more positive, and more likely, Mr. Speaker, to eliminate some of the disadvantages that families may have in the preschool learning environment. One of the arguments made in favour of the full-day kindergarten is just that, that we are able, with a full-day kindergarten, to give students who haven't, perhaps, had the same experience in reading and exposure to learning in the previous years, an opportunity to catch up so that by Grade 1 or Grade 2 or Grade 3 they are on a level playing field with other students and some of the negative effects that they may bring to school are eliminated.

That is something that could be done. It had been recommended a number of years ago. That is something that, again - everything has a cost. Everything has a cost. The cost that I have been told of that program several years ago was in the range of $6 million. That would be very positive. It would also, by the way, alleviate some of the child care costs for working mothers who are trying to earn a living as part of a two-income family and yet have to juggle that work life with a half-day kindergarten in many cases, switching one month to the next, morning and afternoon. These are some elements in education and in child care that were missing from this Budget, missing because this government did not go farther than it did in terms of addressing some of the problems. They recognized the problems but did not find the solutions.

In post-secondary education, again, Mr. Speaker, lots of good news. Lots of good news when it comes to bricks and mortar. Lots of good news when it comes to new money for the institutions and for the College of the North Atlantic, for Memorial University campuses both here and in Corner Brook, and I think it was very positive. I am supportive -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member, indeed, has exceeded his time.

I draw his attention to the fact that the time allocated has expired.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can see that the members opposite are enjoying my speech so much, they were not complaining. I wonder if I could have few minutes to (inaudible)?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, post-secondary education was obviously addressed in terms of certain programs, but what is the missing piece is the people, the students, the young people who go to university or college and who need to have better support in terms - or better support, a different kind of program. The same amount of money may be spent a different way, a different type of program that would recognize that there is a big, significant difference from somebody living in St. John's, living at home, as I did when I went to university, walking to the university, attending classes, and someone who lives in Gambo or in Bonavista or on the Burin Peninsula, who has to travel to St. John's or Corner Brook and pay for accommodation and transportation as well as the university fees or the college fees if it happens to be a college. That is big difference, Mr. Speaker. I asked the minister about that the other day and she said: Well, there are a lot of rural members here; we understand the problem. Yes, there are a lot of rural members here, and I am surprised that we have not found a better solution because of that. I think the solution is in the direction of a needs-based grants program that would level the playing field for students who are attending post-secondary institutions in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, yes, there are a lot of good things in this Budget. It is hard not be, when you are spending an extra $450 million over what you did last year. In terms of the strategy, I think that there were many areas that were left undealt with, that would provide for a fairer society in this Province. I think there may be other opportunities during this Budget debate to talk at greater length about the need for a more comprehensive prescription drug program and to talk about some other ideas in terms of the generation of revenue and conservation programs and other aspects of our energy policy which is in the process of development.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat and listen with interest to other speakers in this Budget debate.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Having just listened to the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I think our Minister of Finance had it dead-on the mark the other day when he said: If you gave him the moon, he would be looking for the sun and stars.

I suppose there is nothing wrong with that because we always have to be ambitious, but I am very surprised to hear that the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi will be not supporting the Budget when there was so much in there, as I will attempt to outline, for issues that he has championed over the years.

A lot of these things in terms of poverty reduction and so on, which I will get into now in a minute, are there in this Budget, and an ideal time especially, I will say, in the winter of his political career, perhaps, that he would take the time to endorse and to vote for a Budget that he has longed for, for so long.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi called it an astounding Budget. I guess you could take that in two ways. Things could be astounding in a negative sense or astounding in a positive sense. I would call it an historic Budget because, as was remarked, we are spending $450 million more than we did in the previous year. We are telling the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that we are giving them money for education, for health, for roads, for culture, for violence prevention, for so many things. We are doing all of this and, what makes it historic, this is the first time ever that on a consolidated basis we are presenting a balanced Budget. Not only balanced, Mr. Speaker, but we are predicting a surplus somewhere in the vicinity of $6 million.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that Budget day in this Province this year could certainly be called a red-letter day in our history. Perhaps better a blue-letter day, but certainly an historic day. I ask, Mr. Speaker: Who could not support a Budget of this magnitude, a Budget that makes history?

On Budget day I found it interesting to note, as we looked across the House of Assembly, that there were a lot of glum faces. I don't know, maybe they were hearing a different Budget Speech, but when I was hearing all of the positive things being announced by the Minister of Finance, I was delighted for the people of the Province. Perhaps we have to go back to the editorial in The Telegram of March 22 - and it has been referred to by a number of members - there is absolutely nothing wrong with a little good news, but the members opposite seem to find nothing at all to cheer about. There was a scattered smattering of applause from a member here and there, but nothing to the degree that we would have expected.

Now, we do not expect them all to come running across the House to embrace the Minister of Finance, but certainly when things that have been advocated for years are put in the Budget we would expect, Mr. Speaker, that there would be support for that.

I do not know why there were saddened. I do not know why it was. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, they had visions of the future in their heads, visions maybe of some of their own careers, I am not sure, but there was something making them very, very sad on a day that should have been joyous for anybody here working on behalf of their constituents, working to improve the lot of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, the classic example of negativity had to be in the reply by the Leader of the Opposition in the Speech from the Throne. It was filled with words like devastation, with black clouds, and words like bleak. He even admitted, towards the end of his speech: I may be being a little negative. A slight understatement, Mr. Speaker, I may be being a little negative.

He had in mind the areas such as Harbour Breton, Stephenville, and certainly the Burin Peninsula, where there are challenges throughout the Province. Everything is not fixed by one Budget, and there are definitely challenges, particularly in rural Newfoundland, for any government to have to meet, but one has to ask, Mr. Speaker, a very key question: If things are this bad in rural Newfoundland now, under this government, how bad would they have been had we gone down the same path with those people over there in government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: How bad indeed, Mr. Speaker, would it have been?

There were two attempts by two different premiers to give away the Lower Churchill. How bad would it have been had that fiasco in Labrador, under former Premier Tobin, gone ahead? How bad would it have been? We thank God that the native people up there had the sense to put a stop to that. How bad would it have been when a video was already done not to sign a Lower Churchill deal but to give away the Lower Churchill? How bad would we be today, Mr. Speaker? How bad would it have been, indeed, if another premier, Premier Wells, had his way and we sold Newfoundland Hydro to achieve some one-term funding? We have to ask, Mr. Speaker, how bad indeed things would have been if we had gone down that path. It is an awful picture, Mr. Speaker, if we cannot find something positive today. If you want to depress yourself, imagine, indeed, what could have and what would have been.

Last week, Mr. Speaker, we had a reply to the Budget - and the words rant and roar, or rant and rave, were used here again today. I would have to say to the Leader of the Opposition, let me christen him the king of rant. His speech, his reply to the Budget, Mr. Speaker, had to be given in two parts. Perhaps he was out of breath, I am not sure, but he did one half last week and he did another half this week. He went on and on. He went back to the spring of 2003, when the Liberals were still in power, Mr. Speaker, and he would have the people of Newfoundland believe that they actually put money in the Budget for this, that and the other thing.

I refer to Hansard, when the hon. Leader of the Opposition says: In that Budget of 2003, I might add, there was also an item listed there for construction of a cancer clinic for Grand Falls-Windsor. We put that in the Budget of 2003. We put a Grand Bank health care facility in the Budget of 2003. We put an extension to Leary's Brook Academy in the Budget of 2003, something which is very dear to my heart, Mr. Speaker, and which I have advocated for and I am delighted to say it is going ahead. He went on to say: We put the money in the Budget of 2003 to attach an auditorium to the school in Goose Bay.

Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province are not being fooled by such rhetoric any more. What they put in the Budget of 2003 was the credit card of this Province. They put the credit card on the table and they said: Let's keep on spending.

I believe, not to be flippant or light about it, Mr. Speaker, we could perhaps say that their theme song at that time was: We will keep spending on credit. We will spend what we can, spend what we can, and leave the mess to a group led by Dan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: I am not quite sure if it is unparliamentary to use that, but poetic licence might allow it at this point in time.

The second part of the rant by the hon. Leader of the Opposition came yesterday, in yesterday's session, I believe, and at that time he referred to a shell game. He said that this government is using a shell government. He said, when we came to power, we employed an external auditor - and so we did - and he said: Why didn't we know? How come these people would not have known? They had the hon. Minister of Finance as a critic, who was a watchdog on their government, and we also had with us the hon. Member for Topsail, who had served as Auditor General for a period of some ten years. Why didn't they know?

Well, the fact of the matter is that the Member for Topsail left her position as Auditor General in 2002. Those external auditors were hired close to the spring of 2004. There was almost a two-year period, and God knows how much damage those people could have done in a two-year period. So, to say that we should have known or could have known, we wanted an exact picture of the financial state of this Province, Mr. Speaker, and that is exactly what we found.

We heard some references today, again, from the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, to the new system of accounting - they called it new - the accrual system of accounting. I would like to read for you, Mr. Speaker, just one line from the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans. She stated, in her speech on April 3, and this is recorded in Hansard: What accrual accounting does, it lays everything on the books for everyone to see.

I ask, Mr. Speaker, what exacting is wrong with that? To say it again: It lays everything on the books for everyone to see. Well, of course, it does; this is exactly what we did. When we came into office, we turned the shells over. We turned over the shells that the hon. Leader of the Opposition referred to. We turned them over. We instituted transparency, and what we found was that there was no ball under any of the shells. That government was constantly shifting around one-time monies to make the people of this Province believe that, in fact, they were managing effectively the affairs of this Province. There was absolutely nothing there. It was, in fact, as the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi referred to: not accrual accounting but a cruel way of accounting, because it was very cruel to the people of this Province who were led to believe that this Province was in reasonable financial shape when actually, Mr. Speaker, we were going down the black hole. The difference in this Budget and any Budget previous is that we are not only spending more money than we have ever spent in our history but, in fact, the credit card is off the table.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: We are now spending money, Mr. Speaker, that we actually have coming into the Province. We are spending revenue, monies that are coming in, and we are not borrowing any more to sustain ourselves.

MR. SKINNER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDGLEY: Our children and grandchildren, as the hon. Member for St. John's Centre says to me, won't have to pay for that.

Mr. Speaker, there is so much in this Budget in a positive sense that I have difficulty in terms of where I would like to focus. There seems to be a common theme among some of the members of the Opposition. There seemed to be a common response right from Budget Day on. The charge was led by their newly elected Leader of the Liberal Party, not the Leader of the Opposition but the new Leader of the Liberal Party. He said: What is in this for ordinary people? I have to ask, Mr. Speaker, what exactly they were looking for. How would you describe an ordinary Newfoundlander?

To my mind, Mr. Speaker, it must be a person who either walks or flies, because in this Budget there was $60 million for road construction. It can't be a person who drives, because any person who drives would understand that $60 million going into road construction, when the most that had been spent in any previous year was perhaps somewhere in the vicinity of $20 million, and that on rare occasions - so, this ordinary Newfoundlander, Mr. Speaker, must be a very rare bird.

I was interested to note, the Member for Exploits, when he spoke yesterday, referred to his own district, and he said over a ten-year period a total on road repair and construction had been spent of $2.5 million, and simple division gives us about a quarter of a million dollars a year, Mr. Speaker, over ten years. The hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans refers to the Buchans highway. No wonder it is in disrepair, if that type of spending, so little spending, was done over a period of fourteen or fifteen years when this government, Mr. Speaker, was in power.

Mr. Speaker, where do we find this ordinary Newfoundlander for whom there was nothing in the Budget? It must be a person who never gets sick, because there was an additional $180 million spent in the health care system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: That, Mr. Speaker, is for ordinary people.

This ordinary Newfoundlander, this evasive creature that we cannot seem to find anywhere, for whom there is nothing in the Budget, it must be a person who is very well off because in this Budget there was a raise for the first time in fifteen years, a substantial raise of 5 per cent for those who are living on income support. This elusive ordinary Newfoundlander, for whom there is nothing in the Budget, must have no children going to school, Mr. Speaker, because the school fees were eliminated in this Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: So, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, the new Leader of this Liberal Party could only find that this was a pre-small game licence in here. He was going off rabbit hunting while we were introducing an historic budget; he could only find in this Budget a free rabbit licence for himself. So, he called it the brace of rabbits Budget or something like that.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that this Budget is not all things to all people. It is what we can afford right now. It is a responsible Budget. It is a Budget that, as I say, is historic in terms of its proportions and in the fact that it is actually a balanced Budget presented on a consolidated basis. It will be curious to see, Mr. Speaker, when this comes to a vote in a day or so, how many people on the other side of the House will actually support this Budget. I wonder, will the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans support her cancer clinic? Will she stand and say: Yes, I agree with this Budget? Will the Member for Port de Grave support what he has advocated for, for so long, which is more support for those who live on income support and the elimination of school fees? Will they stand and support these things that they have advocated for, for so long? Will the Member for Grand Bank stand and say: Yes, indeed, the health care clinic, I support it. I stand not only with those on income support but for those who suffer cancer down in my district. Will she stand?

I think we had some indication yesterday, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. Member for Labrador West gave us I think an endorsement, and the Member for Torngat Mountains could not do anything else but endorse this Budget. I fully expect those two people to stand when this vote is called because there is so much in it for their districts.

In terms of my focus, Mr. Speaker, what I am delighted to see in this Budget is what the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi just referred to, were the initiatives to reduce poverty. We have made a commitment, as a government, to make definite strides in reducing poverty, not tomorrow, not next year, but over a ten year period we will, in fact, change this Province from being the poorest Province or having the highest rate of poverty. When you look at 66,000 people in this Province living in poverty, Mr. Speaker, there is a challenge on our plate and I am sure that this government will, indeed, be up to that challenge.

We know, Mr. Speaker, that poverty is not simply a matter of dipping into your pocket and saying, here is more money for you. Now you are not poor anymore because you have more money. It is not quite as simple as that. There has to be an integrated, well-thought out plan to reduce poverty, and I think that is what has been presented in this Budget. The number one component would have to be the increase that has actually been made for those who live on income support. There was a 5 per cent raise in how much that those who live on income support will do. Now, if we look back over the past fifteen years in terms of what the raises were, in the past fifteen years - and I need not ask again who was in government in those years because that is well known to all the people in the Province. During the past fifteen years there were nine of those years when there was absolutely no increase for those living on income support. The people across the House would have us believe that they are now the champions of the poor, and nine years, Mr. Speaker, when there was absolutely nothing for those who are living on income support. We not only raised it by 5 per cent, but we went farther in that and we indexed it, so that the year after, and the year after that, when the cost of living rises, those people who are living marginally, living on income support, will experience an automatic raise geared to the cost of living.

There were initiatives, Mr. Speaker, in the Budget from a health care perspective. We introduced a wellness - this is all on a long-term basis. As I say, there is nothing going to be fixed tomorrow, nothing going to be fixed the next day, but in the long-term, we would encourage the people of the Province, through our wellness strategy, to become healthier. That applies not just to those on low income, but across the board, Mr. Speaker.

We introduced, as was mentioned earlier today, an additional $8.3 million to expand drug coverage. Perhaps most importantly, in my mind, something that I have advocated for, Mr. Speaker, is that we not just give out money, not just put more money in the pockets of those who are poor, those who are living on income support, but that we, in fact, make strides so that those people can bring themselves up.

It was a couple of months ago, Mr. Speaker, I attended the two-hundredth anniversary of the Benevolent Irish Society. One of their mandates years ago was to reduce poverty within the city. They undertook to engage the Irish Christian Brothers to come over from Ireland and establish a school, because the BIS at that time, in their vision, saw that educating those who are living marginally and who cannot earn a good living for themselves, was the way to reduce poverty. As an ex-pupil of the Brothers and those around St. John's, and indeed, around the Province, will know the great effect that bringing the Brothers here to Ireland had in a positive sense.

I say to those across the House, and indeed, to all, I fully endorse the policy of allowing those people who live marginally to provide for themselves. So, what we have done in that vein is to try to empower those people, because for those who have lived in poverty it is very, very difficult - and if you have spoken to or dealt with families who live in poverty, it is difficult to bring yourself up from it.

The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi spoke earlier today about some of the initiatives that we have done to try to help those people to help themselves. We have more than doubled the per student grant to schools so that the school fees can be eliminated. What that does, in effect, is leave more money in the pockets of everybody who has youngsters going to school. No one needs to tell any parent about the stress that comes in late August, as the school year approaches, about having to dip in and come up with the school fees. If you have two or three youngsters attending school and living on a low income, that is quite a challenge when the fall of the year rolls around and you have to come up with those school fees.

Looking upon learning as a lifelong pursuit, education is not just something that you do and then it is over with. We have recognized lifelong learning by increasing, by $1.2 million, the amount for the adult basic education so that this course offering could be expanded.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for St. John's North that his speaking time has expired.

MR. RIDGLEY: I think I have a unanimous endorsement, Mr. Speaker, to keep going.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member by leave.

MR. RIDGLEY: To clue up, just another minute or so, Mr. Speaker.

Most importantly, I think - and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi called it innovative and a real motivating force is to allow a rent reduction for those who are living in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing to attend post-secondary school. Additionally, rent reduction for those tenants in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing who have students in Levels II to IIII in high school. This is a motivating force for them. What we are telling those people is that you can, in fact, change and we are going to help you change. We are not going to just dish out money because the changes that come from that are not long lasting.

I would speak a little bit more in terms of the rent calculation based on net income versus gross income and the effect that will have additionally, Mr. Speaker, for those people on income support, to get through that first month when they want to go out for a job. That first month, before their first pay cheque comes in, is a very critical time. We have allowed $250 per family, or $125 for a single person, to take them through that first month. I say this Budget is not all things to all people, but it is, indeed, a very positive step forward in the history of this Province.

Thank you for your time, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is, indeed, a pleasure for me to rise today to speak on the Budget and, I guess, outline some of the concerns that affect the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the people of the District of Bellevue.

I have to make some comment in terms of the Member for St. John's North in terms of poverty, and what it is like to be living in poverty. I guess a lot of us who sit in this House of Assembly had experience in terms of growing up in terms of living in poverty. I guess one of the things that we should always look at is, look at the people in our society who are in the greatest need, there is no doubt about it. The people who are sick right now, there are benefits that are accrued to people in terms of Canada Pension, disability payments, these sorts of payments, I guess, that did not exist some years ago, but even with that, I have people living in my district right now who are probably getting about $500 or $600 a month in terms of Canada Pension disability funds and they do not qualify for HRE funding.

Let's face it, somebody who is very, very sick, the money that is available in terms of social services is just not adequate right now. A 5 per cent increase for people who are sick and unable to work, I think it is a very difficult life that these people lead. I congratulate the government in increasing it by 5 per cent, but I think that you should also, in terms of your poverty strategy, look at the people who are unable to work in terms of what kind of benefits, how much money is available to these particular people, because I think it is very, very, very important. I know, personally, that it is very, very difficult trying to live on social services, the amount of money, and it hasn't been any different since Confederation, really. I know that back in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, there is no difference.

I would also like to say, in terms of the Budget, one thing I liked about the Budget was the announcement of the chronic care facility for Clarenville. I have to compliment the government on that, in terms of finally they have made the announcement that they are going to construct the facility in Clarenville. As you are well aware, the senior citizens from that area, including my district, have to uproot when they need that type of facility. They have to come to St. John's, or Placentia, or some other place away from their family and friends, and it is very difficult to see people.

I guess the problem that I have with it is that the engineering work has already been done on this facility. The engineering work has already been done. The site preparation is being done. The problem I have with it is, why are they waiting until the year 2008 to open this particular facility, or to have it constructed? There is no reason why the tenders cannot be called immediately for the chronic care facility in Clarenville and people probably could occupy it before the end of 2006; the latest would be 2007. I guess there is not enough money allocated in the Budget this year to complete the facility and that is why we will see another figure in the Budget next year for the chronic care facility in Clarenville.

You will also notice that the hon. Members in this House of Assembly, when the Budget was being read - I guess it was unanimous on this side - when the government announced the money for weigh scales in the Province. As you are well aware, continuously on this side of the House of Assembly we brought up the issue about the need for weigh scales. We saw the weigh scales in Port aux Basques and Foxtrap being closed down. We saw the overloaded trucks on the road, and you all know that most of the heavy traffic that occurs on our highway is between St. John's and Come by Chance, there is no doubt about it, the industrial place in terms of the traffic. The trans-shipment terminal was built. The Come by Chance refinery, and Bull Arm - there is a lot of heavy traffic on the highways, and we saw a lot of rutting on the Trans-Canada Highway. I would say that 100 kilometres of road deteriorated over the last two or three years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: If the hon. Member for Mount Pearl would be quiet, I know what I am talking about. If you would check with the engineers in Transportation and Works, it was a full recommendation from them that the weigh scales not be closed, because it does cause deterioration in our highway system in terms of rutting on our highways.

Right now, the Province is faced with a tremendous expense because they became penny-wise and pound foolish in terms of eliminating the weigh scales and, as a result, caused a lot of damage to our road system in the Province.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: The hon. Government House Leader will have an opportunity to participate in the debate. He can refute anything I say.

MR. E. BYRNE: It won't be a problem doing so.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: You go right ahead. Don't get all bothered. The hon. member, you check with the engineers in the Department of Transportation and Works and they will indicate to you that there have been great incidents of tractor trailers on our highways overweight. For somebody who spends a lot of time on the highway, we notice even now that there are more people who - when you are coming up over the hills, and trying to get up the inclines, the traffic is slowed down because a lot of the trucks on our highways are overweight. I compliment the government on that, in that they reversed their decision and realized that it was a mistake and now they are reinstating the weigh scales. I compliment the government on that.

Last night, Mr. Speaker, in Marystown, the school board that was created for this Province, the Eastern School District, made some decisions regarding schools in the whole area. I guess I was pleased that, with the representations that were made, they did listen and look at the fact that Swift Current Academy should be kept open, and the treacherous conditions.

Over the last week or so, I have been attending the meetings of the board, along with my constituents, and doing presentations and making representations why Swift Current Academy and English Harbour East and Grand Le Pierre should not close. I am glad that they listened in terms of Swift Current but, unfortunately, in the case of English Harbour East and Grand Le Pierre, they decided, and a decision was made last night, to close these two schools.

They are located in an area of the Province where the weather conditions and road conditions leave a lot to be desired, and the parents have great concerns about their young children going on a bus. Right now, the high schools students do go into Terrenceville and that school does need a lot of work. There is no cafeteria in the school, and the food that is being served in the cafeteria may be okay in terms of the high school students, but there is no cafeteria, there is nobody to serve, and you are going to be talking about Kindergarten, Grade 1, Grade 2, Grade 3 and Grade 4 students. Being a former principal of a school, we all know what it is in terms of having Kindergarten students, the great need that the Kindergarten students have in terms of assistance within our school system. I speak from experience, in that I spent three weeks, when I was principal of the school, teaching Kindergarten. It was a hard job trying to make sure that all of them had the right boots on, and all of them had the right money for their canteen and all the other things that were necessary in terms of small youngsters, and putting them on a bus for extended periods of time, which we had from English Harbour and Grand Le Pierre, but they are going into a school that is a very, very old school.

I guess the school board is saying that eventually there will be a new school in the Terrenceville system, a new school to service the communities of Terrenceville, Grand Le Pierre and English Harbour East. I welcome that, in that there is a great need for a new school. In terms of the conditions of the present school, it leaves a lot to be desired. It is a old building, so I look forward to that announcement.

If you look at the figures in the Budget for school construction, capital construction, and renovations and repairs to schools, I think it is roughly around $36 million. My check with the Department of Education indicates that $30 million of that is already committed. Thirty million dollars is already committed. We have Herdman Collegiate. We have all the other schools that money has to come out of this Budget for, repairs and renovations to the schools, so the possibility of a new school this year being announced, or the money being allocated for Terrenceville, does not look very good. I guess the ultimate responsibility of the education of our children rests with the Department of Education, rests with the Minister of Education, and I guess she should reverse that particular decision.

I have a problem also, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the school board itself, in the way it is constituted. I mean, there is nobody from my district, whatsoever, on that school board, nobody in the district at all. Some of the school board members never even visit the schools in English Harbour East and Grand Le Pierre. I do not think they were ever in the community. They are making decisions based on schools and based on communities that they have never been in.

I guess the one advantage that the school boards have, or the people of Swift Current had, was, for them to get to Marystown last night, they had to drive. Thank goodness yesterday was one of the worst days we have had in terms of fog, rain and drizzle. When they were passing through Goobies on the way to Swift Current and up the Burin Peninsula, I guess they saw the conditions of the road and the way things are, and it was probably a factor in their decision last night in terms of Swift Current.

English Harbour East and Grand Le Pierre, we have a school board that is located in St. John's. I refer to them lots of times as the St. John's school board. When the reorganization took place, there was a building in Clarenville, there was one out in Spaniard's Bay that the board could have easily been in. We could have had the centre for this school board in Clarenville or in Spaniard's Bay, but, no, Mr. Speaker, they are down in Atlantic Place paying huge rents which could go for other programs for our kids in our schools. The decision of the school board was to put it in St. John's and put it in Atlantic Place. Let's face it, St. John's is at the end of the school district, it is not even in the centre of the school district. It would be a lot better use of our money if that school board were located in Spaniard's Bay or in Clarenville, one or the other of the communities that the board serves.

Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot today in terms of - I guess, one of the biggest disappointments for us over here was that there was no reduction in the gasoline tax. We hear this week that gasoline went up another 1.5 cents a litre, and I think in the next three or four days there is going to be another increase in gasoline taxes. We are paying $1.14, I think, in Goobies right now for regular gasoline, $1.14 a litre. I guess, after the weekend or in the next few days, it will be up to $1.20.

I want to say that there are a lot of people in Newfoundland and Labrador being affected by the increase in the gasoline prices. I know in my district, people who work in the fish plant in Arnold's Cove, people who work at the refinery and work at Bull Arm and other locations, and who work at the Home Hardware and other businesses in my district, just about everybody who works in my district either commutes to Clarenville or commutes from areas in my district to Arnold's Cove and other communities to go to work. I can tell you, if you are out there and you are making ten or twelve dollars an hour, with the price of gasoline today it is very, very hard on those families. To me, I would like to have seen the government wipe out completely the 16.5 cents provincial tax on gasoline. Now, the Minister of Finance says, if he reduces the tax on the gasoline then the sales go down. Well, in his Budget, I do not know why he is indicating he is going to take in a $1.2 million increase in the gasoline tax this year. To me, if you want the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to benefit from our offshore, and the revenues - we see the Budget here in terms of the tremendous money that is coming in through the offshore. The offshore oil and gasoline in Newfoundland and Labrador belong to everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We saw Ralph Klein give $400 per person in Alberta as part of the share of the wealth in Alberta. Well, this government takes in $140 million in the gasoline tax. Just imagine, if you were to eliminate the 16.5 cents a litre on our gasoline in our Province, still continued to put the HST on it, we would have probably the lowest price of gasoline in the country. If you want to talk about building the economy and increasing the tourism, you could be advertising. The Minister of Tourism could be saying: Come to Newfoundland because we have the cheapest gasoline prices in the country. You want to be innovative and look at things, and try to attract people.

Let's face it, as you look around at the geography of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the way things happen, people travel into Grand Falls, they travel into Corner Brook, they travel into Gander and into Marystown and the larger centres, and into Clarenville to go to work. There are a lot of people who commute daily, and right now they are suffering. If somebody is working and getting the minimum wage - for example, working at one of the stores, earing the minimum wage - today, going and filling up their car with gasoline puts a tremendous burden on these people.

I guess, if you were going to assist everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador - because, let's face it, the 6.5 per cent and the HST, the businesses don't pay it anyway. The business community doesn't pay it anyway. Those taxes on gasoline, the business community does not pay them because they write them off. They are written off in terms of their income tax and all of the other benefits that are accrued to the business community. If you eliminate it for the ordinary person in Newfoundland and Labrador, then you will benefit everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador because there will be increased activity.

With the price of gasoline today and, coming up, they say it is going to be the highest ever for the summer months, rural Newfoundland and Labrador is going to suffer in terms of the tourism industry. You will probably see people flying into St. John's and into Deer Lake, and into larger centres within this Province, but there will not be any people who will leave and come across the Marine Atlantic and drive through Newfoundland and Labrador. As a matter of fact, I was on the highway last summer when the gasoline prices jumped right up. I was stopped to gas up in Goobies at one time and there were about ten motorhomes that had dropped in to fill up their tanks, and they were heading back out of the Province. They had planned to stay in Newfoundland and Labrador much longer, but they could not see staying here with the increased cost in the gasoline prices, even though they were going across the country, but in Newfoundland and Labrador they were much higher than they were everywhere else.

Mr. Speaker, we see, with this government, in terms of skills development and skills training, I compliment the government on putting more focus on skills training and skills development, but I think that one of the problems is: I don't think skills training and skills development should be completely a provincial responsibility. Skilled trades people is a resource of this country, and there should be national programs that provide skills training. We did have them, and in 1963, in the House of Commons, there was an act which was called the occupational training act. What that did provide was, that was when most of the trades schools were built in this Province. The great focus on training took place in this 1960s in this Province, and it happened under the occupational training act. It was a cost-shared program with the federal and provincial governments on a 90-10 basis, 90 federal, 10 provincial, and most of the trades schools and the training institutions in this Province were constructed at that particular time under this particular program. In addition to that, one of the key things about that particular program, it also provided funding. I went to trade school in 1963-1964, Mr. Speaker, and I received free tuition. I also received a monthly allowance to go to trade school. I am not criticizing -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Bellevue that his time for speaking has expired.

MR. BARRETT: I just want to make some concluding comments.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member by leave.

MR. BARRETT: In concluding, Mr. Speaker, fortunately there will be another opportunity to address the other eight or nine issues that I have written on a piece of paper here, but I want to conclude that it is a provincial government responsibility, but a trained workforce is a resource for the whole country. I will tell you one thing right now, with what is happening in this Province, we should send the bill to the Province of Alberta for about $1.5 billion because we have provided the training for the majority of the workforce in Alberta and we are not getting one cent back from it. Therefore, my suggestions to the Minister of Finance is that next year when he does up his Budget, or projecting the Budget, that he is going to ask Ralph Klein, the Premier of Alberta, for $1.5 billion to compensate the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador for all the trained workforce that we have sent to Alberta. Alberta has not contributed one cent towards the generation of their wealth, except for their oil reserves.

So, without Newfoundlanders and Labradorians up there with their skills - and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have more skills and they are better skilled tradespeople than anybody else in the world. We send them up, we create wealth for Alberta and we do not even get a cent back from it. So, I say send a bill for $1.5 billion, $2.5 billion or $3.5 billion to Alberta. When the Minister of Finance is in Montreal today, I think somebody from your caucus should call him up and say: When you are up there meeting with the Premiers on the fiscal imbalance in this country, the fiscal imbalance is that this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has built this Country of Canada and we have not been paid for it because the other provinces have benefitted.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Of all the things the Member for Bellevue said, I can agree with one piece, that is that the tradespeople from Newfoundland and Labrador who have gone to Alberta have made a major contribution in stimulating the economy and that they, in fact, bring to that particular province and other provinces in Canada, one of the most qualified and most competent skill sets of any other labour force or workforce in this entire country. So, I do agree with that.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to correct one other thing, too, for those people who might have been listening to the Member for Bellevue talk about - and I acknowledge he complimented government on moving forward with the construction of the new long-term care facility in Clarenville, but I do want to correct him on one thing. He gave the impression that the building was not going to be started until some time in 2008, when he talked about the site being ready. What I want to assure the Member for Bellevue, and other members of this House, and the people from the general Clarenville area who will benefit from this new long-term care facility that, yes, the site work is done. That was done last year, and yes, this year's Budget allocates another $8 million to start construction. I am happy to report that the tenders will be called for that new facility some time the end of May or the first part of June, I say, Mr. Speaker. Construction will start this year and it will continue through next year until it is completed.

The 2008 time line, as the member opposite would know in his former role as Minister of Transportation and Works, that it does take a period of a year or two to construct any building. The normal construction period would see the construction of this building going from 2006 into 2007, concluding in that next budget year and opening into a full operation in 2008. Those are the time lines, I say, Mr. Speaker. So, any misunderstanding the member had, he can be assured that this is following normal construction time lines and construction will be starting in the very near future.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened over the last week as people in this House have stood and talked about the Budget as being a significant event, and I believe it is. People last week, or two or three weeks ago, listened to the Minister of Finance stand in this House and deliver what most people in this Province would agree is the best Budget we have had in the Province for many, many years. There are a couple of significant milestones I would like to refer to. Obviously, one is that we just finished a year with a surplus of $76.5 million. A vast comparison to a forecast of a $492 million deficit. We are forecasting a $6.2 million surplus in next year. We are talking about significant economic progress in the Province, and I say that is absolutely right, Mr. Speaker. We have made some significant progress.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: But, as each member of the opposite side of the House have stood here and spoken, I reflect particularly on the comments made by the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace and the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, when they both stood in this House and said: There's absolutely nothing in this Budget for me or the people who live in my district. I say, Mr. Speaker, that reflects one of two things. It is either their complete ignorance and understanding of their district or a complete lack of understanding of the real message in this Budget. It is one of two. It cannot be anything else other than one of those two things.

Before I make some comments on the very specific Budget itself, I just want to put the Budget, I believe, into some kind of context. Yes, Budget Day, everybody looks forward to it. Everybody wants to see what is in it for them, what money is being spent in their district, what money is being spent on a particular program they may have an interest in, and what is being spent throughout the Province. It does create a financial response to a whole list of very significant needs in the Province, and it is when the Minister of Finance announces how the money will be spent.

I think it becomes much more important, Mr. Speaker, to understand the Budget in the context in which it is delivered. You recall, and many people in this House and many people in the Province will recall, two and half years ago when we, as a party at that time, ran in a provincial campaign and asked the people of this Province to elect us for some real leadership, elect us because we had a new plan, we had a sense of direction, and we had a sense of where the Province should go. We developed a strategy that mapped out an eight-year agenda, and I think, Mr. Speaker, it is in that context we need to review this particular Budget.

Over the course of the last year, and particularly the last three or four months, this government has outlined a series of strategies. I just want to frame my comments, Mr. Speaker, in the context of some of these strategies. We have talked about the new infrastructure and a redevelopment of infrastructure in this Province. Mr. Speaker, this Budget - and this is very significant, I believe, because we have talked about some of the things we have done - but this Budget announces some $2 billion to be spent over the next six years. Some of that will be spent this year, some will be spent next year, but six years from now, when we reflect on what has happened in this Province, we will have invested over $2 billion in infrastructure. This year we are going to be spending a significant amount of it on roads. We are going to be spending a significant amount on hospitals and schools. I say, Mr. Speaker, we are going to be spending some $60 million this year on provincial roads.

The Department of Municipal Affairs, in addition to the provincial money that we will spend on our own programs, with additional money to be used to leverage money out of the federal government, we are going to see an expenditure of over $33 million in municipal infrastructure. We are going to be putting over $20 million into Memorial University; another $8 million into the College of the North Atlantic; $37 million into our K-8 system; significant investment in infrastructure; some $52 million into new health facilities, one I just commented on a moment ago, a new long-term care facility in Clarenville servicing that region of the Province; a significant amount of money.

Just before the Budget was released, the Province unleashed its new innovation strategy, a commitment, I say, Mr. Speaker, a commitment of $20 million over the next four years to try to respond to what we believe are four key strategy areas. We want to foster a cultured innovation, building on a more competitive Newfoundland and Labrador, strengthening our education and skills development, and supporting and expanding research and development and commercialization.

So, when we start talking about a Budget, and how we are going to spend $20 million, it needs to be talked about in the context of the strategy piece. One of the things I believe this Budget accurately reflects is strategic thinking. We have mapped out a group of strategy documents and we have released, I think it is, about ten of them thus far, and there are three or four more that will be coming in the near future, but there are ten strategy documents that have been mapped out for the Province clearly indicating where we are going to be headed on a number of fronts, and this Budget reflects the commitment of the money and the investment to ensure that we are able to deliver on those strategies, and that is what we are trying to do here.

The second thing I say, Mr. Speaker, a significant piece of work this year, and I commend the Minister of Tourism, we have just unleashed a new strategy, a cultural plan, where we are committed to spend some $17.5 million over the next three years. We are going to be looking at, and the minister has mapped out, ten key strategy areas that we need to be investing that $17 million. So, when we announced in the Budget spending $17 million on culture and tourism, it reflects strategic thinking. It reflects a plan. It reflects a strategy focusing on ten strategy areas. This is an area, I say, Mr. Speaker, that both you and I, in our respective districts, will see a tremendous benefit flowing to the people in the areas in which we live; because, as we are aware, the Bonavista Peninsula is probably one of the most popular tourist attractions in this Province and rich in culture, rich in heritage, and this kind of investment, I say, of $17.5 million over the next three years, will see us realize some major advancements and achievements in those ten strategic areas that have been mapped out by our strategy.

One of the other significant things, I say, Mr. Speaker, that is announced in this Budget, and it is social programming, we are talking about spending $1.25 million on an action plan against violence. Again, we are announcing the money in the Budget but it is announced to fund what has been developed as a strategy document, a document that has been developed in consultation with major stakeholders in the Province, a document that reflects a key strategic direction mapped out over the next six years.

In this year, we are spending $1.25 million to help fund this year's piece of that particular initiative, but over the next six years we are committed to $7.6 million to fund that whole six-year strategy piece. Again, an announcement in a Budget of a significant investment to realize the strategies outlined in a visionary document that was put together by all of those stakeholders who will be impacted by that.

Poverty reduction: Over the course of the last couple of years, government has been involved in developing a strategy to deal with poverty. It has been said in this House many times, by many individuals, that there is no one single cause of poverty. There is no one single solution to deal with poverty in this Province. We have mapped out, in consultation with people in Newfoundland and Labrador, people who are involved in the community, people who themselves are impacted by poverty - have given us a clear sense of direction, what it is we need to do, as a government, on a variety of fronts to deal with poverty in this Province.

I say again, we have announced some $62 million on an annualized basis to deal with poverty in this Province, in this Budget. It is not just a figure in a budget document, it is not just a plugged figure. What it reflects is an allocation of funding, a block of money that is going to be allocated to respond to a strategic document that maps out what it is we want to do.

This year, as a part of that strategy, we are, in fact, enhancing our provincial prescription drug program to include some 97,000 additional people. Some criticized the current prescription drug plan as being somewhat restrictive and somewhat limited, and we have listened to that. We have recognized that one of the key things contributing to poverty in this Province was the cost, and increase in cost, of prescription drugs. I say this is a major initiative towards poverty reduction.

One of the other significant pieces of our poverty reduction strategy is to deal with adult education, significant investment in this Budget in Adult Basic Education. Literacy is a major issue for us in this Province. It is an issue that helps people. A better educated society, a higher level of education, will provide greater opportunities for those individuals to help themselves get out of that cycle of poverty and find active employment.

Income support: We have already been talking about it in this House this afternoon, a significant investment in those individuals who currently find themselves in a disadvantaged position and need to take advantage of our income support program, a 5 per cent increase in this year's Budget. More importantly, I say, we have made a commitment to continue to try to keep pace with the cost of living. We have now increased our commitment and we have now indexed our benefits for income support.

School fees, another significant piece of the poverty reduction. One of the things that we have heard over the last number of years, children starting school in September. One of the big challenges facing parents is, how do I, in fact, equip my children with the tools that they need to start school when, in fact, each school will have a different fee structure, each school would have a particular structure that would impose a limitation on that child's ability to participate in that school activity.

In this particular Budget, as another part of the poverty reduction piece, is to make a major commitment to eliminate school fees in this Province while, at the same time, we have made a commitment to increase the allocation to schools on a per capita basis. Again, an investment in our education system. In fact, this year's Budget invests something in the range of $100 million of new money into our education system this year.

Another area in the Budget - again, reflections of a strategy by government, not just an investment of money - this year we are going to be spending some $1.2 million to focus on what we believe are four key areas in Phase I of our wellness strategy. This year, we are going to be dealing with active living, dietary issues, issues of smoke-free environments, and issues around injury prevention. Again, $1.2 million to deal with those strategies.

Again, I have to say that this is not just a figure in a Budget but it reflects strategic thinking on behalf of government. It reflects the funding commitment to start now paying for the strategy that we have unveiled earlier in the year.

Another area is that we have made some significant investments this year in our mental health plan. Last year, and this year, since the mental health strategy was unveiled, we have made new investments of over $2 million in our mental health strategy. One of the significant investments this year will be the enhancement of a new addictions treatment centre for Corner Brook; a $2 million investment, Madam Speaker, in this year's Budget.

One of the points I am trying to make here, Madam Speaker, is that the Budget itself, yes, in as much as it lays out some good news, it lays out how government is going to be spending its money, but I think what is important for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to understand is that the development of the Budget and the funding allocations that are laid out in this particular Budget document this year, not only gives us good news about the fiscal position of the Province, not only does it reflect prudent fiscal management in the last two-and-a-half years since we have been in power, but it reflects that commitment on a go-forward basis to start funding some of the key strategic areas that have been mapped out by the people of this Province as being important to them.

All you need to do, Madam Speaker, is to look at - if you look at the things that we have done thus far in strategies that we have mapped out, and just look at them. We have unveiled a strategy to deal with wellness, Achieving Health and Wellness Strategy. We have talked about working together for mental health. We put out, last fall, a White Paper on our public post-secondary education institutions. We have developed a strategy to deal with poverty. We have now taken an action plan to help us deal with violence prevention. Last year we unveiled a strategy to help deal with climate change. We have developed immigration initiatives. We are talking about a new blueprint for development of investment in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are talking about a blueprint of prosperity, a new cultural plan. We are in the process now of completing the public consultation process to develop a new energy strategy for the Province. We are in the process now of consulting with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to help us develop a new healthy aging framework. We are looking at our natural resources.

So, Madam Speaker, Budget documents, in as much as they are important, and they do spell out how the Province will spend its money for next year, but what is much more important is what is behind the Budget. I think when we look at the announcements in this year's Budget and the announcements that we have made in the last three or four months, I think reflects a strategy by a government who clearly understands what we are going through in Newfoundland and Labrador, clearly understands what it is we need to do as a Province on a go-forward basis to be sustainable, to be economically viable and to be socially responsible in providing the kind of social programs and social safety nets that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador require and need. While at the same time, growing an economy that capitalizes and gives us the best benefit for the natural resources we have in our Province so that we can be fiscally sustainable on a go-forward basis.

On that, Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this Budget. I think, as many speakers have already said, there are a lot of good things in this Budget. As much as members on the opposite side may stand and pick out an isolated issue - the Member for Bay of Islands has been flapping his gums for the last ten minutes about one or two issues that are important to him, and everybody can stand in this House and do the same thing, Madam Speaker, but on the whole -

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

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member for Bay of Islands on a point of order.

MR. JOYCE: Madam Speaker, the Member for Trinity North said one or two issues that are important to me - shipping seniors out of Corner Brook is so important that the Minister of Justice and the Member for Humber East got personally involved and got the decision changed. So it is not just me, your own minister got personally involved. When there is a decision made by the government and your minister is involved, I do not think everybody in your government agrees with your policy.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. WISEMAN: The point I was making, Madam Speaker, is that there are many issues that - people can sit down today in this House, pick up a budget and say it did not cover this or it did not cover that.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his speaking time has expired.

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

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. WISEMAN: The point I was making, Madam Speaker, is that anybody can take any budget, in any given year, in any government, and identify a list of things that the budget does not agree to fund. I think what is important for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to recognize, that as they look at this Budget, look at it in concert with the nine or ten strategy documents that we have released over the last five or six months, look at the strategy pieces that we are working on and recognizing that this Budget is actually a reflection on the strategic directions that we have already committed to as a Province, and this is the financial commitment to support these new initiatives.

I thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this year's Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words about this year's Budget. Just for anyone who is listening - and there usually are quite a few, in my experience, who listen in TV land. Sometimes we, ourselves, in here, of course, are not very attentive and listening but, certainly, for those people who do take the opportunity to watch these proceedings on TV and find out who is saying what, about what, and sometimes of course the response that I get back is that they are not always pleased with our behaviour in here. So, I will try to conduct myself as best as possible.

I see this as an opportunity to inform people as well, because there are always, as they say, at least two sides to every story. I do not believe that the government side is totally right, and I do not believe that the government side is totally wrong. I think that applies to the Budget as well.

We had the Budget Speech in here a few weeks ago by the Minister of Finance; a pretty big, comprehensive document, runs our Province, a lot of money involved and affects a lot of lives in this Province. Unlike the Member for Labrador West, who might think it is a great document - and I guess it was from his perspective, given the dollars that went into it, and the Member for Torngat who feels that it was a very good Budget. There is certainly nothing wrong, whatsoever, with any member expressing their approval or disapproval of what they see here.

My concern here is that the government, particularly the government backbenchers I note, have taken on a boasting attitude about this document. I always get concerned when I see people boasting about something and gloating about something because most often when that happens we overlook facts and we overlook reality. That is the last thing that we could ever have is to overlook reality because, God forbid, it even leads to arrogance. When that happens we become so wrapped up in ourselves and what we believe we are doing right, that we forget about people.

The Premier of Alberta - I guess Premier Klein, he will not be there very often - he talks about making your comments be known to Joe and Martha. When he talks about the Joe and Marthas of the world, he talks about the everyday person who has concerns, the everyday person who looks to government for leadership, who looks to government for help and assistance and advice. So that is who my remarks are being addressed to, not the people in this Chamber because here we are all pretty partisan. We all have our own views as to where we stand and what we think about this particular document.

I guess I have no problem with the Member for Labrador West saying give credit where credit is due. I have no problem with that at all, but I say to the government: Don't pat yourself on the back too hard just yet, because we find ourselves in a circumstance in the spring of 2006 where there are a lot of good things, good fortune, good deeds, but also a lot of good luck and a bit of good management, I might add. Let's not forget the circumstances that exist to allow someone to take advantage of circumstances, and that is what we cannot forget here. For example, the Atlantic Accord, perfect. An alignment of the stars, I believe as the Premier put it, a perfect situation. We have gone out and said, if you were the Prime Minister, what would you do? Mr. Martin, if you were the Prime Minister, what would you do? If you were the Prime Minister, Mr. Layton, what would you do? Here is our wish list. Here is what we would like.

Of course, we ended up, probably one of the few times, with a minority government, where you were in a position to squeeze the government. That is where a bit of good management comes in. The good luck was that, I guess, we ended up with a minority government. The good management, as I see it, was that the Premier recognized that and took full advantage of it, full advantage of it, but it was not solely a negotiation exercise. It was a negotiation exercise that took place from a position of strength because the person you were dealing with, the other party, was in a position of weakness.

Now, whether that be a Paul Martin government or whether that be a Stephen Harper government, it was still a position of weakness from the federal perspective, and we get a bit of rhetoric and politics thrown in. We get some flags being lowered and so on, but that is probably all part of the game as well. At the end of the day, we ended up with a good arrangement on the Atlantic Accord. Anybody who would suggest and deny that, I think, is just being foolhardy, but do not forget the good luck piece of it, the minority government piece.

There is also something else that has happened in the last two or three years that not a single person in this House here had anything to do with, not a single thing, absolutely. As a matter of fact, nobody in Canada had anything to do with it. Probably the most significant occurrence in Canada in the last two or three years that has led to this Province being in a situation where it could do things now that it could never, ever, do before, and it had nothing to do with the negotiating skills of anyone. It had nothing to do with a single member over there, or a Premier or minister, or anybody on this side of the House, because I do not think anybody knew that the price of a barrel of oil was going to go from $30 to, I think, now hit $70.

MR. REID: Sixty-eight yesterday.

MR. PARSONS: Sixty-eight dollars yesterday, I believe, a pretty good piece of luck.

Now, when people on the government side get talking about the great position we are in, sometimes they attribute all of that great position to great management. Well, I am sorry to say, I do not believe it was and Joe and Martha do not believe it was. That price of the barrel of oil had something to do with that. As a matter of fact, it had a lot to do with that. So, let's understand where we are coming from before we get into too boastful a position over there.

Let's look at the document itself. We have heard a lot of talk in the last couple of weeks about all the good pieces of it, all the good things that government have supposedly done. I have a different view of things. Maybe it is because I took the time to look for some of the different things. I point these out just to show, again, that you should not be so caught up in what you believe to be good that you forget some of the things that are not good. Do not forget that we still deal with a government that doesn't mind spinning. By spinning, I mean they do not mind putting out their own story and their own explanation as to why things are all rosy, but sometimes do not want you to look and see what is under the onion layers. Well, I would like to peel back a couple of layers on the onion today.

You talk about fees. Going to have a reduction in fees is one of the lines in the Budget. Yes, no doubt. I do not think it is lost on Joe and Martha that, in the Budget a couple of years ago, the fees in this Province were jacked up by something like $26 million, $28 million. Two years ago, anything from a birth certificate to a death certificate, and everything in between, went up. You could not cut a stick of wood. You could not get a driver's licence. You could not get a birth certificate. You could not get a death certificate. If you wanted it, you paid more. Well, lo and behold, the people of the Province did not like that. This year, we are seeing government say: Whoa, we are pretty good in this Budget because we lowered some fees. No doubt about it. No doubt about it.

MR. REID: The polar bear.

MR. PARSONS: We got one of them, the polar bear fee. Now, I am sure that contributed substantially to our domestic product here in Newfoundland, and our revenue base, that we have had the polar bear licences gone. I understand from my colleague from Torngat that we do sell about eight polar bear licences in the run of a year. I am sure that was a significant change by government.

That is the importance, you see, when somebody says we are reducing fees but they do not tell you what ones and how it impacts your life. I do not know of anybody who is driving a vehicle, or going to drive a vehicle next year, who is going to pay less than the $180. I do not know of anybody going to get a birth certificate or a death certificate, or whatever else they are not going to pay more for, but we have some of these little obscure ones, the polar bear fee.

For all of you folks in Burgeo and Port aux Basques, I am sure that gives you a sense of elation and comfort that you do not have to pay for your polar bear fee. Yes, that is an activity we engage in every day out there. Now, that is a good one, so you have to be careful when you hear somebody tell you we are doing good. So, out of that $26 million, $28 million, increase that we had two years ago, the truth is that government has reduced that by about $2 million, I do believe.

MR. REID: One point six.

MR. PARSONS: One point six.

So this great Budget, from a fee reduction point of view, forgets about the fact that we are all still paying through the nose for the other $26.4 million. Government is not telling you that piece. Maybe they do not want you to know that, but that fits into the definition, ladies and gentleman, of spins. Those are the little pieces that government forgets to tell you. That is the spin piece.

We hear some good things being done in health, but, to me, you should not take credit for something that was already intended to be done, was budgeted to be done, that was scrapped by you, only to find out later that you had to do it anyway and then you did it. That is not doing it because you have such a huge dose of compassion. You are doing it because you know it had to be done.

One of the things I make reference to, of course, here is the cancer clinic in Central. It was this government, we cannot forget, who scrapped it. The former Administration - the Member for Exploits knows that - had it in the budget. It was this government here that scrapped the cancer clinic. Now, should we take to patting ourselves on the back, should government take to patting itself on the back, for putting back something that was already agreed to be done before? That is somebody who would tell you, I am a good fellow because I am going give you a cancer clinic. Forget about the fact that I am the fellow who took it away from you.

I say again, when it comes down to this good document, we have to look at it with a bit of balance. I look at the auditorium in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. We get a commitment now apparently that the feds are going to buy in, the Province is going to put in their $1.9 million and we are going to have the auditorium in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. For those who do not know, for the people who are watching this, you might think that was a new thing that this government was going to do. It may be new to this government, ladies and gentlemen, but it had been agreed to in the Budget of 2003. The money was put in from the federal government, from the Province. Who scrapped it? This provincial government scrapped it.

What happens? We end up, in 2004-2005, the Member for Torngat sits here day after day after day. In Question Period he puts the questions to the Premier and to the so-called Minister for Labrador, and says: Where is our auditorium? When are you going to give us our auditorium? Well, finally we get it, in the Budget of 2006. Now, be careful, they are patting themselves on the back again because they are giving you something. They would have you believe they just gave you something. Forget about the fact that they took it away from you.

Let's talk about another incident, the weigh scales in Port aux Basques. In 2003, we are told that the weigh scales in Port aux Basques - mind you, the gateway to the Province. Thousands and thousands of vehicles that come into this Province, in fact virtually all except for the summertime tourist traffic that goes through Argentia, but all of the eighteen wheelers that come into this Province, carrying huge loads, travel on our highways. What did the government decide? We are going to shut that down. We are not going to leave that open. You don't need a weigh scales. Forget about the fact that these hundreds of thousands - I think it is 198,000 vehicles that come in here every year - might need to be inspected. We are going to let them get off the boat. We are going to let them run all the way from Port aux Basques into Deer Lake, into Pynns Brook, before we even get them inspected.

Lo and behold, we screaming out on that end of the woods, we told the town council and the Chamber of Commerce. People got together in delegations and bombarded the minister and said: Please, Minister, despite the fact that you may be in a terrible, terrible pinch from a financial point of view, there is such a thing called human safety. There is life interest that is at stake here. The government said: No, no, no, we are sorry, we haven't got the money, you are closed. They closed the weigh scales.

What did we have to do over the course of the next two years? Every single violation that we, in that area, became aware of, we used to document it, package it off to the minister, and say: Here is another incident. Here is another truck that just got caught in the Codroy Pond area, never had any lights on it. Here is another truck that just got caught in the Codroy Pond area, 50 per cent overweight. Here is another vehicle that just had an accident because the load wasn't strapped down properly. That is what we had to do for two years. Town councils, Chambers of Commerce, interested partners, send this documentation off to the minister and say please. In fact, I think we pretty well determined that it wasn't even a cost issue. Because there were so many complaints, there was such a great need to ensure that these vehicles were inspected, that we pretty well had to have operators in the portable scales on that neck of the woods anyway all the time.

What did we get in this year's Budget? After causing all of that aggravation, after letting all of those hundreds of thousands of trucks come onto our highways unexpectedly and cause safety issues, what do we get? We get a government that says: We are good, we are great. We are going to strategically reactivate the weigh scales in Port aux Basques. I thank the minister for doing that. I thank her because she had the common sense. At the end of the day, when she saw all of these complaints coming in, and the safety issue was finally brought home to her, she did what was the right thing. I have no difficulty applauding anybody for doing the right thing, but it is very disappointing and very disheartening when you have to put up, for two years, with these absolutely nonsensical, unsafe issues and live with them. That is why I say to government, you have to be cautious in how you clap yourself on the back. We would never have been in that situation if it had not been for your inappropriate behaviour and action in the first place. Thank you for giving back something that we always did have and certainly should have kept, and you never ought to have taken it away. Thank you very much.

Drivers' licence examiner, another one. An announcement today coming from the minister - Burgeo. I notice that she thanked the town council and she thanked certain concerned citizens for bringing it to her attention, but this member too, was also, I do believe - and I will take credit for that. Talk about oversights and giving credit where credit is due now - I told the minister two years ago, you do not know how the impact of this little decision to you, and these few dollars to you, is having, or going to have, on the lives of people on the South Coast, not only Burgeo, but Ramea and Grey River. These people, like some of us in here in a fish bowl sometimes, do not understand how some of these people live.

Mr. Speaker, before we move on, I understand I am down to two minutes left in my time. At this time I would like to move a Budget amendment if I might.

Being moved today, April 11, 2006, traditionally called a non-confidence -

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): A point of order is raised by the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: I think it is pretty clear from our practices and traditions in this House, that in order for a member of the Opposition to move a non-confidence motion he needs another member who hasn't spoken to that motion, in order to move it before it can be in order. This is just based on my understanding. I would submit to you, that he is the last speaker of the official Opposition and the NDP and the motion of non-confidence does not stand in order, Mr. Speaker, because there was no one on that side to second it. I can assure you, no one on the government side will be seconding a non-confidence motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Do you wish to speak to the point of order?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is fine. (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: On the matter of that point of order, I would like to recess the House for a few moments and discuss it with the Table officers for just a few brief seconds.

The House now is in recess.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

(Inaudible) article number one. It says, in essence, that in all cases the primary decision-making powers given to the Speaker are contained, of course, in the Standing Orders. In article 1. (2) it says, "In all cases not provided for in these Standing Orders or by sessional or other orders of the House, the Speaker shall be guided by the following in the order in which they are stated: (a) the usages, customs and precedents of this House; (b) the Standing Orders and sessional orders and forms and usages, customs and precedents of the House of Commons of Canada and those of any province or territory in Canada...".

On the point of order that has been raised, it is also referenced in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice by Marleau and Montpetit, page 510, and I will read the article that pertains. "If a Member moves a motion during his or her speech (e.g., an amendment or a motion to adjourn debate), the act of moving the motion will terminate the Member's speech. A Member who has already spoken to a question may not rise again to propose or second an amendment or move a motion to adjourn the debate or the House...".

In this particular case, this motion does require a seconder. It is my understanding, and it has been my experience in this House, when a motion of non-confidence is placed, that it has to be seconded by a member who has not already spoken.

In this particular case, the point made by the Government House Leader is valid, and it is a valid point of order.

The Chair recognizes the Opposition House Leader who, I believe, has approximately two minutes remaining.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just use my two minutes.

I fully concur with the ruling of the Chair. It was an oversight on the part of myself, as Opposition House Leader, in recognition of the standing rule requirements. I have not seen the Government House Leader be this smart before, shall we say, in lawyering terms, but that is fine. I am fully prepared to acknowledge it was my error, and to live with that, but I can assure you that, with whatever time we have left, we will continue in the vein that I was speaking in my twenty-minute address concerning this Budget; because, you can use all the procedural rules that one might like to try to keep Joe and Martha and everybody else in this Province from knowing what this Budget is really like, and some of the things that government has not done, but procedural rules alone will not cut it. We will get our opportunity. We have a lot more debates to go in this House, and we will certainly take full advantage of those opportunities to speak our piece.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Are there further speakers to the Budget debate?

The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased today, as well, to stand up with the positive side, I guess, and speak in support of this Budget.

It is very difficult, Mr. Speaker, to understand where the Opposition is coming from, from time to time. I want to refer to the hon. Opposition House Leader. For the first part of his speech, he stood there and complimented the government on the good things they had in the Budget. He even referred to his colleague from Torngat Mountains, about all the good things that were in the Budget for that district, and then he stands up and asks for a motion of non-confidence in the government. So, it is very difficult, like I say, to understand where those people are coming from.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to reflect back to two-and-a-half years ago when our party assumed government. We made two very broad statements at that time. Number one, we said that we would take serious steps in addressing the financial state of the Province. Number two, we said that we would lay the foundation to grow the economy, and we would do that, at the same time remembering that there would be a balance in the social programs of our people. Mr. Speaker, I believe that our record over the past two-and-a-half years speaks for itself. It certainly confirms what we said back two-and-a-half years ago when we made those statements.

Mr. Speaker, despite what the Opposition are saying in objections to the Budget, I believe that the majority of the people in this Province believe that what we have done is the right thing. Those people know that everything is not perfect. We, as a government, know that everything is not perfect in this Province. For those of us who follow politics, we know also that the oil rich Province of Alberta, everything is not perfect because wherever there is a successful, rich province, that brings its own social problems all the time. Whatever kind of system you have, there are always going to be problems and there are always going to be crisis, but it is the government of the day that makes the right choices in solving those problems and preparing for the future. That is what counts, Mr. Speaker.

We all recognize the fact, and I think most people out there in the Province realize, that there is no magic wand to wave and correct all the problems that we have all the time. The majority of the people that I talk to believe that it is going to take time to correct the problems that we have. The majority of the people believe also, Mr. Speaker, that we are making the right decisions for the right reasons. Because of that, as stewards of the Treasury of this Province, we have to spend the people's money where it is going to provide the best service for the most people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order has been raised by the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Bonavista North is up saying that the majority of the residents in the Province believe that this government is doing the right things for the right reasons. As we speak, I had a call this morning from a town in my district, which is Twillingate & Fogo, from a council in my district to inform me that the residents of the member's district, Bonavista North, those particularly living in the Gander Bay region, are now asking the residents in my district to sign a petition and circulate a petition, soliciting our support in my district to send a petition to government to get the road paved through Gander Bay, which is in the Member for Bonavista North's own district. So I say to the member opposite, if he thinks that the people of Gander Bay agree with what this government is doing and when they are going to do it, I suggest that maybe some time in the near future you visit the residents in your district, especially those in Gander Bay North.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Members will know that points of order should relate to the proceedings of the House and whether or not the proceedings are going according to the Standing Orders and according to the parliamentary traditions. In this particular case, there is no point of order because none of the Standing Orders have been breached. Therefore, the Chair rules that there is no Standing Order.

The Chair recognizes, again, the Member for Bonavista North.

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, there was no point of order and the hon. Leader of the Opposition knew before he got up that there was no point of order.

Mr. Speaker, it is like it always is, it is just putting on an act in front of the people of the Province. That is all it is. I would like to remind the hon. Member for Twillingate & Fogo that the people of the Province know quite well what his capabilities are and they showed that in the last election.

Mr. Speaker, our government is spending its money where it is going to do the most benefit for the most people at the best price. That is what we are doing, and the people of the Province deserve nothing less. The people of the Province also know that the strong leadership of our Premier, with the support of his Cabinet and caucus -

MR. REID: (Inaudible) here under false pretenses.

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, could you -

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARDING: Could you protect me from the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker?

MR. REID: (Inaudible) should not be getting paid because I wasn't elected.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker -

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

The Chair reminds all hon. members that we should be respectful of each other. We should not facilitate parliamentary debate and treat each other in a very collegial and honourable manner. The Chair asks that there be less shouting across the floor of the House.

The Chair, again, recognizes the Member for Bonavista North.

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thought that my behaviour in the House would have shown the hon. member that I am sort of a model parliamentarian, in the way that I behave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: But it is obvious that he cannot even learn that much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member opposite talks about being the model parliamentarian, and he sat here the other night chairing a meeting in the Estimates Committee when the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development was answering all the questions that I asked of her, and all of the sudden he, being the Chair of the Committee, stopped and said: I am not entertaining anymore of these questions and the minister is not going to answer them anymore. The only person he reminded me of was Stephen Harper when he ordered his Cabinet to go out one door so they wouldn't be able to respond to the media when asked a question.

When you are talking about being a model parliamentarian, maybe in your party you call that a model parliamentarian, but in the democracy you certainly don't.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, there is no point of order. A point of order should never be used to inject into debate. We should use points of order when there is some breach of the parliamentary rules. In this case, there is no breach of parliamentary rules so there is no point of order.

Again the Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Bonavista North.

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I made reference earlier to the fact that we said two and a half years ago that our government intended to address the financial state of the Province. I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition will agree, that we have done that. He may not admit it, but I think he will agree that we have done it. We turned a $493 million projected deficit into a $76 million surplus in one year. That is what we did, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: We did that, Mr. Speaker, through the skillful tactics and negotiation skills of our Premier and the Minister of Finance for this Province. That is how it was done. These people tried it for years, Mr. Speaker, and could not get that Atlantic Accord renegotiated, but we did and we did it in the best interests of all the citizens of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, just take an example of the wise use of our money, when we reinvested it in taking care of the debt servicing of the teachers' pension plan and the public sector service pension plan. We saved $156 million that would have gone out in interest payments. Instead, Mr. Speaker, we have that $156 million now to put more money into education, more money into our roads, more money into water and sewer, and many of the other services that the people of this Province have fallen behind on the past ten or fifteen years.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make reference to an article in the March issue of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council Report, and the headline in the article is: Literacy is Key to Improving Atlantic Economic Prospects. Provincial results from the International Adult Literacy and Skills survey, released in November 2005, show that average proficiency scores in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island are close to the national average, but the proficiency scores in Newfoundland and Labrador are below the national average. "More than one in two adults in Atlantic Canada do not have the minimum skills necessary to adequately function in today's knowledge economy. Without a stronger commitment to address this issue, the Atlantic region and many of its citizens risk being marginalized in an economic environment that places an increasing premium on knowledge, skills and adaptability." It goes on further to say at the end, Mr. Speaker, the quality of Atlantic Canada's future labour supply will depend in large part on the skills of its young people.

Mr. Speaker, what did we say in our Speech from the Throne with respect to growing our economy and education? I would like to read part of one paragraph at the beginning of the speech: " ....the cornerstone of a thriving economy is a well-educated workforce. Starting in childhood and continuing for life, we must ensure our women and men are well-prepared with the knowledge and skills they need to seize the awesome opportunities that currently exist and those that, through innovation and ingenuity, we will create. This year, as we set our eyes on the future and continue to progress this economic platform, education will be a primary focus." Mr. Speaker, that is what we said in our Speech from the Throne, and you talk about a government putting its money where its mouth is.

Mr. Speaker, what have we done with education this year in our Budget? We have increased the Budget by over $100 million. That brings our total, Mr. Speaker, up to $958 million, just about $1 billion being spent on educating our people and preparing them for the new economy. Where has some of that money gone? First of all, I guess I would like to compare that with the last year of the former Liberal Administration and how much they spent on education. I looked at the Budget there a few days ago, and from March 31, 2003 that Administration spent $539 million on education. In just three years, Mr. Speaker, we have almost doubled that on educating our people. It goes to show that right from the beginning they were on the wrong track. Also, when you consider that back four or five years ago, or whenever it was, when they changed the denominational education system they were supposed to save millions of dollars then and reinvest it into education. Did it go into education? I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, and I know hundreds of people in the Province have made the same comment over the years.

You can see, Mr. Speaker, that their approach to the future development of our Province, the foundation for that approach, was wrong anyway. Here we are trying to catch up again with educating our people, just like we are trying to catch up with our road work, with our water and sewer services, and all of the other services in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, where did we start on education? Well, we have allocated $5.2 million in this year's Budget to retain 151 teaching units in our schools. These are 151 teaching units that would have been lost to the classrooms this year if we had followed the teacher allocation formula that was brought in by that government. We have gone even further than that, we are allocated something over $200,000 to review that teacher allocation formula. Mr. Speaker, that has been a major issue with every school board, with every teacher, with every student, with every person in the Province, that teacher allocation formula. Now, hopefully, after the review is done, we will have it arranged so that it will suit the situation of the day.

Mr. Speaker, even though we are doing what the organizations, such as the Atlantic Canada economic council, have suggested that we do with respect to education, I do not think - and he is leaving now - the Leader of the Opposition has acknowledged one bit of credit for this great initiative of this government.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point or order has been raised by the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take exception to the member's remarks regarding the Leader of the Opposition stepping to one side there. Making reference to a person leaving this House is totally out of order, whether his presence is here or not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the Chair rules that it is a valid point of order. Members know that from time to time all members of this House have to be absent from the Chamber for various reasons to carry out their parliamentary duties. I would ask all members for their cooperation and when members are leaving, or when they are out of the House, that we follow the traditions of this House and we not make any reference to the presence or the absence of individual members.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Bonavista North.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the member sort of raised a question, that we said we were going to put the money that was saved from education reform back into education. I can tell the member opposite that we did. In the last two-and-one-half years of the government of which I was a part we spent well in excess of $200 million on school construction alone, Mr. Speaker, new schools and the redevelopment of old ones.

With regard to the student/teacher allocation - and he talks about the great job they are doing on it - what he forgot to tell the people of the Province, when he is looking into the camera, is that this government, one of which he is a part, laid off 500 teachers in the last two years. Because this year they are not going to lay anyone off, he expects me to stand and applaud him. Well, Mr. Speaker, I will not be applauding.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, the Chair rules there is no point of order. Points of order should relate to the orders of the House, particularly the Standing Orders, so there is no point of order.

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Bonavista North, who I do believe has about a minute and a half to conclude his commentary.

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The first point: I apologize for making the statement that I did.

What I was saying was, I do not think that the hon. Member for Twillingate & Fogo has said anything positive about all of this money that we are putting in our Budget this year towards education. I am pretty well sure. For a former teacher to not at least give us some compliment for that is beyond me.

Mr. Speaker, I do remember a comment that the Member for Twillingate & Fogo made yesterday. He even made it in his reply to the Speech from the Throne, and he mentioned it again a few minutes ago, about the road through Gander Bay.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is my turn. I agree with the hon. member. The road through Gander Bay is one of the worst in the Province, and I have said that on a number of occasions. I agree with him 100 per cent, but I will go even further. The road through Main Point-Davidsville is just as bad, and the road through Frederickton is probably worse, and the road through Carmanville South and Aspen Cove and Ladle Cove and Musgrave Harbour and right on up the Bonavista North Shore are all the same, but what the hon. Member for Twillingate & Fogo did not say was the fact that it was fifteen years of neglect by that government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: That is why the roads are in the state they are in today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MR. HARDING: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted to make some concluding comments.

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been called by the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, when any member in this House states facts, as he calls them, fifteen years of neglect, I think he should clarify that and say eighteen years of neglect, because it has been three years of his government's rule, as well, who have neglected those roads.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair rules, again, there is no point of order.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Bonavista North, who is making some concluding comments.

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, it was only two or three nights ago, before a Resource Committee meeting, that the Member for Twillingate & Fogo stood up in front of me and acknowledged the fact that, yes, we have ignored that area of the Province. So, I mean, he is admitting it himself, and to have the nerve to stand up here then and criticize us. I would like to remind the member, as well, that over the past three-and-a-half years there has been over $7 million spent on the roads in Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Let's put that into some kind of perspective, Mr. Speaker. It was only four or five years ago that the government that he was a member of, a member of Cabinet, had only $6 million for all the Province for road upgrading and paving.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, this year, like my colleague behind me has said, we are putting $60 million into the roads. The Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, I heard him say yesterday, or the day before: Yes, but $12 million of that was from the previous year. He is right, it was from the previous year, but why was it? It was because we were following the policy of that government in not calling tenders until the summer, and work started up in September and October. That is why.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to, if I may, just have a couple of minutes to clue up on a very positive note. Over the past year or so, I have been working with two businessmen out in my district, in the Community of Centreville, starting up a manufacturing plant. The product they are making is a product called cultured stone. For anyone who does not know what cultured stone is, it is something like the real rock, or real brick, but it is a lot lighter. It can be made in all sizes, shapes and colors. It is only a fraction of the weight of real rock and brick, and it is only about half the cost.

Mr. Speaker, I dropped into that business on Saturday and that plant is now in production. I have to thank my colleague, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, for the funding that she has put into that project, and also funding from ACOA and major investment from the business people themselves.

Mr. Speaker, there are seven workers in that plant now working, who were not working last year in Centreville. Three of these young family men moved back from Ontario, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: - and they brought with them eight children who are now in the school system in Centreville. That is one of the good things that I am doing for my district.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, there is another company, in a couple of weeks or so, that will be starting up another project -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I advise the member that leave has been withdrawn.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing that gives me more pleasure than to stand in my place today and speak on Budget 2006.

Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House of Assembly now for thirteen years. I have seen thirteen Budgets presented in this Legislature, ten when I was in Opposition and three since we formed the government. The first Budget we brought down was a difficult Budget, make no mistake about it. We all know, we said in the past, the reason why it was a difficult Budget was because, as the member opposite just confirmed, the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, they had fifteen years of mismanagement. He actually stood in his place and confirmed that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Neglect, he called it.

MR. J. BYRNE: Neglect, fifteen years of neglect. He was saying there was eighteen years of neglect. So, if there was eighteen years of neglect, for the past eighteen years, fifteen had to be theirs, Mr. Speaker. I mean, I found it quite amusing that he would actually stand in his place and confirm that.

Now, last year our Budget was an improvement over the Budget before, but I have to say, Mr. Speaker, this Budget this year is the best Budget that I have seen in this Legislature in the thirteen years that I have been here. Bar none!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, we have touched on everyone in this Province, across this Province, in urban Newfoundland, rural Newfoundland, up in Labrador. We have addressed many, many concerns.

The Member for Torngat Mountains stood in his place and applauded this Budget. The Member for Labrador West did the same thing, Mr. Speaker. I find it more than passing strange - and I understand that the Opposition have a job to do, make no mistake about that. I was there for ten years and we criticized the government on many occasions. That is what we were there to do, but we also gave credit when credit was due. That crowd over there cannot seem to do that, other than a couple.

When the Leader of the Opposition gets up and the Opposition House Leader - Mr. Speaker, the Opposition House Leader stood up today and talked about the weigh scales. Of all the things, we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars, over $4 billion on the Budget this year for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and he tries to find one item to be negative about. Again, I have to address that, and the weigh scales itself. Yes, we are putting them back, and rightly so. We have good reasons for doing that, but if the member opposite had looked a little bite back in history when Hollywood Brian was the Premier, and they had the big announcement in Labrador about the Lower Churchill that they had an agreement on, they had the former Premier of Quebec, Bouchard in, and I think they spent over a million bucks on a news conference in Labrador. Now, if we had that million dollars in the Budget last year or the year before, maybe we would not have had to close down the weigh scales, which we are opening back up this year.

Mr. Speaker, again, what we have to look at of course this year is the Budget. I tell you, one of the things that has not been talked about a lot is the fact that we, as a government, are - the difference between us and the people on the opposite side when they were in government, Mr. Speaker, we are spending money that we have. We are not going to the banks and we are not spending on our credit card, as was the reputation of the previous Administration.

I remember sitting on that side of the House, Mr. Speaker, when the so-called government of the day brought down the last two or three budgets and they said they were balanced budgets. By no stretch of the imagination were they balanced budgets. For example, I will tell you some of the tricks they pulled to try and say that there were balanced budgets.

Term 29; they dipped into Term 29. That was to go on for years and years and years. This Province was to get $9 million a year for eternity. This happened in 1996, that they dipped into it. They went to Ottawa and said: Listen, give us some money up front. So they took thirty years, $9 million per year, $270 million. What they did not tell people out there though, there was a penalty of ten years, which would be $90 million that they forgave so they could take $180 million, slap it down on the Budget and try to present it as a balanced Budget. One big fix; a quick fix. The difference between us and them and the Premier today, is that we are into long-term planning and we are reaping the benefits.

Another thing they did when they were in Opposition and they talked about their balanced Budget, is the South Coast ferry system. The federal government was responsible for the South Coast ferry system. What did they do? Again, a quick fix. They went and got a deal with Ottawa, $50 million. They took it and banged it down on the Budget to try and balance the Budget. The false balanced budgets that they put forward; a one time payment. What did that leave us with? Now this Administration had to come up with millions of dollars each year to operate the South Coast ferry system.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That is fact, I say to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

Also, the Labrador ferry system, the same thing. The former Administration went up to Ottawa and again, worked a deal with Ottawa to get some money upfront and we are left holding the bag. Each year now we have to go forward and find revenue to pay for the South Coast ferry system, the Labrador ferry system, to recoup the money that we would be getting each year. Plus, now we are going to be out $90 million in the long-term as a penalty. That is the type of budgets that those people brought forward. Then they get up in this Legislature and criticize this Budget.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I can go on to some of the details of the Budget. Before I do that, though, one point I would like to make, because I was kind of surprised today in this Legislature, because when I am dealing, as minister, with Members of this Legislature, both sides, I think I am considered to be pretty fair, the feedback I am getting.

Today, the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans stood in her place and said that when I receive correspondence from her, I throw it in the garbage. Now, nothing can be further from the truth. As a matter of fact, I stood in my place today and referred to one e-mail that the hon. member sent me back sometime ago, but here is another one that I did not read out. This one is dated November 22, 2005. It was a request from the hon. member to me as minister. She said: I have a special request for the minister to look at. This was an e-mail to my executive assistant. My executive assistant e-mailed back and said: I have brought your request forward to Minister Byrne and he reviewed your correspondence. He asked that I contact you and advise that he has approved an additional $20,000 for your district. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is what happened.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay. She stood in her place today and said that I throw her correspondence in the garbage. I received an e-mail back from the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans and she said: Well, this is, certainly, good news. Your minister has a heart and please relay my thanks to him. That is what, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: So, what the hon. member says in private and what she says in this Legislature are two different things. Why? Why? How do you justify that? I do not know, Mr. Speaker. I know members on that side of the House cannot complain about my treatment of them, I would say to you.

Now, let's get back to -

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: To the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, we are all equally good on this side of the House of Assembly, I say to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker, in this Budget, it is from just the overview, the highlights. There is so much that if you sat back and started to read out each individual point that was made here, it would take you, probably, a week to get on to it, if you want to really speak in detail. But I just want to hit some of the highlights.

The fiscal performance for 2005, this year we have a $76.5 million surplus. Now, that is not too bad when last year we were predicting a $492.5 million deficit, to turn that around in one year. People on that side of the House of Assembly have stood in their place and will not give credit where credit is due. We had the Premier of this Province, two years ago, a year-and-a-half ago, travel to Ottawa on a number of occasions with the Minister of Finance, and the discussions around the Cabinet and caucus, to negotiate the Atlantic Accord. They are on that side of the House today saying that it is the minority government that gave it to us. It is a fluke, a fluke now, can you believe it? When, in fact, we had everybody, Liberals included, across this Province - I would not say there were too many who were not supporting the Premier and the Minister of Finance at that point in time.

They went up and negotiated a deal. I will give credit where credit is due. The former Prime Minister did come through on the end. He did, but it was because of the negotiating skills of the Premier of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Premier Williams. That has had a major impact for this Province.

Again, the price of oil is a factor, a major factor, but it is not only the $2 billion that the Premier negotiated. It is the fact that now the regime, the tax regime, the royalties, now we will get basically 50 per cent of the revenues, the royalties that come in. Instead of the federal government clawing back 85 per cent, now they claw back 50 per cent. That is my understanding of it, Mr. Speaker. That goes on for eternity now. This is great news, and rightly so.

We have the Opposition House Leader standing in his place this past week to two weeks asking questions of the Premier with respect to Hebron-Ben Nevis. This is a non-renewable resource. We have said during the election - we campaigned on it - we have one shot at this, I say to the Member for Kilbride, we have one shot at this, and we are going to do it right. We campaigned on it. We said there would be no more giveaways, and we are not going to have any more giveaways.

We talked about leaving the oil in the ground if we have to. The Premier is negotiating, has been negotiating -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: We have done this. The people voted on this, Mr. Speaker. We talked about equity, yes, and different factors. Again, the Premier of the Province, this government, the caucus, all, are behind the Premier on this one. We will get the deal. If it is not today, if it is not tomorrow, it will be next week, next month, next year, whatever the case may be. The people who want this oil around the world want stability, and they want to deal with Canada, and Atlantic Canada in particular, Mr. Speaker. We will get what we want in due course, and what is rightly ours to get.

The deficit, again - no, I mentioned the deficit.

Long-term debt, Mr. Speaker. When we took over the government, it was a $12 billion debt that this Province had. Right now, in reality, we are down to $10 billion, in two-and-a-half years. At that rate, we are making great, great progress on the debt of this Province. Most financial institutions, that I am aware of, will give us credit and kudos for that.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things that I want to talk about, but one I am going to say before I sit down deals with my district, and that is the Torbay Bypass. We have announced in this Budget, right in the Budget, it talks about the Canadian Strategic Infrastructure Fund, basically, and how there are a number of projects that we have put forward to Ottawa for approval. We have come up with our money for the Torbay Bypass. Right now, the old Torbay Road, the two-lane highway, basically has 15,000 vehicles a day travelling that road. It is now becoming a safety issue for me, and it has been something that has been ongoing for a number of years.

Mr. Speaker, when Minister Efford was the provincial Minister of Transportation a number of years ago, he really put that issue on the back burner. We, as a government, have now decided that this is a priority. We have put it forward. The Province has come up with the money for their share. It is going to cost anywhere between $13 million and $20 million, when you look at land acquisition. It is thirteen kilometres long. We have come up with our share of the money.

As a matter of fact, myself and the Minister of Transportation have meetings arranged to meet with the federal minister responsible for this in the very near future, hopefully before the end of this month, to discuss the Torbay Bypass and some other priorities that this Administration have. So, hopefully, we will see at least some sort of a start on this, this year, with respect to land acquisition, engineering, these types of things, and hopefully get actual construction of the road next year.

There is so much to talk about with this Budget: health, an increase of millions of dollars this year. Education,151 teachers kept in the school system this year. Again, we have to congratulate the Minister of Education on that, in putting that case forth and making it to Cabinet, and achieving the fact that we will be keeping 151 teachers in the school system, who would normally have come out based on the formula that the former Administration and the members on that side of the House put in place. Again, as I said, infrastructure, we are talking about spending $2 billion in infrastructure in this Province over the next six years. I have never seen it, I have never heard tell of anything like that, in the thirteen years that I have been here.

Mr. Speaker, my time is almost up now. It has gone pretty quickly but I think, again, this Budget, in the thirteen years that I have been here, is second to none. It, by far, outperforms any Budget that I have seen in thirteen years, and any Budget that I am aware of in recent history, so I will certainly support this. I would expect the members on the other side of the House, even though they will get up and criticize for the sake of criticizing, when it comes to the vote to pass this Budget, I expect it would be unanimous, and members opposite -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: There are lots of good, positive things in this Budget for every district in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

With that, I think I will take my seat. I am sure I will have occasion to speak on this Budget again.

Thank you.

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 of the House, I think tomorrow we are back at 2:00 o'clock to debate the private member's motion that I think we will see unanimous support on, for the Member for Port de Grave's motion tomorrow, I would think. Certainly, from our perspective, it is a private member's motion that I do not anticipate anyone not supporting conceptually what is there.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I do now move that the House adjourn until 2:00 o'clock tomorrow, Wednesday.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do now adjourn until tomorrow, 2:00 o'clock, Wednesday.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow at two of the clock in the afternoon.

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