MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon we are very pleased to welcome forty-nine Grade 6 students from Villa Nova Junior High School in Manuels, Conception Bay South. They live in the District of Topsail. We also want to welcome their teachers, Ms Darlene Moulton and Ms Faye Noseworthy.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon the Member for the District of Twillingate & Fogo; the hon. the Member for the District of Windsor-Springdale; the hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue; the hon. the Member for the District of Trinity-Bay de Verde; the hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune; and, the hon. the Member for the District of Exploits.

The Chair recognizes the Member for the District of Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize a young lady in my district who was just awarded the Dr. Warren and Catherine Ball Memorial Entrance Scholarship for $30,000.

Jasmine Compton is the daughter of Valerie and Herbert Compton of Twillingate, and is a student at J.M. Olds Collegiate in that town. Jasmine obtained a 98.8 per cent average on the six Level III courses submitted for this Scholarship. Such an achievement is not realized without a tremendous amount of hard work and dedication.

In the fall, Jasmine will be attending Memorial University, where she plans to do a commerce degree, and once that is complete she plans to go on to do a degree in commercial law.

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to meet with Jasmine on Friday night at her graduation at J.M. Olds Collegiate where she was the valedictorian. I can honestly say that Jasmine's personality and demeanor certainly match her academic achievements.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join with me in extending to Jasmine our sincere congratulations on this achievement, and to wish her the very best in all of her future endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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, hon. colleagues, I rise before this House today to congratulate Indian River High student Alycia Edison on being selected for entry into Memorial University of Newfoundland's HORIZONS Program.

The HORIZONS Program is a Fry Family Foundation Junior Leadership Award. This award is given to applicants who wish to develop their community involvement and leadership ability and are going to enter into post-secondary studies at Memorial University.

Alycia receives a $200 cash award in the summer of 2007 and a $1,000 award when she enters Memorial University. She will also attend several Province-wide leadership events starting in Level I and then into her adventure at Memorial University.

My hon. colleagues, please join with me in congratulating Alycia Edison on her outstanding performance, and also the teachers and staff of Indian River High for a job well done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to extend congratulations to North Atlantic Refinery, who recently was named Newfoundland and Labrador's 2007 Exporter of the Year and NOIA's Community Champion.

With exports in excess of $2 billion each year, North Atlantic beat out fifty-five other companies nominated for the 2007 Newfoundland and Labrador Exporter of the Year Award.

Mr. Speaker, a little over one month later, North Atlantic received the Community Champion Award at NOIA's thirtieth anniversary dinner. Just last year the company was named one of Canada's top employers.

The Exporter of the Year, North Atlantic, puts back approximately $250,000 into the local economy each year through donations and sponsorships. They formed the Community Giving Program in February 1998 and, since then, Community Giving has supported local non-profit organizations with more than $2 million in donations and sponsorship.

Mr. Speaker, North Atlantic fuels exceed all United States clean fuel regulations. The company pumps about $140 million annually back into the provincial economy. With 70 per cent of the workforce living within a fifty kilometre radius of the refinery, it is a boost to the rural economy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the House to join with me in extending congratulations to North Atlantic Refinery who has been awarded with the Newfoundland and Labrador Exporter of the Year for 2007 and NOIA's Community Champion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend congratulations to Cheryl Ash, a constituent of mine from Hant's Harbour who was chosen by Keyin College, Carbonear Campus as the recipient of a scholarship and the John Champion Award at her graduation on April 20.

Mr. Speaker, this award is presented to people who are deemed to represent the ideals of John Champion, who was a devoted family man, an avid outdoorsman and a respected community member that helped with the establishment of the College.

Mr. Speaker, Cheryl certainly personifies many of the qualities attributed to this award. She is a very active school council member with Perlwin Elementary, Baccalieu Collegiate and Keyin College. She is an assistant coach with the community youth cross country running club, a member of the United Church Women (UCW) and the Hant's Harbour Recreation.

While I will not tell her age, Cheryl, after twenty years, has returned back to school. She is a true inspiration to adults and a role model for our youth. She has received her Home Support Worker Diploma, graduating with honours at a 97.3 per cent average, which clearly demonstrates her determination and drive to succeed.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all hon. members join with me in congratulating Cheryl Ash on this recent achievement.

Thank you very much, 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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to recognize and honour Marie Penny, who is to be inducted into the Junior Achievement Business Hall of Fame at the St. John's Convention Centre on May 24.

Marie Penny took control of John Penny & Sons in 1949 and was known as "Queen of the Fishing Fleet' for her ability to manage such a fast growing business. She was vibrant, energetic and well respected among her peers and within the town of Ramea.

For example, in 1957 she was selected to dine with Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip in Ottawa. Later in her career she became the first female president of the Fisheries Council of Canada. She was also named an honourary princess of the Capilano Indian Band. Such recognition keeps her memory alive as a remarkable woman who did very well in a highly competitive industry. Even though she passed away in 1970, today Marie Penny is still fondly remembered in Ramea.

Mr. Speaker, Marie Penny ran the family business successfully, like her husband, her father and grandfather had done, but her heirs were not able to keep the business in increasingly difficult times.

Today, the house that was her home is a tourist home and is the largest and most impressive home in Ramea. It is set in a lawn that is as large as half a dozen ordinary housing lots. It is comfortably furnished in a style that makes one think of the homes of rural gentry in the England of Agatha Christie movies. Portraits of various past Penny's look down from the wall. Inside and out, the building looks like a manor house. There are surely very few other houses in Newfoundland and Labrador that have such distinct servants quarters.

Mr. Speaker, this lady deserves to be remembered with admiration and affection and I ask all members of this House to join me in recognizing the accomplishments of Marie S. Penny and her induction into the Junior Achievements Business Hall of Fame.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to stand in this House to congratulate five volunteer firefighters from the Peterview Volunteer Fire Department for being selected as recipients of the plaques of commendation for their participation in the rescue efforts during the tragic drownings in Peterview on March 18, 2006.

Mr. Speaker, this tragic event occurred on Saturday evening, March 18, 2006, when three snowmobiles carrying four people went through the ice at Gills Point between Peterview and Norris Arm. That night three lives were lost. The conditions were treacherous, the ice was thin, the water was cold and even in the darkness these firefighters made a final rescue attempt without fear for their own lives.

Mr. Speaker, this past week the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Fire Chiefs and Firefighters notified the Peterview Fire Department that the following have been selected to receive the commendations. They are: Darius Brenton, Derrick Sheppard, Wallace Sheppard, Robert Taylor, and Chris Torraville.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating these five heroic firefighters on this prestigious award.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by ministers.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in this House today and announce an exciting initiative being undertaken by the Public Service Commission.

Over the past four years, our government has strategically invested to create jobs not just within the public service, but to foster the economic diversification necessary to see job creation in the private sector as well. While we still face challenges, we also know that labour force statistics for our Province are better than they have been in decades.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to announce the Public Service Commission will be hosting Career Expos in St. John's, Corner Brook, Gander and Happy Valley-Goose Bay. The St. John's event will be held on May 29, and the other three locations will host Expos on May 31.

These events will highlight the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador Public Service as an employer of choice.

Mr. Speaker, these are the people in our Province who work hard to co-ordinate a booming tourism industry. They plow our roads and ensure they are safe for driving. They manage our forests and facilitate mining opportunities. They are there for all of life's big moments - issuing birth certificates, driver's licences and, yes, even collecting our taxes.

They keep our communities safe, save lives each and every day, and care for our seniors. They educate our children and lay the groundwork for lifelong success. These are just some of the many career choices that exist right here, right now, in our Public Service.

The Career Expo will provide important information including details on the hiring process, current and anticipated opportunities, employee benefits, types of occupations, position qualifications, and salary ranges.

Mr. Speaker, what better time than now when government will be recruiting more than 1,000 people in the Public Service this year. This is in addition to the more than 5,700 person years of employment that will be created as a result of our investment into our infrastructure strategy.

We all know that there are labour shortages elsewhere in the country, but we also know there are exciting opportunities right here at home.

Our competitors use these types of events to attract the skills and talent necessary for effective program and service delivery. In today's competitive global environment, this government intends to keep pace.

Mr. Speaker, a proactive and positive measure, this Career Expo was conceived to support our government's strategic human resource planning and will allow us to strengthen an already dynamic and very skilled Public Service. I am especially proud to note that this type of event is unprecedented within the provincial government.

Mr. Speaker, I invite all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador to watch for details of the events in the days to come, and encourage all who are interested in opportunities with the Provincial Public Service to participate in our Career Expo.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the Premier for an advance copy of his statement, but I just wonder if he sees the irony and the hypocrisy in his words, because I am sure they are not lost on the civil service of this Province.

The Premier who stands today and praises the work of the civil service is the same Premier, I say, Mr. Speaker, who slashed hundreds, if not thousands, of civil service jobs in the first year of his mandate, including 500 teachers in the fist two years of his mandate that he showed the door.

The same Premier, I say, Mr. Speaker, who closed courthouses and social services offices and told those who worked there to go home. Mr. Speaker, the same Premier who turned year-round highway depots into seasonal depots, without any regard for what that did to the individuals and the families of those individuals who worked for those depots. The same Premier who promised never to legislate civil service workers back to work did it in the first year of his mandate, and made them suffer through a two-year wage freeze. What hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker! What hypocrisy!

I am glad to see that he did make note of some of the things that the civil service do, and it must be something that is in their psyche, because here is what they do: They issue birth certificates, they issue driver's licences, and they collect our taxes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted has expired.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I say, they raised every single one of these fees (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Colleagues -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

Needless to say, I am very happy to see this kind of announcement, and I thank the Premier for the advance copy, but I would like to point out the 1,000 jobs, I am well aware, are much needed jobs in the Public Service.

One of the things that struck me during the Estimates discussions was the many positions that had not been filled last year and that this year are going to filled in various departments. I hope that some of these are those positions.

The one thing I would encourage the Premier to have his eye to is that, in these Expos, equal opportunities are visually shown for women so that women will see some of the higher paying -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MS MICHAEL: Leave, please, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I really would encourage the Premier to see that, in these Expos, women and other under-represented groups will see themselves in the jobs that are being advertised in the Expos; that visually they will see women doing work that has been male-dominated work; that women will see themselves, young women in particular, as being able to do work that will be the higher paying work, not just behind a counter but on the machines that do the snow plowing, et cetera. Then, perhaps, I will be a little bit happy with these Expos if I see that kind of material, both in the written information and in the visuals.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to inform hon. members of the recent publication of the second edition of Diversity ~ Opportunity and Growth, Profiles of Immigrant Entrepreneurs in Newfoundland and Labrador. This magazine highlights the significant contribution being made by twenty immigrant entrepreneurs who have established businesses in our Province.

I am quite confident that there are many more successes stories like these to come, now that government's $6 million immigration strategy is in place. Diversity ~ Opportunity and Growth will help significantly increase the attraction and retention of immigrants to our Province.

Implementation of the strategy begins with the establishment of the Office of Immigration and Multiculturalism. This office will lead efforts to promote the Province to prospective immigrants and implement measures to retain them so that more business-minded individuals and skilled workers come to our Province and settle here.

The new immigration strategy includes targets to triple the number of immigrants from the current number of 450 per year and double the retention rate from 36 per cent to 70 per cent within five years.

The strategy is clearly needed, given changes in the makeup of our population. We need people if we are to grow our Province, attract investment and address rapidly emerging skill shortages in our economy. Increased immigration is one vital part of the solution.

Immigrants bring new thinking, innovation and creativity to directly benefit our local economies. The twenty creative individuals featured in this magazine account for over 350 jobs in our Province. That is a ratio of nearly twenty jobs for each immigrant entrepreneur. It is in this Province's interest to attract more immigrant entrepreneurs and employ more of our residents.

Immigrants offer a wealth of connections to the global marketplace and can open doors for Newfoundland and Labrador business. Immigrants also bring their culture, their food, their music and their art, all of which enriches a shared experience for residents of our Province.

I encourage all hon. members to read the stories of these individuals who live in and run businesses in urban as well as many rural communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. They are helping make our Province a more prosperous place.

I am pleased to stand here today and acknowledge in this House their effort, their commitment and their drive. I would encourage all hon. members to join me in doing this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement, and to say that at this point in time I have not had the opportunity to read that publication about those twenty entrepreneurs, but I am sure, Mr. Speaker, I will get that opportunity.

I want to say that I think it is wonderful to bring more people into our Province to help create jobs. I know in my area there are quite a few who have moved to our Province and have been able to create jobs for many of our residents in that area. Mr. Speaker, even though this is a good initiative, and I have to say that no doubt many people who will be coming to our Province may not be of the calibre who will be starting up businesses, some of them may not be skilled workers. All I hope is that the supports will be made available for those who will not be able to do that, so that they will be able to stay in our Province and not join the long lineups that will have to move out shortly after they arrive, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I would like to congratulate the individuals recognized in the magazine quoted, though I, too, have not had a chance to read this yet and I look forward to reading it.

As a first generation descendant of an immigrant family of entrepreneurs, I fully understand the contribution that immigrant people can bring to our country. However, I do hope that we are going to support all immigrants who come to our door in the same way that we are speaking of entrepreneurs here today, because we need to see the immigrants come on their own demand. So if we have professionals, for example, like doctors who come here, I hope that our immigration plan is going to help them with accreditation because I have met too many doctors who are here in St. John's and have had to leave because they cannot work in their field.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MS MICHAEL: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MS MICHAEL: So there are many barriers for professionals who come into our country and even though they might meet those barriers elsewhere in Canada, I hope that here in Newfoundland and Labrador we find ways to work with the accreditation issue. That is one.

The other one of course is the immigrants who come and make a place for themselves and because they have claimed refugee status, get refused and find themselves in sanctuary in this Province, and we still have that situation.

I would encourage the minister to continue working on those issues with the same passion that he seems to have in this statement for entrepreneurs.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral questions.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it has now been over a month and a half since fish harvesters and plant workers have been able to return to work along the Northeast Coast in Labrador because of severe ice conditions. We all know that our Fisheries Minister, our current Fisheries Minister, forgot to mention a need for an EI extension for those affected individuals when he met with Minister Hearn in Ottawa last Sunday.

I ask the minister today: What discussions have you had with your federal counterpart since that meeting last Sunday pertaining to this very serious issue?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I never forget to mention anything to the federal minister when I have an opportunity to meet with him. I met with him in Ottawa, I guess a week Sunday past, on a very specific matter; a very specific matter important to a lot of people in a lot of communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. We discussed that matter and we continue to discuss that matter.

On the matter of ice conditions along the Northeast Coast and the Coast of Labrador in particular, Mr. Speaker, that matter has been raised with the federal minister on numerous occasions by numerous people. It has been raised at the ministerial level, it has been raised at the officials level, it has been raised with the Minister Responsible for EI, it has been raised by the Leader of the Opposition, by members on this side of the House, by the President of the FFAW, by numerous people. So it is not an issue that is relative to the government alone. It is one that we all have a role to play and keep in front of the minister, and we have all done that and will continue to do it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, you missed a golden opportunity to, at least, bring it to his face when you met with him in Ottawa last week. Unfortunately, you forgot to do that.

My question is for the Premier, Mr. Speaker.

Environment Canada is now saying that these ice conditions could last for another month. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people have now been without a source of income for well over a month, yet we hear nothing from this government. Surely, there are members opposite, just like there are members over here, who hear on a daily basis the cry from their constituents, but yet they remain silent.

I ask the Premier: Will you step in to help these fisherpeople who are in such a bad need right now?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, let me repeat once again. I missed no opportunity to raise anything with anybody. People on this side of the House, including myself, including hon. ministers, including members who have constituents affected by this matter, raise it all the time at every chance we get at the ministerial level, at officials level with the appropriate minister, including the minister representing the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in the Government of Canada. We know how important this is. We will continue to press our federal colleagues on it.

At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, it is the Government of Canada who controls billions of dollars of surplus in the EI fund. It is the Government of Canada who has the opportunity to do something to help the people who are affected by this and those people will have our 100 per cent full support in trying to make that happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, the Premier is not concerned. He would not even answer the question I asked him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has been willing to go it alone on a number of projects and that he has even gone so far as to say we do not need the federal government to do these projects.

I ask the Premier: What is it that you do not understand about the people who live in rural Newfoundland and Labrador? They are in a desperate need of help. Some of them have been without an income, they and their families, for well over a month now. I know that is hard for you to understand, but I want to know: Why are you sitting idly by and watching the federal government do nothing whatsoever to help these people and help them with their plight? When are you going to step in and try to do something for these individuals, I say to the Premier?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, if there isn't a movement out there to bring Jim Bennett back, for God's sake, will somebody start one!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, how low can you go to suggest that the Premier does not understand? How low can you go?

The people out there in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, who are struggling, appreciate the fact that we have a man leading the government of this Province who understands their plight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, that is why this man and his approval rating is in the stratosphere and they are below the surface of the earth.

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 minister and I say it to the Premier, if you had more interest in the plight of rural Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as you do in political polls, something might be done to help those individuals who are in such dire straits today, I say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair asks for the co-operation of all members.

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition, who is about to put his question.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week the Minister of Fisheries stated: No deal on the sale of FPI would take place unless the provincial government had unfettered access to the quotas. Yesterday, he reiterated that statement in the House of Assembly. However, as media reported again yesterday, the minister's position now appears to have moved from having unfettered control of the quotas to having fettered access to these quotas.

I ask the minister: What is your government's position today? What is your position here and what is it going to be when you walk outside the House? Because you have two very different positions on a daily basis. Are we going to have outright ownership of those quotas if a sale takes place of FPI?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I was born and grew up in Fleur de Lys, on the headland of White Bay. I will take no lessons from the Leader of the Opposition when it comes to rural Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I need know no lectures, Mr. Speaker, from the Leader of the Opposition when it comes to understanding clawing and scratching your way through survival in rural Newfoundland. None, Mr. Speaker. None do I want and none will I take, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: In terms of the question on fisheries, the answer is the same today as it was yesterday, as it was the day before, as it will be tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister that he has no monopoly on poverty, and if he did think a lot about the people he represented and the people on the Baie Verte Peninsula and every other peninsula north of the Bonavista Peninsula, you would be doing something more than yelling and screaming and talking about political polls. You would be doing something to help those individuals.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it is our understanding that there was a Cabinet meeting supposed to be scheduled for last evening to discuss the new proposal that would see OCI purchase FPI's primary processing assets.

I ask the minister: Did the meeting take place, and was the decision made as to whether the government was willing to accept the proposal for the sale of FPI?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what kind of poverty the hon. gentleman is talking about. I do not know if it was intellectual poverty or whatever it was; but, Mr. Speaker, I do not intent to stand in this House, as a minister, and confirm whether Cabinet meetings took place or whether they did not, talk about the agenda or confirm the agenda, what was on it or what was not on it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman served in Cabinet for a while. I do not suppose he will ever see the inside of the Cabinet room again, unless he is invited to make a presentation, but he knows that the Cabinet agenda, the discussion of Cabinet, is not public knowledge, and I have no intention, Mr. Speaker, of disclosing to this House or anybody when Cabinet meets and what Cabinet discusses.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, alarming news has come to light in recent years about the false testing results involving breast screening in the Eastern Health district. In recent days the news has become even more disturbing, as it has been exposed that close to 50 per cent of those tested positive for this disease had been given false information that prevented them from receiving the appropriate life-saving treatment.

I ask the minister: Has his department carried out any independent inquiries and investigations into this shocking matter from a departmental level, or external inquiries from the findings already uncovered by the Eastern Health Authority? If so, is the minister prepared to release those results?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, we fully understand and fully appreciate the anxiety that has been created for many individuals and families in this Province as a result of the test results that came about as a result of some, I guess, false negatives that occurred over a period of about five years. That was a very unfortunate set of circumstances.

One of the things that has happened as a result of that, there were some 900-and-some-odd tests repeated last year. As a result of those repeat tests, there were about 117 or so women who had their course of treatment changed as a result of the new test results.

On the bigger picture that he has raised with respect to the future and with respect to an investigation or analysis, there was a complete review done of that program and service. What has happened: at the time that surfaced, a halt was put in place. No further tests were done until very recently. That area has now reopened. We now have a dedicated lab of dedicated technologists, dedicated pathologists, a Centre of Excellence with pathologists and oncologists providing that support to that particular program. We now have a quality assurance program in place that ensures there is an ongoing monitoring program to ensure that does not happen again in the future.

We have put in place some really strong, I say, Mr. Speaker, some very stringent and some very strong requirements to ensure quality, some additional training for the technologists and the pathologists working in that area, and pooled the resources we have in the Province in the creation of the Centre of Excellence. So, on a go-forward basis, the women of Newfoundland and Labrador can be assured -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. BALL: Like I said, it was a long answer to the independent inquiries.

Recently, news stories indicated that Eastern Health has been aware of these erroneous results for several years. In fact, the Canadian Cancer Society has indicated they have been lobbying for quite some time for the information related to the tests; really, since 2005.

I ask the minister: How long did you and your department have the results of these re-tests, and when were the women involved notified of the errors?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I understand it, the 900-and-some-odd tests that were redone last year, there were some 300-and-some-odd of those, just a little over 300 of those tests, that were found to be inaccurate. That information was available to Eastern Health last year. That information was available to Eastern Health and to the department last year.

In December of 2006, Eastern Health held a techno-briefing where they provided information to the media and to the general public on the whole issue of the history, the chronology, of what actually took place, so there was an understanding of the period of time involved when these test results were inaccurate, what the response had been up to that particular point, what the re-testing had actually disclosed. So, Eastern Health provided that kind of briefing in December of 2006, I say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, I was actually more concerned about when the women were notified about this problem.

While this problem may extend beyond our own boundaries, women in our Province are gravely affected by the very serious error in testing. In fact, the 307 women whom the minister spoke about in our Province were provided with the wrong results, and 104 of these now require different treatment.

I ask the minister: Has the equipment used to test the hormone receptor been replaced? If not, is it tested on a regular basis to ensure the results now provided are accurate, and are trustworthy so that public confidence is restored in our health care system?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I think, Mr. Speaker, if the member will refer to the first answer I gave him, in terms of the response and what has happened since then, I have given the member here, and I give the people of Newfoundland and Labrador a reassurance that new protocols are, in fact, in place. We do have a new quality assurance program. We do have a dedicated lab dealing with this issue, these tests. We do have a Centre of Excellence created where we pool the expertise we have in pathology and oncology, and the technologists who work in the labs have come together to create that pool of resources that we need to truly call ourselves as having a Centre of Excellence to deal with breast cancer testing in this Province.

We want to provide some comfort to the women of Newfoundland and Labrador that the tests that they are getting done today have been subjected to a very rigorous quality assurance program. They should be assured that what happened last year, or what had happened over a period of about five years, should not repeat itself in Newfoundland and Labrador again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: As we all know, Mr. Speaker, our Province's population is aging. With an older population comes a need for improved and expanded services to address the challenges. Home support workers increasing play a more significant role in our health care system. In addition to providing cost-saving services to patients discharged from hospitals, they also provide support to people living with disabilities. Unfortunately, Budget 2007 failed to recognize the valuable contribution and the struggles of these workers who face low wages, increased responsibility and who work under stressful conditions.

I ask the minister how he plans to deal with the shortfall of home support workers, including compensation and other benefits, to stabilize the important workforce?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago, my colleague, the Minister of Finance, stood in this House and read a Budget Speech. In that speech he highlighted the significant issues we are going to deal with in Newfoundland and Labrador this year; major investments in all fronts. One of the other pieces as a part of the budgetary process, there is an Estimates document. In that Estimates document, it outlines all of the expenditures of every department.

The member opposite sat in this room last Wednesday night, I believe it was, in the Estimates and never asked one question; never raised that question at all about home support. Had he raised the question, I would have referred him to page 202 in the Budget document, and I say on line 3.1.01.10, there is a line there that says Grants and Subsidies. If you had to ask me the question last week, what was included in that figure, I would have laid out $2.5 million for you to respond to home support -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: - that would have provided a salary increase for home support workers and another $4 million to increase capacity for home support. All you had to do was ask it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, I am sure when I leave here today the question I am going to be asked, so I will ask the minister right now: How much an hour are you prepared to pay home support workers and how much in block funding will you give to the agencies?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Number one, Mr. Speaker, we do not provide block funding to agencies. We provide them for services they provide. If they do not provide the service, we do not pay them. So, there is no block funding for agencies. The increase equates to about twenty-five cents an hour for home support workers, I say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Minister, in the recent Budget the government, through Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, offered a rebate program for domestic users of diesel generated power in Labrador, allowing for reductions in power rates to consumers.

I ask the minister today: Have you considered a similar rebate program for commercial and industrial power users in that region of Labrador, and have you done any analysis on what that cost would be to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, a full analysis was done. Everything was taken under consideration. At this point in time we decided to offer a rebate program to domestic users and that has been very welcomed news to these communities along the coast of Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the minister: In that analysis, I am sure you have estimated what the cost would be to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to extend that rebate program to those businesses and industrial users. I am wondering if she could give me what that cost would be and to table the report and analysis that was completed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will take the question under advisement. I do not have those figures with me today, and whatever information is available, Mr. Speaker, we are more than glad to provide it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the government opposite claims to want to support rural Newfoundland and Labrador communities. Well, this is a rural area of our Province where businesses are paying nineteen cents a kilowatt hour for power, whereas their other customers that are on the grid in Labrador pay less than five cents a kilowatt hour for power.

Minister, if you want to support your rural agenda, why not reduce the rates to those businesses and do it immediately?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are a number of issues that have to be considered when these matters are discussed. Certainly, competitiveness to businesses, subsidies, all of these kinds of things are extremely important and need to be given due consideration. This government is making significant investments all throughout this Province, but particularly in rural parts of the Province and particularly in rural parts of Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to come back to the Minister of Health and Community Services. I would like to do a couple of follow-up questions with the question that was started by the MHA for Humber Valley.

Many of the women who were affected by the poor testing that went on did not receive direct contact from Eastern Health but learned about it through the media. Women of this Province and their families really deserve to know personally what had happened.

Minister, with regard to the quality control that you are telling us about, what has been put in place to assure that this kind of lack of direct information to a patient is never going to happen again?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Test results - the member is talking about a change. Test results always have been communicated to patients. I think the difficulty in this particular instance here was that there were a number of tests that were done and the tests were inaccurate. What has happened here, when that was discovered the tests were completed again, and the new results were communicated directly to each of the patients.

As I understand it, Eastern Health had direct contact with either the patient themselves, and in some cases it was through the family physician, but the information did get communicated to the patients. The unfortunate thing about it was many patients heard about the retesting process, as you have described, through the media, rather than having it coming directly from Eastern Health themselves.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I am asking the minister is, I am aware of the fact that they heard about it through the media instead of it coming through Eastern Health, itself. What, in the quality control, is now in place that this kind of thing will never happen again?

I understand about tests going to a doctor, I have tests myself, but when an error is made people should not be learning about that error and the retesting through the media. So what in the quality control will make sure that this will not happen again?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: One of the integral parts of a quality control program includes the whole process of reporting, reporting to patients, reporting to physicians, referring physicians, ongoing treating physicians and family physicians. Inherent in a quality, quality control program, which is what we have here now, are the whole issues around protocols for communication, protocols for disseminating reports coming from those tests. So, as a part of the normal structure of a quality control program, these are some of the components.

I say to the member, inherent in the quality control program that I outlined a moment ago, are mechanisms in place to ensure appropriate reporting takes place.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

I do not think the minister knows the answer to my question, but I will ask one more question.

I am asking the minister now, since he is convinced that we have an excellently run pathology department and everything is going so well. We have tremendous people in that department, and I certainly hope we do, and we have quality control.

Would the minister communicate to his Eastern Health the need to do a public information program with the details, so that people will feel confident, so that if I ever have to have a test for breast cancer, that I will feel confident staying here in my own Province to have that done?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the member opposite, that is an excellent suggestion and I will, in fact, relay that directly to the CEO of Eastern Health, because it is an ideal suggestion. Thank you very much for making it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week I asked the Minister of Education if she had received recommendations related to a review of teacher allocations in this Province. The minister was very careful in her answer, saying she would receive the final report within the next couple of weeks.

The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that the minister is well aware of what the recommendations will be and she is dragging out the process and not implementing these recommendations in a timely manner.

I ask the minister: Why are you ignoring the needs which exist in the system and not implementing these recommendations for the start of the new school year in September?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that we are very concerned about the teacher allocation formula. In the absence of a new formula we certainly were not prepared to go by the Sparkes-Williams formula which would have seen an additional 137 teachers come out of the system this year.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make some acknowledgments here about the teacher allocation formula and what has happened. Since we have been in government, Mr. Speaker, there has been some reduction in teachers - however, not in the last couple of years - to the amount of 363 teachers since we took government that have been removed from the system.

What is more important as you stand up and talk about the hundreds of teachers we took out, is that from 1996 until your last time in government, for the members opposite, you actually took out 1,434 teachers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, that formula was no longer working for us, and we will take our time to make sure that we have a formula that is relevant and works for the students of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like for the minister to be reminded that they took out 500 in a two-year time span. They have been four years in power, Mr. Speaker, and they are living in the past.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Port de Grave, and I ask him to put his question.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government and this minister have been playing a shell game with teacher allocations in this Province for the past three years. Parents and students deserve better, Mr. Speaker, and they would want the recommendations contained in this report acted upon immediately.

I ask the minister: Why are you dragging your feet in making these changes when there is an obvious need to address the special circumstances facing both rural schools and also areas where there has been growth in population?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important, if we are going to have facts out there about the teacher allocation, that we know exactly what we are talking about, so I am going to lay some facts out there right now.

In the year 2004-2005, we removed 256 teachers from the system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, in 2005-2006, 145 teachers; in 2006-2007, zero; and, in 2007-2008 none came out, plus we added thirteen additional teachers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BURKE: I will go back a few years. If I get another question, I will go back some more years. In 1996-1997, 136 teachers came out; in 1997-1998, 468 teachers; in 1998-1999, 214 teachers; and, in 1999-2000, 182 teachers.

So, if anybody wants to talk about taking massive teachers out of the system, it is you who know what you are talking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Port de Grave, for a final supplementary.

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

I guess -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Port de Grave, on a final supplementary.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I understand why the Premier said some time ago about the wild, wooly kingdom of politics.

Mr. Speaker, if everything is so rosy as the minister is trying to tell us here today, why did she spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to have this plan brought in, in the first place? They keep ignoring the concerns of the President of the NLTA.

I ask the minister: Will she show some compassion for a change and recognize the urgency related to implementing the improvements to the ISSP/Pathways Model, and will she implement those changes before September?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, why we had to go through the process to develop a new formula and look at what is going on in the system is simply because the former Administration left us with an allocation formula that just did not make sense for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday past, I believe it was, I was asked questions about how much our department paid EWA for consulting fees on the Trans Gulf fibre optic project. I said I would endeavour to get the information, and I table that here today, Mr. Speaker.

As well, I was asked if I could table the terms that the department had to meet in negotiating the final contract with Persona and the other partners in the Trans Gulf project. Again, Mr. Speaker, I table that information.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I stand to table the 2006 Annual Report of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Section 49.(2) of the Financial Administration Act, I wish to table the attached list of temporary loans that were raised under Section 48 of the Act since the last report to the House on May 1, 2006.

Also, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Section 55.(3) of the Financial Administration Act, I wish to report that there were no guaranteed loans paid out by the Province since the last annual report also on May 1, 2006. While there are none to be tabled, it is necessary to indicate that in a report to the House.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Section 55.1.(2) of the Act, I wish to report that there has been no guaranteed debt of any Crown corporation or agency assumed by the Province since the May 1, 2006 annual report.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today to table the report of the tribunal appointed under Section 28 of the Provincial Court Act, 1991, to report on salaries and benefits for provincial court judges. The report contains the tribunal's recommendations respecting indemnity for provincial court judges.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Notices of motion.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

I give notice that I -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has called Notices of Motion.

I ask members for their co-operation.

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

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

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act. (Bill 14)

Mr. Speaker, I further give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pension Act, 1991. (Bill 16)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

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

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act, 1992. (Bill 19)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act. (Bill 13)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997. (Bill 15)

I also give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Trust And Loan Corporations. (Bill 17)

I further give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Private Investigation And Security Services Act. (Bill 18)

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair asks members for their co-operation. The House can only proceed if the Chair has the full co-operation of all members.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, who is presenting a petition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to present a petition on behalf of the constituents in my District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. It is related to the power or electricity rates for businesses in that particular area of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, recently government in its Budget did reduce the diesel generated rates to customers in Southern and Northern Labrador by incorporating them as part of the Labrador grid rate system. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, they will see their light bills substantially lowered to what they have been in the past. What I do not support is the fact that government stopped at reducing the rates for domestic customers and did not continue on to reduce the rate for businesses and industrial customers in that part of the Province as well.

Now, Mr. Speaker, just to make sure that people understand this. In Labrador, the electrical rates were always broken down into three very distinct regions. Labrador City and Wabush was on one particular rate. Goose Bay, Churchill Falls, North West River area, was on another rate, and the South and North Coast of Labrador was on a separate rate.

Mr. Speaker, what has happened is that over the course of the last three to four years the rates in Labrador West have been increased by about 150 per cent over that period of time to bring them inline with what is now called a Labrador grid rate. That rate applies to all domestic customers in Labrador, but does not apply to business or industrial customers. This is the problem, Mr. Speaker, because right now you have businesses on the North and South Coast of Labrador that are still paying - when you include the lifeline block rate and the basic monthly charge, their rates are still up to about nineteen cents a kilowatt hour. However, if you look at other businesses that are part of that Labrador grid system, what you see is a rate that falls below five cents a kilowatt hour. Meaning the cost of doing business for any kind of a business owner, whether you have a garage, whether you have a restaurant, whether you have a hair salon, it does not matter, the cost of doing business for them is still four times greater than all the other businesses in Labrador, and therefore it is not proportional.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is not a new issue. It has been around for a long time and it has continued to be pushed by myself and by many others in Labrador. In fact, I have been to the Public Utilities Board no less than three times on this particular issue, but what changes this right now is the fact that the current government is increasing its royalties out of Labrador by more than $200 million a year, currently, as we speak. Therefore, it is only right that they start giving some of that money back -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS JONES: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the current government is now taking more than $200 million in new revenues out of Labrador alone, of which $50 million a year comes from the sale of recall power and winter availability power on the Upper Churchill deal and nearly another $150 million in new royalties out of the Voisey's Bay development project.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think that argument alone, this new money alone that is flowing into the government out of royalties on resources in Labrador substantiates the argument that the time has now come to bring those rates in line. That is what these people are asking the government to do today.

I also know, Mr. Speaker, because I have had discussions with people in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and actually had a conversation with the Premier, that this is not entirely off the radar screen of government. I also know that due consideration is being given to it. I can only ask, on behalf of the people that I represent, that there be a sense of urgency around this as the businesses in that area need to be able to have a competitive edge with other businesses in Labrador. It would be seen as definitely a way of giving back to those who desperately need it in these regions of Labrador.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to present a petition, I will read it into the record, seeing it is the first time that I have - the petition of the undersigned residents humbly -

WHEREAS there is a shortage of doctors to service the medical needs of people in many areas of this Province; and

WHEREAS this shortage of general practitioners is causing people to have to either go without the service of a doctor or depend on the outpatients and emergency services offered at regional hospitals; and

WHEREUPON the undersigned your petitioners call upon all Members of the House of Assembly to urge government to improve efforts to recruit and retain general practitioners so all areas of the Province have adequate service.

And, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I guess I will be referencing the situation in the local area of the district that I represent, but I am sure there are many areas in this Province that can be looked at in the same manner, and probably there are areas of this Province that may not have the services that we do have in our area. We do have quite a few clinics in the area. There is a clinic in Upper Island Cove from time to time where the doctor comes in from the Carbonear area. We have a clinic in Spaniard's Bay that has two general practitioners. For quite some time there was only one in that location. We have two clinics in Bay Roberts. One has three general practitioners and the other has two.

I guess the major concern is that even with those doctors, when they are there with the full capacity that it is now, many of our people have to leave and come to Mount Pearl and St. John's to see a general practitioner. The major concern that I have received calls on and what the people are referring to is that one of the clinics in Bay Roberts now, where there are three general practitioners, two of those doctors will be leaving either late June or early July. That leaves a major number of people, in addition to the ones who are there now who do not have a general practitioner. Both of those doctors have large files of individuals who they have been seeing over a number of years and it is going to create a major problem.

I also want to say, having said that, the problem that is created when there are people with no doctor at all and the problems of sickness happen to come upon them, the first indication is that they go to the emergency unit at Carbonear Hospital. That is where the problem lies.

The staff at the hospital, I can tell you, are overburdened, overworked, because everybody flocks there. They do not have a general practitioner to call their own, and from time to time that place is blocked to capacity.

Mr. Speaker, I know I mentioned this to the minister during the Estimates, and no doubt there is probably a plan in place over a long term that, this issue, they will try to solve the situation. At the present time, Mr. Speaker, it is a major concern for the people in the area that I represent, and I am sure there are other areas of the Province that feel the same way.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I just want to call upon government to see that they try to recruit more general practitioners, not only in my area but all areas of the Province, and to say that hopefully something can be done sooner rather than later.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe the concurrence debate on the Resource Committee report was adjourned yesterday. I am not sure how much time is left, but a few minutes anyway, so the adjourned debate on the Resource Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Yesterday, at the end of the afternoon session, the debate was adjourned by the Leader of the Opposition. The Chair deems that there are twelve minutes left in the Leader of the Opposition's speaking time.

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know if I will need the twelve, but I understand that later on today I also get another hour on the Social Services Estimates.

Yesterday afternoon, I was talking about - the Member for Terra Nova asked me why I would not vote for a Budget that was giving me a tax decrease, or a decrease in the taxes which I pay. I tried to explain to him yesterday afternoon, but he did not quite seem to understand what I was saying so I will give it a little try again, Mr. Speaker.

The reason that I am not in favour of this tax deduction, and I will be voting against it in the Budget, is as simple as this, Mr. Speaker: Everybody is going to see a tax deduction. Everybody is going to see a tax deduction in this Budget, yes, I will grant that. The lower income earners, the middle income earners and the higher income earners, they are all going to see a tax break based on the income that they make. They are going to see a tax break.

The problem that I have, Mr. Speaker, and why I am voting against this initiative, is because the higher income earners get a double tax break in this Budget. They get a double tax break. The lower and the middle income earners in this Province will only get one tax break, whereas the higher income earners in the Province will see two. They will see two tax breaks.

The reason for that is, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister of Finance can get up and talk about it later if he wants, is because it says in their own press release, when they announced it, when these tax breaks are going to come into effect, this year and next, and they outlined what percentage the low and middle income earners - the reduction, the percentage - but it also says the personal income tax surtax will also be eliminated June 1, 2007. This tax was initially imposed on high income individuals to deal with fiscal deficits that no longer challenge this Province.

So, what they are saying is that whereas the vast majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will get a tax break, that small portion of the people who happen to earn the highest incomes in the Province will see two tax breaks, and that is because the income over, I think, $60,000 or $70,000 will now, the 9 per cent, I think, surtax on income over $70,000, will now be eliminated. Let me give you an example of what I am talking about.

You would expect, for example, that someone who makes $50,000 a year - and I am talking about individual incomes. I am not talking about combined incomes, family incomes. I am talking about individual incomes. According to the minister's own estimates, and they are there in his press release that he put out, for example, if you were to make $50,000 you will get a tax reduction next year of - less than you are paying this year - $911. So, Mr. Speaker, if you did the math you would assume that someone making $100,000 would get a $1,812 deduction, if we were all being treated fairly. If all classes of people in the Province were being treated fairly, the individual making $50,000 is going to get a reduction in his tax by $911 this year, and you would expect that someone making $100,000 would get a $1,822 reduction; but, in actual fact, Mr. Speaker, the individual making $100,000 a year will be getting a tax reduction of $2,441 which is about two-and-a-half times, Mr. Speaker, two-and-a-half times the individual who is making $50,000. I do not think that is fair. I do not think that is fair because, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the statistics in the Province, I think the average annual income is somewhere around $30,000 or less. That is for everyone who is working out there, the average. I know the members opposite do not want -

What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, I think the remedy to that would be to leave the 9 per cent surtax on the incomes over $70,000. Leave that tax there. Leave that tax there, and the money that the government would have given to a tax break to what is considered to be the rich in the Province - now, the members opposite might differ as to what they consider rich - leave that 9 per cent on the rich, but take what they would have saved by giving that tax reduction to those group of individuals and spread it over to the bottom lower classes, those who make less than $60,000 a year. Spread it over them so that the individuals who are making less than $60,000 a year will see a bigger tax reduction. That is the point that I am making. That is the reason why I am not voting for that initiative, I say to the Member for Terra Nova. I think it makes a lot of sense.

For example, $150,000 a year, this individual this year who is making that amount of money is going to get a $4,000 reduction in his tax. I think if you are making $150,000 a year, you should be able to afford to pay more tax, I think, than the individual who is making $20,000 a year, and they obviously do. Let's face it, Mr. Speaker, we are not rich as a Province, so why is the minister so adamant on giving a larger tax break on a percentage basis to the richer people in the Province than they are to the middle income earners and the lower income earners?

That is the argument that I am making. Why didn't they level it across the board, if that is the case, and give everybody the same increase? That would not even be as bad as what they are doing, even though I would prefer if they gave more to the lower income families and the middle income families rather than giving the largest tax break to the higher income families in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is right, but that seems to be the Tory way. That has always been the Tory way. They reward those who make the most money. That is all through this Budget, if you want to look at it. It is there when you look at the Premier's staff, it is there when you look at the new CEOs who he hired in the past few years over at Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro where they doubled and tripled their wages in some instances.

You know, most of the people, I would say, in my district, those who rely on the fishery this year, the ones I was talking about in Question Period, their average earned income this year will be less than $15,000 - less than $15,000 on earned income. Now, with their bit of EI they might make a little bit more than that, but their average earned income is roughly $15,000 a year. Yet, we have seen increases in salaries in the Premier's office by that amount, close to $15,000. Now these individuals are going to get a $3,000 or $4,000 tax reduction on top of that. So, in fact, they are going to be making $15,000 or $16,000 or $17,000 more than they did last year - salaries of $130,000 for the Premier's Chief of Staff.

You know, most people out there in the Province are making less than $30,000 a year, and in most areas in the rural parts of our Province where the fishery is the mainstay, I say, Mr. Speaker, the average earned income is probably far less than $20,000 or even $15,000. I am saying that these are the people who need it the most. Instead of giving a larger tax break to the rich, let's try to help out our brothers and sisters and our aunts and our uncles who live in, not just in the rural parts of our Province, because if you look at an individual today who is making the minimum wage - by the way, Mr. Speaker, I say the individuals who clean this House of Assembly and your offices around Confederation Building make the minimum wage, $7 an hour, $14,560 a year. Fourteen thousand, gross income before taxes, and we are going to give them the lowest tax break. We are going to give someone who is making $100,000 the highest tax break. I do not think that is right, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Member for Terra Nova, I hope he understands now where I am coming from. With that, I will sit down and somebody else can have a few words.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

The motion is that the House concurs in the approval of the report of the Resource Committee on Supply.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

On motion, Report of Resource Estimates Committee, carried.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would now like to move to Order 3, which is the concurrence motion to receive the report of the Social Services Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 3 has been called on the concurrence.

The Chair recognizes the Member for St. John's North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly my pleasure as Chair of the Social Services Committee to introduce concurrence debate on the Estimates for those five departments. The five departments that were considered by the Social Services Committee were: the Department of Education; the Department of Health and Community Services; the Department of Municipal Affairs; the Department of Justice; the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, and also under that department, the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, the members of the committee who served with us were: the Member for Port de Grave; the Member for Humber Valley; the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's; the Member for Port au Port, and the Member for Conception Bay South.

Also, because of scheduling and so on, we had to call on various members to fill in. I would like to thank those as well: the Member for St. Barbe; the Member for Ferryland; the Member for Terra Nova. In addition to that we had, from the Opposition side, in addition to the members of the committee, the critics for each department, in turn, would be able to appear with the committee and present their questions. We had the Member for Bellevue, who replaced his colleague, the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune. The Member for Grand Falls-Buchans appeared with the Education Committee, and the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile with the Justice Committee.

Just briefly, in terms of the functioning of the Estimates Committee for those who may not be aware, who may be watching the broadcast on television, the Estimates Committee is a time for the Opposition members mostly to sit down with the minister and his staff, to look at the expenditures for last year. Then, in turn, the budgeted expenditures for the coming year and to ask questions about this figure or that figure.

These meetings, Mr. Speaker, as you would know, take place in the morning or the evening, normally here in the House of Assembly. We had two evening meetings. I believe the latest one we had was around 10:30 p.m. So, that kind of puts to rest also a little bit of the myth that MHAs only do work when the House of Assembly is in session. There are other things that go on behind the scenes in which members take part.

I would like to thank the members, particularly the Opposition, who came to the Estimates meetings always very well prepared. It was obvious that they had done their work and gone through the figures in the Estimates. The questions, I thought, were probing questions, not presented in any kind of a controversial way but they were presented to extract, or to get information from the ministers and the minister's staff. Again, I would like to compliment all of those members.

Mr. Speaker, the Social Services Committee, with those five departments - and I will call it five even though the Housing comes under there and makes it six. But the five government departments, of the $5.5 billion that government will spend in 2007-2008, the five committees or the five departments that we looked at in Social Services Committee represent some $3.7 billion of that $5.5 billion. That, in round figures perhaps, is close to 70 per cent of government's expenditures that will take place within those five Social Services departments. Mr. Speaker, I know certainly as Chair you kind of like to maintain some sort of neutrality, the Chair sitting in the middle of the Opposition and the Government Members, or the ministers, but I cannot help but say that this 70 per cent expenditure in the social area kind of points to what the bent of this government is.

As the Premier has pointed out on more than one occasion, we are indeed a Progressive Conservative Party, a Progressive Conservative government; more so than what exists at the federal level now, which seems to be an ultra right-wing Conservative government. We have a definite bent, Mr. Speaker, for the social programs.

By department, just briefly, and I will round off some of these figures. Last year in the Department of Education, government spent some $903 million, and that increases this year in the new Budget to $1,022,000,000. The first time that the Department of Education has exceeded $1 billion. That is up some $119 million over last year's expenditure. An additional $119 million going into the education system in one form or another.

The Department of Health and Community Services, last year spent some $1.8 billion, close to actually $1.9 billion. This year, in 2007-2008, that will jump to $2,127,000,000. An increase in the Department of Health and Community Services of roughly $264 million.

In the Department of Municipal Affairs, we have gone from expenditures of $140 million to $142 million.

In the Department of Justice, last year's expenditures were around $144 million. That jumps this year to $172 million. An increase of some $28 million in that department.

In the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, last year's expenditures ranged around $259 million. This year we go to $272 million. An increase of some $13 million in that department.

Our grant to the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, last year was $15 million and this year, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say - and I will have a couple of further remarks in terms of that corporation now in a minute, but our grant goes from $15 million to some $29 million this year. Just about doubling what is going to the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.

The $3.7 billion, Mr. Speaker, that this Social Services Committee considered under its Estimates, as I say, represented about 70 per cent of the $5.5 billion expenditure. We take the five departments there and extract from them - just take out the Department of Health and Community Services and the Department of Education. Health and Community Service, as I say, is responsible for some $2.1 billion and the Education department, again, just over $1 billion. So in those two departments, Mr. Speaker, the expenditures will represent over $3 billion, approximately $3.15 billion in just those two departments. That again, in percentage terms, represents about 57 per cent, close to 60 per cent, of all government expenditures. So, Mr. Speaker, if we take out those two departments, we cannot say, well, okay, in government now everything is looked after; because, in addition to these two departments which are spending almost 60 per cent of the government's budget, we also have to look after the public service, the Department of Transportation and Works, the Department of Business, the Department of Environment, the Department of Fisheries, the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs. There are actually, Mr. Speaker, some fifteen other departments that have to be looked after with the remaining money. So government, in the coming year, is going to spend some $5.5 billion, but when we take out the Department of Health and Community Services and the Department of Education, what is left, Mr. Speaker, is about $2.3 billion. So, those two departments have taken from it, the total budget, about $3.15 billion.

If we can put this on a smaller scale, Mr. Speaker, because oftentimes when you start talking in terms of billions of dollars, most of us - certainly I cannot relate to expenditures of hundreds of thousands let alone into the millions and billions of dollars, but if you are running the expenditures in your own household and you have to reduce it to comparative or proportionate terms, if you have $550 to spend and you have two people in the household, whether its is your son or daughter going to colleague, or a mother or father who might be sick, or someone in your family who is sick, the Department of Education and the Department of Health, in your family, of your $550 that you have to spend, those two items, let's say the one who is sick and the one who is going to school, would have taken out $315. So, for the rest of your household expenditures, for the baby diapers and the sneakers and the lunch money and the heat and the insurance and the telephone and the cable and all the other departments, of your $550 that you started with, you are left with about $235 to look after all of the other needs of the household. This is basically the same position that government is in. After Health and Community Services and Education come out, we are left with about $235 million to spend on the other departments.

So, Mr. Speaker, what came through very clearly in the Estimates Committee is that government is faced with choices to make in terms of the expenditures. Obviously, your funds are limited. You want to always, or as much as possible, come in with a balanced or, in this case, a surplus budget.

Again, I go back to the person who is running a household on, say, $550 for whatever expenditures are on the go. After you have looked after a couple of things and you have your heat and your light and your telephone, what government is saddled with, in comparison with the household, you also have to remember that your Chargex bill, or your Visa bill, or your MasterCard bill also has an outstanding balance of some $1,100. In government's case it is $11 billion, so we have allocated, in this Budget, to put against that deficit some $261 million. That would be, in comparison to the household with a $1,100 Visa bill, we are now going to put, at the end of the year, $26 against that $1,100. Mr. Speaker, it is not going to make a major dart in the debt, but it will reduce it somewhat.

In terms of the choices that were made, just briefly by department, I know in the Education Department the expenditures, as I say, went over $1 billion. Some $41 million additional was put into the K-12 system. These are some of the choices that government made.

There was $14.8 million for new school construction. Some $5.2 million - and we heard in Question Period earlier today about new teachers in the system - some $5.2 million went into the education system to retain 137 teachers. Now, you can argue all day long whether they are new teachers, old teachers, whatever they were. The fact is, some thirteen additional units, above and beyond the 137 that were retained, are now in the education system. There was some $12.8 to extend the provision of free textbooks, another choice made by government.

The choice this year, in terms of the Education Department, that I am particularly fond of, was the choice that government made to reduce the interest rate on student debt from -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: - prime plus 2.5 per cent down to prime. So, at this rate, whatever the student was paying - and this affects a huge number of students. This affects some 46,000 students. In my opinion, and in the opinion of a lot of people out there, students and parents alike, this was a very good choice of government.

In addition to that, in terms of the student debt, government chose to put some $10.7 million into up front needs based grants. This was based on a round table that the minister held with students. We listened carefully to students, government did, and said: What can we do for you in terms of student debt? They said: What we are looking for mostly is to do something with the interest rate, because you can never seem to catch up.

I know that first-hand, because I am assisting my two daughters in terms of paying off their student loans. I know the interest rate, it is very difficult to catch up from month to month. It is the same with your mortgage payment, Mr. Speaker. It is very difficult to see any dent being made in the principal of the loan.

The other money that was made in terms of student debt, and this applies mostly to rural students because it is needs based grants, they are coming in and their living expenses are much more than those students who are living in the urban area and attending MUN or CONA. So this is $10.7 million. Instead of having to borrow $140 a week, there will be $70 of that made in an up front grant. Mr. Speaker, a very good choice, I think, made by the government in that area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: We can say, Mr. Speaker - and, of course, we heard it loud and clear from those in the education profession - that government did not do enough for education. Again, you have to make choices. Government made its choices and is spending, or will spend this year, over $1 billion in the education system. If another person or another government were making the decisions and making choices, they may have chosen something else. We made our choices in the areas that I have just indicated, but the fact remains, you cannot do it all so you have to make the best choices that you can with the money that is available.

In the area of health, Mr. Speaker, the health expenditures were outlined by the hon. the Minister of Finance in the Budget, including the $1.4 million for the insulin pumps which, I think, was well received by the general population; some $67 million going into new health care facilities; some $2.3 million to expand the dental program. Again, this goes down to help out the lower income people who have some difficulty with the high cost of dental care. So, this is $2.3 million additional going in to expand the dental program to those youngsters between the ages of thirteen and seventeen.

I think, Mr. Speaker, again, choices have to be made. Government was lobbied hard and long by some of the advocates for those people who suffer from some catastrophic diseases, particularly MS and so on like that. Government, I think, made a very, very wise choice in terms of the new drug program whereby it will be pro-rated in terms of your income and you will only pay a certain percentage of your income toward your drug costs. No matter if your income is $15,000 a year or if it is $150,000 a year, only a percentage will be paid.

We made what I think are very good choices in that and, again, to spread the money over as many people as possible. There will be those, Mr. Speaker, who will stand up and say that government should do more for child care, government should do more for long-term care and home care. Again, I think it is important for people when they stand up and advocate that you should have spent money on this and you should have spent money on that, they have to always be cognizant of the fact that you have this much money to go around and unless you want to go in debt, if you want to go in debt further again -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDGLEY: Unless you want to go in debt, Mr. Speaker, as a Province, and bury the Province into debt, you cannot do it all. So choices have to be made, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I go back to the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation and the $27.5 million, Mr. Speaker, that is put into the modernization and improvement program of the Corporation, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. This is something, as the Member for St. John's North, I am very familiar with because I think most units in housing, and certainly in the metro area, are in St. John's North.

The PHRP program, Mr. Speaker, the grants for people who want to do repairs to their homes was actually doubled. This has been a sore point over the many years that people want to do repairs to their homes, low-income people want to do repairs, they do not have the money and they apply for a grant from Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation. They are told: Okay, right now we are working on a list for those who applied three or four years ago. Basically, what we have done is doubled the money that is going into that, or government has doubled the money going into that so that the list will be pretty well brought up to a more current basis.

Mr. Speaker, something which I know is there, not in a line item in the Budget, but something that I have actually been working with three separate ministers responsible for Housing over the past three-and-a-half years in the District of St. John's North, there is a heating subsidy provided by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. A complicated formula, Mr. Speaker, because there are those tenants of Housing, their homes are heated by electric heat, some are heated by oil heat where they have an individual tank, some are heated by an oil tank which heats four or five apartments. The Corporation just keeps filling that tank because they really cannot determine which apartment spent how much on oil.

I am pleased to say, Mr. Speaker, that the ones with the individual oil tanks, the subsidy that they are given by Housing to help out with their heat has not changed since 1986. I have been talking, as I say, to three different ministers to have this increased and this coming November when the oil subsidy kicks in for these people who operate with their own individual oil tanks, that subsidy will go up by some $200 per family.

Mr. Speaker, we made choices, again in the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment. I know my time is running down but I want to speak about one in particular, which is some $1 million, or just over a million dollars going into the Graduate Retention Program. This is whereby a new graduate can go out, basically with $10,000 in his or her pocket and say to an employer: If you hire me, I have $10,000 here to go against the wages that you will pay me. This is basically going to allow another 100 graduates to probably stay here in the Province.

There are other choices, Mr. Speaker, that were made in there. Some $14 million towards poverty reduction, which would increase the total expenditure in the poverty reduction to some $91 million at this point. Again, I think a good choice.

Finally, in the Department of Justice, Mr. Speaker, we made choices to add some 153 new positions to RNC and other people with the Office of the Child Advocate and so on. So, I -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MR. RIDGLEY: Just to clue up, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. RIDGLEY: We, Mr. Speaker, as a government through those five departments, and through all departments of government, are always cognizant of having to work within the money that is available. I think we have made very, very good choices, choices that will benefit a lot of people in the Province. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I have no problem in concurring with the estimates for those five departments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the applause. Not often we get applause on this side of the House from the government side. Thank you very much.

It is great to have an opportunity here. The Member for St. John's North acknowledged that we do, of course, have an Estimates Committee; that is three committees of the House that break the various departments up. We sit down and actually pour over the financial details contained in those departments to determine if we think they are right, wrong or indifferent. We can get an opportunity at those committee hearings to ask the various ministers probing questions, as he says, about what the money is being spent on and so on. So, it is a great opportunity.

I would make a point, however, that the three that I attended, just so that Joe chesterfield again and Martha understand here, that when we had these committee meetings I never heard one single question from a government member who sat on those committees. Now, I do not know if they never had any questions about it -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Well, the ones I attended, I said. I said the ones I attended. The ones that I attended, I never heard a single question from a government member who sat on an Estimates Committee about anything. Now, I do not know if that means they agree with everything that is there, or, as most people think, they are just puppets and they are frightened to ask anyway. Now I would think the latter is probably correct. I never heard a single question at any Estimates Committee that I attended from a government member.

Now I would think there are questions, regardless. We might agree with everything, all or nothing that is in the Budget, but I would think that anybody, no matter what side of the House you sit on, you would have some questions. I did not hear any, and that bothers me. That concerns me because I am sure people in rural Newfoundland have issues and people who live in the city has issues that their members ought to have been asking. That was the occasion and the opportunity to do it, I say to the Chair, who is entering this particular Budget here, and it did not happen.

I have to say thank you, as well, for the one I attended with Minister Ottenheimer dealing with Intergovernmental Affairs, very prompt. Today he tabled some figures. I asked him how many intergovernmental contracts or arrangements have been inked between the federal and the provincial government since the ta-ta between Premier Williams and his good friend, Steve. There were thirteen, now some of them pretty mundane things in terms of how governments work; not mundane in the sense that the agreements were not important, but shall we say, routine. I looked at some of them and a lot of them deals with housing that takes place between the federal government and our Aboriginal communities, which is an ongoing annual thing. So, I did not see too much there that was earth shattering and certainly nothing that the Steve and Danny fiasco might have interfered with. Life goes on from that perspective, as well.

I was disappointed, however, with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs when I asked my questions about Dr. Feelgood's limousine service in Ottawa. Of course, for those out there in TV land, we pay somebody in excess of $100,000 a year, plus expenses, plus offices and now staff to sit up in Ottawa and act, basically, as a limousine service. If a minister from Newfoundland has to go up to Ottawa, you do not open your own doors anymore, you do not drive your own taxis and you do not even get a cab. Dr. Feelgood picks you up at the airport and delivers you to wherever you have to go. We are paying about $300,000 or $400,000 a year for that. That is the job, by the way, that Mr. Bill Rowe, the talk show host, used to have. He came home out of it, for whatever reasons. The Premier thought fit to put someone back in there again. Of course, I have serious concerns, had them and still have them with that.

I also had some concerns when I asked the good Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs about some of the expenditures. You can rant and rave about the good things, but there has to be the balance. You have to appreciate, number one, where you are getting resources that you are spending, where they came from, and you have to understand and have some appreciation of what you are spending them on and whether it is fair or not.

I had some concerns, not that we shouldn't subsidize local businesses now, particularly in this case in the sealing industry and the furrier industry here in town, but I have a serious problem when we have spent $8,000 of our money to buy two fur coats for Ralph Klein and his wife. Now, there are a lot of people out in Burgeo & LaPoile who have a problem with that; a lot of people. A lot of people have a problem with that.

The question was raised, and the minister quite rightly, being the gentleman that he is, never had the answer and he knew that. He found that hard to justify. We might have good relationships with the federal government or any provincial government, but the fact that you justify it as a retirement gift for Ralph Klein, the Premier of Alberta, that just doesn't wash it, folks. It didn't wash it back then when it first came out and was discovered as a result of a Freedom of Information request, because this government, of course, would never release that kind of information. That is buried so far in the bowels of government, that kind of information, that you would never find it without a Freedom of Information request. Then when you get it, it is blacked out to the extent that we didn't know at first if it was fur coats or what it was, until finally we spotted it. That was there, so we have some concerns with that.

We have $15 million worth of concerns when it comes to the fibre optic buddies, some problems there. If you listened to the crowd on the other side, everything is absolutely positive and spend, spend.

Anyway, I am going to take the balance of my time today - I am going to come back to that, because we have all that in the Budget debate yet. We are only in the seventy-five hours and this is Committee.

I am going to mention an issue today that has come to my attention and is very localized, very, very localized, but it fits in under one of the departments that comes under this Government Services Committee, specifically the Department of Education.

AN HON. MEMBER: Social Services.

MR. PARSONS: The Social Services Committee. That is the Department of Education. Now, the minister has been made aware of this, and also the Minister of Business, who deals with the red tape committee and has been giving reports over the last couple of years about the red tape committee. I will give you a little example of where this is not working in rural Newfoundland. It might not concern anybody who lives inside the overpass because you folks in here don't have to deal with these kinds of issues.

I am talking about a little issue in a little community called Grand Bruit. Grand Bruit is on the Southwest Coast of this Province. It has a wintertime population of probably twenty-two or twenty-three. In the summertime, the population increases quite dramatically because a lot of people, even from mainland Canada and the United States, have homes there and they come to stay for the summer because it is, indeed, a very beautiful location.

They have a little schoolhouse there. That schoolhouse has functioned, since it has existed, as the community centre. They do not only use it for a school; they use it as a community centre, they use it as an anniversary place, if someone is having an anniversary and needs to have a party and some kind of function. I am sure a lot of people in rural Newfoundland are familiar with those types of places, but it is the biggest and only place that you could do such a thing in this little community.

Grand Bruit decided a couple of years ago they were going to have a Come Home Year in 2007. By the way, this is the last year for the school in Grand Bruit. There will be no more school in Grand Bruit at the close of the year, this year, June, next month, 2007. The reason being, of course, because of the population decline and there are only two kids in the school at the present time and both of these will be leaving Grand Bruit to go to other communities to further their education. The school, in any case - just to set the groundwork here - is closing as of June.

They are having this Come Home Year and they have a little local service district there. This lady, Ms Cindy Billard is her name, very active in the community, near and dear to her heart, she writes a letter to the school board, and this comes under the Western School Board. Her friend and colleague, Linda Farrell, was also involved with the committee. They said: We are having our Come Home Year in 2007, in the summer. I don't imagine we could get permission to use the school?

You have to remember the background that I just laid out about this school in Grand Bruit. Lo and behold, a letter comes back from the school board in the Western District, and I am going to read it and give you an example of a red tape committee that the minister is always talking about. You want to talk about red tape. I do not know if this has gone down to the school boards or whatever - and that is another issue that we have, because sometimes this government says, if they do not want to touch an issue, they will say: We can't touch them because the school boards operate independent of government. On certain other occasions, for example, if there happens to be a by-election in Exploits, the government can, indeed, intercede and ask for certain things to be done. I put that out there, that it depends on which tack, I guess, the government wants to take.

This is the letter that went back to Ms Billard from the school board in Corner Brook. Dear Ms Billard: Your request on behalf of Grand Bruit Come Home Year Committee to utilize Grand Bruit All-Grade for Come Home Year festivities for the dates August 1 to August 5, 2007 has been approved. Ms Linda Farrell, a Western School District employee, has agreed to take full responsibility for the facility during the event.

That is the good news, they got approval. Now we go on to paragraph two. You talk about, this is what you ask of people in a community of twenty-three from a school board, and they say: Despite our confidence and support of your committee - so, we have confidence and support of your committee, but despite that - and, meanwhile, the lady they referred to, Ms Linda Farrell, who lives next door to the school, who happens to work as a janitor in the school system and has been a caretaker for years and years, and Grand Bruit is her home - they said: Despite our confidence and support of your committee, we require that certain conditions for use be met. Number one, that Grand Bruit Come Home Year be responsible for cleaning, including supplies.... By the way, this is the last year for the school. There will be no more school in Grand Bruit after June. The school closes in June. We are talking about a Come Home Year activity in August - that Grand Bruit Come Home Year be responsible for cleaning, including supplies, of all areas used, for security, and for any damage should it occur. All areas are to be returned to original condition.

They do not have a problem with that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: No, I say to the minister, in all fairness, I brought this to the minister's attention and she is working on it, but I point this out not as a case of government inaction; I am pointing this out as an incident, how governments function and how people actually exist sometimes in rural Newfoundland. There is a serious disconnect. That is the purpose of pointing this out, and urging people like the good Minister of Business, who deals with red tape and so on, to take it to another level and get these kinds of idiosyncratic things fixed.

Number one was not a problem because, by the way, you will never find a neater, cleaner, a more responsible group than in Grand Bruit. They have used the school and looked after it for years. That is a little bit insulting, actually, to say that to the people of Grand Bruit.

Number two, that the Grand Bruit Come Home Year Committee carry third party liability insurance to hold the Western School District harmless against any claims arising from use of the school during the festivities. Please forward copy of same to my attention.

Now that is pretty good, folks. That is pretty good. You talk about conditions and red tape. The good people of Great Bruit have used this school since it was built forty-odd or fifty-odd years ago, and all of a sudden this year they are having Come Home Year - no more school, the school is gone, the school is closing in June, the school is probably going to be dismantled, sold, tore down, whatever - and now they have to go and get a third party liability insurance policy to use the school during Come Home Year in Grand Bruit. Now, that is pretty good.

Number three, the keys, one set to the building be kept in the possession of responsible adults who are members of the organizing committee, and that no duplicate keys be made.

Now, folks, this school also doubles in Grand Bruit not only as a school; they had a CAP site there. They are very modern, they have had it for about ten years, and to suggest that we are going to give you the one set of keys that you can use for that time period but, other than that, behave yourselves. Insulting again.

This is number four. You talk about traditional Newfoundland, and we talk of the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation not only bringing people into this Province to experience our culture - you talk about putting impediments in the way of us even enjoying our own culture amongst ourselves, and this is where number four comes in.

The Grand Bruit Come Home Year Committee respect Western School District's policies regarding alcohol consumption and smoking. At no time is there to be any alcoholic consumption or smoking permitted on school board property.

Now, first and foremost, I do not know if there is anybody in Grand Bruit who smokes. I don't think there is. They would certainly abide by that law, because that is the law universally, but the alcohol piece is a little bothersome because, folks, if it rains in Grand Bruit on either one of those days they have nowhere to go, other than that school; and, by the way, they are not known for getting fallen down drunk and beating holes in places and making fools of themselves. In fact, this very school has been used repeatedly by the good people in Grand Bruit when they have, for example, a teacher retirement, and they have a little wine and cheese. I guess that is history now; they cannot even have a wine and cheese for their teacher any more who is leaving. The last teacher Grand Bruit is ever going to see, and they cannot have a wine and cheese for them. Now, that is pretty good. Can you imagine? These are the kind of rules and regulations that we exist with, and these people in the school board come back on the bottom line and say: Please confirm your acceptance of these conditions in writing and we will make arrangements to co-ordinate access.

Now the minister, I must say, a pretty common sense response when I brought this to the minister's attention. I agree with her, actually; but, because we are all law-abiding, including herself, we cannot do it. The initial reaction was - which mine was - this is a case where it is easier to seek forgiveness than it is permission. If the good people of Grand Bruit had approached me, I would have said that, and I would not have minded defending them, I do not think, if they were charged with anything, because this is utter foolishness, utter foolishness. Now, where this ties into the Budget, by the way, there is a tie-in, is because there is a sentence or paragraph in the Budget documents which talks about the Department of Education expending $100,000 to provide insurance so that communities and schools can interact. That is the question I put to the minister. Because, first and foremost, I don't think people in the Western School Board are aware of the existence of it. Maybe it is because it hasn't had time yet to be implemented. To me, this is an example of where that type of money should be used.

First and foremost, I don't even know if it is necessary to have it insured. I mean, it is no longer a school, folks. I would think anybody who had a grain of common sense in a school board - I don't think we are going to be putting the head office for the fibre optic company down in Grand Bruit. I don't think we are going to have the crowd up in Voisey's Bay looking to put their headquarters down in the school in Grand Bruit. I wouldn't think that. I don't think we are going to end up with a call centre going to Grand Bruit.

I would have thought a good thing to do, a common sense thing to do, would be to say, instead of this: By the way, do you think you might have some ideas where you could use the building after June 20? Would you like to take it over as a community facility, since you have a CAP site there? This is where common sense gets lost sometimes in the bureaucratic process; absolutely lost.

By the way, there are people all over this Province and all over this country who came from Grand Bruit, some of the most educated - a lot like Ramea. A lot of well-known and very well educated people came out of Ramea, and Grand Bruit is the same way. They are everywhere throughout this country. They are coming home, but, boy, if you are going to have a bottle of beer you better have it out on the head of the wharf, because if it rains you can't have it up in the school like they used to for years and years and years. They have rule now, they have red tape, that says you can't do it.

I just bring that to the people's attention, because of all the things that governments talk about doing and school boards talk about doing, this is the heights of foolishness; the heights of foolishness. They have had their anniversaries, they have had their Come Home Years, they have had their garden parties, they have had their New Years' parties, they have had their socials, you name it and they have had it in the school in Grand Bruit for as long as anybody in this Assembly has been alive probably, and now we run into the likes of this.

By the way, that was written by one person, the purchasing manager. You talk about organization and red tape, I say to the Minister of Business. You talk about organization. That one letter was written by the purchasing manager for the Western School Board. It was cc'd to the operations manager, southern zone, cc'd to the regional education office, southern zone, cc'd to the assistant director of education, administration and finance. Now, that is pretty serious stuff. That is pretty wide, good use of government money. Now, that is quite the letter. When I got that -

Anyway, we are waiting to hear from the minister, because I have not heard back from her, but I would hope we are going to hear back from her soon and I do, indeed, hope that this government and this minister have the fortitude - and I am sure she does - to say to the Western School Board: Boys, you have to have and exercise a little bit of human decency and common sense. You just cannot be doing this to the people who live in rural Newfoundland.

You talk about fee cuts and whatever. Now, that could lead me on to another twenty minutes or so, I guess, if I had the time, but I do believe my time is about up. That leads me to the issue of the fees. You talk about a government, a group of people, taking a backspin on something. I always called them the masters of spin, by the way. You fellows have it all over anybody I have ever dealt with in my life when it comes to the masters of spin. There is no doubt about it, you people have reinvented the wheel when it comes to how to spin something. I have never seen the like of it in all my life.

I am going to give you one example. You talk about spin. They took over government in October or November of 2003. They said: You fellows got the bank broke, boys, you have her in hard shape, so we have to do something about this. We have to get some money and get back on to fiscal management again.

So they went out then and they brought in a fee in the Budget. Nobody wants to talk about that Budget. I do not hear anybody over there talking about the Budget of 2004. I never heard too much about that Budget when you went to your districts. I never heard too many of you out in your districts screaming about that Budget, yes, Sir. Can you imagine, they brought in a fee back then, they had a fee -

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

I remind the hon. Opposition House Leader that his time for speaking has expired.

MR. PARSONS: Leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member, by leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

I appreciate the members opposite giving me leave. I feel certain now that, based on what I am going to say here, they are going to sit me down. Joe and Martha, I am sorry, but that is the way the system works. The minute you say something they do not like, they sit you down.

You have to let me tell you about the death certificate fee. I will not get into the whole fee fiasco until the next day when I get a chance to speak, but you have to let me tell the people out there about the death certificate fee.

By the way, until this government brought in a fee in 2004, there was no fee for a death certificate. There was no fee. So, what did they do? They brought in a fee for a death certificate. Guess what? They are telling you this year that if you die within twelve months you do not have to pay for a death certificate. That is pretty good. That is quite the saving. That is a good saving, but unfortunately it requires that I die. Quite frankly, I am not too interested in taking advantage of that fee. That is pretty good. You are going to give me six feet of sod so that I can save the cost of a death certificate. I am telling you, you are very magnanimous in your gestures to humanity and to the people of this Province.

By the way, the other one, the only other one I will mention right now, they took the polar bear fee out. They put the polar bear fee in, but little did they know, folks, when they put it in, that the polar bear apparently was extinct and you could not hunt it anyway. That substantially increased the coffers of this Province, I am sure. That didn't buy two fur coats, I will guarantee you. There wasn't enough from polar bear fees to pay for those two fur coats.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leave, the latitude that has been given to me by the government members. I look forward to the rest of the Budget debate. We are going to be back here this week on some Estimates from the Minister of Finance and so on, but I look forward to next week because, albeit there are some good things, I really like some of the things in the Budget, by the way. I really like some.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: That is right. I usually call it like I see it. If I like something I will say it, and if I do not like it I will say it as well. I will point out, when I come back in the Budget debate, some of the things I really, really like about it, but you also have to point out, and I will point out, that there is a little bit of - it is the opposite of realism - there is a little bit of failure to acknowledge something on the governments side, and that is the point I am going to get into when I get into the government Budget, as to why you are whistling past the graveyard. I seriously believe that with some things in this Budget we are whistling past the graveyard. I will back with that later.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I could not help but sit there and laugh when the hon. member got up and talked about spin doctors. I am going to tell you now, I did not even fake the laugh. It was an actual real laugh; it came right from here.

Talk about spin doctors. Well, when you look at the super weekend, I heard about the super weekend and how there were twelve districts called, they got six people to run, and guess whose fault it was, Mr. Speaker? It was the Premier's fault, because he is so powerful and he is so good.

I could not help but laugh. Now, you talk about putting a spin on something that is so negative for a particular political party in the Province. I never heard anything so foolish before. If you want to talk about spins, talk about the super weekend because that is the biggest spin I ever saw in my life.

I am going to try and walk away from that for a moment, Mr. Speaker, if I can, because I do not want to be political. I do not want to sound too political. I would really rather not talk about that stuff. I am trying to take the high way and, you know, sometimes it is difficult to take the high way when I listen to members opposite and the silly things they get on with.

I just have to refer to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, when he talked about the fact that he is going to vote against the Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ORAM: Listen to this, now, because this is important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Listen to what he said. He said: You know, I am going to vote against the Budget because I do not like the tax incentive that is there for folks in Newfoundland and Labrador - but, here is the thing, he is going to take the tax incentive himself and he is going to vote against the Budget because he does not like the tax incentive.

I have to repeat that, I say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, because the people in Newfoundland and Labrador need to know where he is coming from. He says: I am going to vote against this Budget because I do not like the tax incentive, but yet I am going to take the tax incentive.

There seems to be some hypocrisy there somehow. I cannot seem to be able to figure that one out, but I am sure the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will certainly look at that and they will determine whether this fellow has credibility or not at the end of the day.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into that. I want to talk about a few more things. I want to talk about the Budget, and I listened to the members opposite constantly talk about the things that this government did not do. The Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, the Opposition House Leader, he even talked about the fact that we did not do this or we did not do that, and so on and so forth. Now, I will give him credit. I am the same way, I give credit where credit is due. I will give the member credit that he did say there were some good things in the Budget. That is good to hear. I am glad that he feels that way. I will say to the hon. member as well that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador exactly feel that way as well. They feel there are good things in the Budget.

You know, they keep talking about the things that we did not do in this Budget. Well, I will tell you what I am going to do. I want to talk about the things that we did not do as well, because I think there is some validity in what they are saying in terms of things that we did not do, and I think we should talk about that. I hate to be negative because, I tell you what, there is one thing that I do not think I will ever be able to be accused of: being negative about this government. I think the things that this government have done are positive. In fact, I will be like the Dove soap commercial: 99.4 per cent of the things that this government is doing are positive. I will say that.

I do not like to be negative, but I certainly do see their point and there are things that we did not do as a government. Well, I am going to talk to you about some of the things. Number one, we did not pay thousands of dollars for spousal travel. Now, I realize the members opposite do not like talking about that. They shoot things across the floor like furs coats for Ralph Klein and all this stuff. Well, I want to tell you, I am very proud that Ralph Klein and his wife wear a seal coat made in Newfoundland and Labrador wherever they go in this world. I am proud of that, and I will stand up for that anywhere that I go. I am proud of the fact that somebody is wearing something from Newfoundland and Labrador. I say: Here! Here! to the Premier for coming up with the great idea.

I will tell you what we did not do. I can tell you, besides that, giving the fur coats to Ralph Klein and his wife did not help the Premier. It did not put any money in the Premier's pocket. It did not give him any free travel with his wife to travel all over the world, I can tell you that, Mr. Speaker. If we look at the members opposite, what we did not include - here is something we did not include. We did not include, like the Member for Grand Bank when she was minister, to travel all over the world and take their spouses all over the world and spend thousands and thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money. That is what we did not do in this Budget.

What else did we not do? I will tell you what else we did not do. We did not ignore folks who have diabetes in this Budget. We did not do that. That is something else we did not do in this Budget. We did not ignore it. I can tell you now, the Leader of the Opposition can talk about the fact that he is not voting for this Budget because he does not like the tax incentives that he is going to take. He can talk about that forever, but I can tell you this. When he is not voting for this Budget, not only is he not voting for the tax incentives, he is also not voting for that diabetic who needs that insulin pump. That is sad. It is shameful! It is for these children.

I do not know if the Opposition Leader knows anybody who has diabetes this young, maybe he does. I am not saying he doesn't, but I can tell you, when my daughter was diagnosed at the age of fourteen, I was into James Paton Memorial Hospital where the staff are more than good; they are excellent, in fact. She went in there and it was a tough time. I watched children on that unit that day who were three and four years old taking needles. Some of them, four needles a day, Mr. Speaker. I will tell you what this government is not doing in this Budget, we are not forgetting those children.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Mr. Speaker, we are not forgetting the children who have to take four needles a day. We have stepped up to the plate. We have not just talked about it. We have said we are going to put the money into diabetes pumps to ensure that children do not have to take this treatment; that they do not have to take four or five needles a day to control their diabetes, Mr. Speaker.

The thing is, it is easy for the Opposition Leader to get up and speak about the reasons he is not voting for the Budget because he does not like tax incentives that he is going to take. You can talk about that all day long, but you cannot have one without the other. I can tell you, again, I am very proud as a government member. It took us a while, yes. We did not do it in 2004 and we did not do it in 2005, but today we have done it. We have put the money into diabetes programs and that is something that I am proud of.

Let's look at what else we did not do, Mr. Speaker. We did not ignore the folks with MS in this Budget. We did not ignore the folks that have MS. I want to tell you, Multiple Sclerosis is a very, very difficult disease. It is also a very expensive disease. I can tell you, we did not ignore these people. I know folks in this Province who have this. In fact, I have people in my family who have Multiple Sclerosis. It is a very, very difficult disease. I give credit where credit is due, and I can tell you, that the Multiple Sclerosis Society stepped up to the plate and they certainly put our government's feet to the fire, and what did we do? We listened to what they had to say. We saw the need. We would have loved to have been able to do that back in 2004.

The Opposition House Leader talks about the fact that we took over the Province in dire straits, and I am glad he mentioned that because that is a fact, we did. We had a $1 billion cash deficit - which today we do not have by the way. Today we have a surplus. Yes, it is because of our natural resources, no question about that. Our natural resources have done very, very well. I will tell you the number one reason why we have it, because do you know what? There were natural resources around before we got into government, by the way, just to let you know that. I tell the members opposite, there was income coming from natural resources. Now, we did not take it and spend it on spousal travel, but I can tell you, there was actual income coming in from natural resources. It all about the management; it is all about the leadership.

I can tell you today, this Province is in good hands. Just about 80 per cent of the people of this Province, in polling, tell us that they are very happy with the leadership in this Province and that is what it is all about. The only thing that has changed, I say, Mr. Speaker, is not necessarily the income from natural resources, but what has changed is the leadership and the way it has been administered and the management of government. I can tell you that this government, this management, will continue to do what is right for Newfoundland and Labrador.

So, yes, we did include MS drugs. We did do it. We did not forget it. We did remember the people who have Multiple Sclerosis. That is what we did. What else did we do? What else did we not do, I should say?

I tell you one thing we did not do, we did not ignore the roads in Newfoundland and Labrador. We did not ignore the highway system in Newfoundland and Labrador. I hear story after story after story about public roads in this Province, highways in this Province that have been ignored for years and years and years. Infrastructure falling down around us all over the place. The members opposite say, yes, but do you what? We could not do it. I am going to tell you why we could not do it, because we did not have the money. Well, that is a funny thing, that they did not have the money because I have to go back to it again, because I cannot help it. There was money for spousal travel. A funny thing about that. There was money for wine. There was money for all these kinds of things, but there was no money to cover off the roads in Newfoundland and Labrador. Sixty-six million dollars this year from the provincial Budget to put into roads in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Mr. Speaker, that is an accomplishment that any government would be proud of. I can tell you today, I also know that people in Newfoundland and Labrador are proud of this government, they are proud of this Premier. No, this government does not deliver everything that people want. The fact is, we just do not have the finances to give people everything that they want. We would love to, as I said just a few days ago, but we are stepping up to the plate. We are putting money into places that really matter.

What else did we not ignore? Well, we certainly did not ignore our cancer patients. That is something else we did not do in this Budget. We did not ignore our cancer patients, Mr. Speaker. We provided more money for cancer drugs in this Province. One of the most difficult diseases in Newfoundland - and in the world, for that matter - that any family can go through is cancer. In fact, my own mother went through cancer. It was a very, very difficult time, but I can tell you, I am proud to be part of a government that decided they needed to put more and more money into cancer drugs, into cancer medication. We are doing that today. We have stepped up to the plate. We are not spending it on spousal travel. We are spending it where it needs to be spent, and that is the lives, the care and the concern for people in this Province.

What else did we do? Well, we certainly did not ignore the cost of medications and drugs in this Province overall. What did we do? We brought in a new drug program for - what levels of income? Again, the Leader of the Opposition, he talked about the fact that this government is all about big money, big profits, big salaries, even though - the fact of the matter is that his salary, I say, is the same salary that any minister gets in this government. The only difference now is that the ministers in this government deserve the money, but I will not go down that road. The fact of the matter is this, Mr. Speaker, we took the money and we put it where it needed to go. We did not ignore the medications. We realize today that from the lowest income to even middle-class income, we want to help people with their drug costs because drug costs are astronomical, Mr. Speaker.

If you want to look at, for instance, a diabetic. Do you know what? A diabetic's supplies can run between $200 and $400 a month. That is a fair bit of money. I say to the members here, that is a fair bit of money. For anyone who is making $15,000, $20,000, $25,000, $35,000, $40,000, $50,000 a year, $400 a month is still a lot of money, I say. The fact is, this government has not said we are going to take care of just one group of people but we are putting this right across the board. We are helping everyone. We are spreading it around. We are doing it right because we have a plan for Newfoundland and Labrador. We have a plan for our drug system. We have a plan for medications and we have a plan for rural Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. Again, we are very proud of that.

What else did we not do in this Budget? I will tell you something that we did not do that I am very, very proud of, very proud of, proud of the Premier, proud of our ministers, proud of our Cabinet, proud of our caucus. We decided we would do no more giveaways of our natural resources, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: If there is anything that this government will stand on, if there is any promise that this government will stand on, Mr. Speaker, it will be the promise that we will not have any more giveaways of our natural resources. I mean we will not do it, even though, Mr. Speaker, I listened to the members opposite, and certainly the Opposition House Leader, when we were talking about doing the Hebron deal, when we were looking at Hebron-Ben Nevis and all of the oil companies wanted - ExxonMobil, I think it was, made a $40 billion profit. Yet, he was questioning whether we should go ahead and do this deal. They wanted a $500 million tax concession and they made $40 billion. We are listening to the Opposition House Leader saying, we are not really sure, perhaps the Premier shouldn't be so hard-nosed, perhaps we should be careful here now. Hold on now, we really don't want to upset the oil companies here.

Can you imagine the audacity of any member in this House of Assembly - and I mean on all sides of this House - to even suggest that we would give a break to an oil company that just made $40 billion a year. I would say, it will never ever happen while we here in power, Mr. Speaker. We will never allow anyone to take our resources again, to rape us of our resources again. We stand for what is right for Newfoundland and Labrador. Our Premier stands for what is right for Newfoundland and Labrador. Whether it is dealing with the federal government or whether it is dealing with the oil companies, it doesn't matter. Whether it is dealing with the mining companies, we will stand firm to ensure that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador get the best deal possible for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Certainly, we didn't ignore that in the Budget, or we ignored that in the Budget. What else didn't we ignore in our Budget?

Well, I look at education, Mr. Speaker. What did we do in education? Well, I will tell you one thing we didn't ignore. We didn't ignore our kids. We decided that we would put more money into our Budget this year, and for the first time ever, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say, and I will say it again and I will say it again and I will say it again and I will say it again, we put $1 billion into education this year, the first time ever for this Province; $1 billion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: What kind of things did we do? Well, I will tell you. First of all, I want to talk about - I always go back to the past. It is important to go back to the past in order to see where you are going in the future, I say. I look back and I say to members here - I know the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune enjoys my sermons. The fact is that I heard a sermon preached o this one time, I say to the member, a testimony. I did hear a sermon preached on this one time: You need to know where you came from in order to know where you are going.

When I started thinking about where education has gone in this Province, a number of years ago when the opposite members were in power, I remember sitting on a school council in Glovertown. Actually, I was a member of the school council. I kind of got a little bit peeved with it, to tell you the truth. I was ready to give it up. I will tell you what we spent our time at, Mr. Speaker. This is true. I am telling you the truth. We spent our time marching the streets trying to keep teaching units in Newfoundland and Labrador. We marched the streets trying to keep music in our schools, trying to keep phys. ed in our schools. All I ever did was constantly march the streets trying to keep money in education.

I tell you, it wasn't this government. They took out teacher after teacher after teacher. In fact, as the hon. minister said today, 1,434 teachers they took out of the system. Then, the hypocrisy again, they get up and talk about how this government has taken teachers out. How many did they take out? $1,434 teachers. They are criticizing us because we took out just a little over 300 teachers. I mean, Mr. Speaker, what hypocrisy today, to listen to.

I can tell you, in our Budget, we did not ignore the students. We looked at school fees. Do you know what? School fees, $6.3 million in school fees. What does that mean to families and students in this Province? Well, I am going to tell you what it means, and I think I spoke about this again the other day. I remember speaking to parents in schools, trying to get their kids ready for school in September, and it is tough. Seriously, it is really tough.

The Leader of the Opposition sometimes thinks that he has the authority on poverty, and he has the authority on poor people, and so on and so forth. Well, let me tell you, there was a day when I had to charge my groceries from month to month in order to get along when I was younger. I do not need the Leader of the Opposition to tell me how it is to have tough times and only making $15,000 a year, because I certainly know what those days were like. I also know what it was like to have to come up with the money to pay school fees. I remember what it was like. I remember talking to parents, even in the last few years, and parents saying how difficult it is. You have to try to put yourself in everyone's predicament.

Most kids today, most children today, they want the proper sneakers, they want the proper jeans and the proper book bag, and the pressure is on the parents to do this. Everybody wants to give their children whatever they can give them. On top of that was school fees, which the previous government implemented, by the way, I want to say. The fact is that we, as a government, we decided that we would get rid of those school fees. What a fabulous thing to do. The other government decided that they would charge kids for photocopies, for workbooks to go with it. All of these school fees that were piled up and piled on the backs of regular working Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in rural and urban Newfoundland, they piled on them. What we have done, as a government, actually what we did last year, was we cut out those school fees. Another thing that we did not ignore.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I do not get the opportunity to speak forever and ever, because I could speak forever and ever about this, but I am going to keep going because there is still lots of good stuff here.

Let's talk about school textbooks for a moment, Mr. Speaker. I have talked to parents, time and time again. I am a parent myself, two daughters in school. It is, again, a very high cost to have to go out and buy textbooks for students every year. In fact, there are many families that have very, very low incomes again, they do not qualify for any assistance, and they have to come up with the cash for kids to buy their books.

I will tell you what I have seen happen in this Province, I say to the Member for St. John's Centre, I will tell you what I have heard happen in this Province. I have heard to kids having to go out and work in the summertime to come up with enough money to pay for textbooks. That is a fact, but today - the only Province in Canada. Here is the thing, and this is the thing we are proud of, this government saw the need to step up to the plate and provide funds so that kids and children and students in this Province would not have to pay for textbooks any more. That is an amazing accomplishment for this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: What else did we do, Mr. Speaker? Again, there is so much.

In education, we decided that we would put more money into physical education. You know, a well-rounded education is very, very important. The fact is that this government stepped up to the plate again this year by providing more and more money - and, in fact, there is so much money here - more and more money for phys. ed. equipment so that students could take advantage of, actually, $800,000 for physical education equipment to purchase for K-6, so that they could actually take advantage of being able to exercise and live a healthy lifestyle.

What else did we do in education? I am just on education yet. Imagine that, I am only on education yet. I will tell you what else we did. This is something we did not ignore like the previous government ignored. We did not ignore the fact that infrastructure issues within the school systems are important. In this Budget we did not ignore that. We stepped up to the plate again and, do you know what? I could not believe it, because I just asked the minister a little while ago: How much did we actually spend? Because I had some notes that gave me some information. We actually came up and stepped up to the plate, and we are spending $49.5 million on new schools and renovations for our school infrastructure this year. That is a fabulous thing, Mr. Speaker. That is good news for Newfoundland and Labrador.

I remember, I think it was an election year, by the way, I think it was 2003, and I know the previous government were scrambling around trying to figure out what they would do because the roofs were all coming down and everything was leaking all around them. I am sure the Member for Mount Pearl knows what I am talking about. The roofs were all coming off the buildings and there was water, and the students were putting buckets out. In fact, I think the parents might have had to give them buckets to go to school, to carry into school, to put down so they could catch the water.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Terra Nova that his speaking time has lapsed.

MR. ORAM: By leave, to finish up?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Just to conclude.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member, by leave.

MR. ORAM: Thank you very much.

I appreciate the leave. I think the Member for Port de Grave suggested I can conclude on the buckets, so I will do that. I will conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that this government has stepped up to the plate. We have provided $49.5 million to increase the spending, to increase the allocated money to be able to better improve our infrastructure within our schools.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you today, with $430 million to be spent on infrastructure across this Province, this Province is stepping up to the plate in rural Newfoundland and Labrador as well as urban, and the silliness about rural Newfoundland and Labrador, about this government ignoring rural Newfoundland and Labrador, it is silliness when 90 per cent of our $430 million is being spent in rural areas.

I say, Mr. Speaker, we are proud of it. We are going to continue to do it, and I say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, this is just the tip of the iceberg, Mr. Speaker. We have a leader, we have a government, that is going to step up to the plate not just with words but certainly with tangible evidence of what we are doing in this Budget you will see in every budget this government brings down.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is unfortunate that we are so close to an election, because I feel that the Premier might have missed a chance to put the Member for Terra Nova in Cabinet. I do not believe he has a chance to do it now unless somebody really fools up.

When you started to talk about buckets, I remember the only buckle experience I had was the poor people in my district throwing up in buckets when this government cancelled the cancer clinic that we announced. Later, through so much public outcry, it had to commit to actually building the cancer clinic. I would not get too effervescent there while you are standing in your place.

This afternoon, when I listened to the Premier get up and do his Ministerial Statement, that was a very telling statement, when the Premier got up today and gave a Ministerial Statement on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador were going to hold a job fair at the end of this month. Was that a good news item or was it something that was put together in a hurry? I look at the last paragraph of the statement that the Premier gave today.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I invite all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador to watch for details of the events in the days to come.

That was a statement that was made on the run. There is no depth to that statement, and I think there was a lot of public pressure within Cabinet, within the Premier's executive offices today, to come out and turn the tide, because what is a very telling thing about this government is the fact that they have been unable to create any jobs. They have been unable to create any jobs, despite the millions and millions of dollars they have had to work with, none of the money that they generated themselves.

You know, it is very easy to pass out a cheque book and have a person or government just write the cheques with no thought about tomorrow. This government is in the same position as Stephen Harper is in Ottawa. Stephen Harper inherited a surplus budget when Paul Martin finished, when Paul Martin was defeated. This government used a lot of propaganda in their first year here. In their second year and every year since, they have had a surplus. They know full well but they have been very fortunate in their communication spin to put a spin on it that they have generated revenue, it is coming out of their ears and they are spending it like there was no tomorrow.

In fact, this Budget that is here today to be approved by this House of Assembly, after everything is announced, which the Premier and the Minister of Finance have announced in this current Budget, there is $261 million left on the table, a surplus. After all the good news announcements have been made, no matter how hard the Cabinet tried they could not spend the extra money that was left on the table; $261 million still not allocated for the people of this Province.

This is an election year and even though there has been a lot of news releases churned out since March, there will be a lot more before October from that $261 million. You know, while we have a surplus sitting on the table there are people going blind in this Province. There are hundreds of people with macular degenerative disease. They are looking for government help right now so that they will not have to be blind. It is very costly to go through that procedure. I know of at least five people in my District of Grand Falls-Buchans who have macular degenerative disease. That is the only ones that I know of, because they have actually called me. To get the treatment here in St. John's, through Dr. Bense, it costs between $10,000 and $15,000. Not too many people have that sort of money to look after that situation. While this government has $261 million left on the table, people are going blind in this Province. Is that wise spending of the people's money?

When I saw this job expo coming up, produced by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, I thought to myself - I guess the government or the Premier is trying to put a good face on the failure of at least three ministers in his Cabinet. The Premier is trying to put a good face on at least three ministers in his Cabinet. We have a Minister of Business who produced a book called: the business plan, to diversity our economy and create jobs in this Province. Everything in this book is totally blank. He thinks it is going to be 2011 when jobs are created in this Province. I could not believe it. He said: The mission of the Department of Business - by 2011 the Department of Business will have facilitated the attraction of major business across the Province and across sectors. Now this is what the Department of Business is saying. They have a fund this year of $25 million. They have always had $4 million in their department just to operate their staff.

Look at the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural development, he did the same thing. He has millions of dollars to work with and has not produced an industry or a job. In fact, the only thing he is doing is paying for people to run around the Province and have meetings. They have what they call a Rural Secretariat. This minister farms everything out to the Rural Secretariat if there is anything to do with rural Newfoundland and Labrador. He looks after the big projects under industry, trade and rural development, but we all know how slack his department was, and the people of Port aux Basques did not get their business up and running.

Now, for the rural part of his portfolio. He farms this out to what they call the Rural Secretariat. All he had in his book for last year was that they had to pay for nine regional councils of the Rural Secretariat to run around the Province, stay at big fancy places, like the Humber Valley Resort, and other places around the Province. They have to pay for the salary and operating costs of ten regional partnership planners, operating costs for the provincial council of the rural secretariat, salary and operating costs for six staff in the Rural Secretariat's office in this building, Confederation Building, salary and operating costs for the community accounts in partnership with Newfoundland and Labrador Statistics Agency.

Now, out of the millions and millions and millions of dollars that have been around this government for the past four years, the Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development has not created an industry or a job; we have the Department of Business and we have the Rural Secretariat. They have money unlimited for development, but not a job have they created. That is certainly a dark spot for this government. It is definitely a dark spot, and I think that hastily today the Premier came out and left the impression that they were hiring 1,000 people in the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, without any thought to any details or anything.

Let me tell you, there are always 400 jobs that are on the board every year, every day, in government. People vacate them, they move, and more come on stream, and there are always 400 jobs that people can actually apply for, so that is nothing new. There have been so many closures of government offices over the past four years, that will only take up the 1,000 he is talking about. So, this is recycled information to make it look like there are 1,000 people being hired. I guess the Premier probably rolled up his sleeves today and said: I have three ministers, now, who that are trying to develop the economy of this Province and they have nothing to report. There is nothing in their books. What am I going to do? How can I face the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? Listen, what can we do? Okay, I have the answer. We will hire our own people. We will hire our own people.

Now, last week, I had a really good opportunity when I went to Millertown last Wednesday. I was so proud to be a part of that official opening of Aur Resources mine. That is a company, a private company, that invested their own money, the shareholders' money, and spent over $100 million developing the zinc and copper mine in Millertown called Duck Pond. It was wonderful to see Alan Keats there in attendance. Alan Keats, he was the person who discovered the actual mineral deposit in Duck Pond. He was there sitting in the audience and he was recognized. He is from Gambo. I never met the man before. Only recently he was acknowledged in Toronto at a big ceremony. I do not know exactly the name of it, but I know it was the National Mining Institute or some name like that - it was for all over Canada - and he was given an award, him and his family, for the contribution they have made to prospecting in this Province and they have been acknowledged all over Canada. So, to see that man and his family there was a wonderful thing.

Now, there was a young woman there by the name of Amy Rowsell. She was the first female hired to go underground to work in an Aur Resources mine; and, because of that wonderful occasion, she actually presented a plaque to Dr. Jim Gill, the President and CEO of Aur Resources.

This is what has happened in a small community like Millertown. There are 200 permanent jobs there today; 200 permanent jobs. Can you imagine what that is doing to the economy of Millertown, Buchans, Buchans Junction, Badger, Grand Falls-Windsor, all of Central Newfoundland, and indeed our entire Province? That is a contribution to the provincial Treasury that is enabling this government to write out their cheques during this Budget process, make contributions and put money into different programs because a mine, a private investment in Duck Pond, Millertown, saw fit to start a new mine and grow the economy out there.

The lifespan of the mine is expected to be seven years; but, judging from all of the prospecting and the exploration that is going on in Central Newfoundland, I expect it to be much longer than that because there are a lot of small mines that would not be feasible otherwise, but now that they have a mill in Duck Pond they will now be able to bring their ore to the mill at Duck Pond.

Our only disappointment during that official opening was the fact that we had no ministerial presence, we had no message from government, and the Premier did not attend. That was a huge disappointment by the 400 people who were actually there at the event. They were expecting the support of this government. They never asked for anything financially, but just the acknowledgment of what Aur Resources, their partners, their team of staff and professionals, were doing for the economy of this Province, but unfortunately there was no minister there, or the Premier, in attendance, so that was a real disappointment.

I am glad of one thing - I do not know if it is a coincidence or not - today I notice that the Minister of Transportation and Works has seen fit to add $400,000 to upgrade the Buchans Highway. I guess he realizes how important that mine is to the economy of our Province and he realizes now that putting $600,000 into repairs on that highway was really going nowhere. I have to acknowledge the fact that the minister has now added an extra $400,000. Although that is still not enough, it is a good start and I am glad he finally realized the importance of having that highway in good condition for the transport of employees, goods and services, school children and the travelling public.

I want to bring to the attention of this House a situation that has been released by the Minister of Environment and Conservation. Recently, the Minister of Environment and Conservation came out with what he thought was a stellar plan, and it involved online reservation making for camping in any government park over the summer.

Now, I had a call from my constituent in the Buchans area. Last week it was announced that online reservations would become effective 7:00 a.m., I think it was probably Thursday morning last week. Now, I know of a constituent and his father from Buchans who always have gone to Sir Richard Squires Park on the West Coast. They have been doing there, like, forever. That was considered to be their summer vacation. They always stayed over there for the month of July pretty much. This constituent had access to a computer in his house and he alarmed the clock for five-thirty in the morning and he got up. He said: I am going to be the first one to make reservations on that online system at 7:00 a.m. when it comes online.

He got into the site and then at seven o'clock got through, thought he was making great progress, typed in all the information, when he wanted to be there, when he was going to leave and what kind of camping rig he had and so on. All of the sudden, this red message came up on the screen, park is filled, please chose an alternate park, at 7:00 a.m., the first one to go online and look for a reservation. There was a toll free number on the same page on the computer screen, and he said: That must be a problem with the computer. It must be a problem. So, he picked up the phone and he dialed the toll free number and, lo and behold, he got an online call centre outside our Province.

Now, here was the Premier this afternoon standing up and saying, we are going to have a job fair here and see if we are going to hire more public servants. This man phoned up and he couldn't quite understand the person who spoke. It was broken English and it was an online reservation system outside our Province making reservations for our people or anyone who wanted to go camping in our provincial parks. All this woman could tell the man was: Sorry, you will have to try another park. Now, this was seven o'clock in the morning.

That is not good enough, I say to the Minister of Environment and Conservation. That is not good enough! You announced that you were going to have an online reservation system and that everybody around this Province and all over the world would be able to do their bookings on line. There is no way that you can go in 7:00 in the morning, the first one to key into that particular Web site, and for every reservation to be gone. He tried since, he still cannot get a reservation.

I would like for that minister to tell me what is going on with the on-line reservation system and how disappointing it is to a family from Buchans that they cannot go to Sir Richard Squires Park. Why are you hiring an on-line reservation system outside this Province when we need jobs here so much? Maybe the Premier does not know that. Maybe that is the reason why the Premier announced his job fair today. He does not know that the Minister of Environment and Conservation has farmed the jobs out, but he does know that the Minister of Business and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development do not have one thing to their credit to offer the Premier. So, he had to take his own initiative today and say: Well, there are no industries going to be created between now and October, what can we do? Well, the only solution is the one at hand. We have $261 million here on the desk and the only thing we can do is to create our own jobs here in the Confederation Building and out in government offices around the Province. That is a sad situation, a very sad situation.

Now, I want to speak to the Member for Terra Nova, he was up a while ago and he talked about education. I want to remind the member that he is only new in government and he probably cannot remember when educational reform took place and denominational schools were eliminated and we have a public school system. That was the reason for consolidation of teachers at that particular time. As a government, we pledged that every amount of money that was taken out of the system for not having duplication of teachers from different denominational schools, we would plow into the system, and that is what we did.

He also stands in surprise of the fact that there is $1 billion going into education. Well, let me tell you, there was $800 million when we left. Just inflation alone -

MADAM SPEAKER (Osborne): Order, please!

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

MS THISTLE: Can I have just a minute?

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have a minute to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: By leave.

MS THISTLE: Okay, I just want to close on this note, the fact that inflation alone on the Budget that was inherited from this government when they took over in 2003 would demand that $1.2 billion be in it today, just to keep pace with the natural expenses that happen on an inflationary basis. So, even though you are up talking about a $1 billion Budget, you are only really keeping pace based on today's inflation rate.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am very pleased to stand here today and talk about the expenditures of certain departments. Let me first say that, as a member of this government, I am very pleased with the actions that have been put forward in this Budget. The last day I spoke I said: I think this Budget is going to be passed unanimously. There is going to be total approval of this Budget and I listened carefully - well, as much as I could - to the Opposition and I heard things over there that really confirmed that with me, because everyone of them said there are a lot of good things in this Budget. That is what they said. You can go back through Hansard and you will find it. A lot of good things in this Budget, a lot of good initiatives, a lot of good things that took place and a lot of positive action for the communities of Newfoundland and Labrador and for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Madam Speaker, one of the things that I want to talk about is the tuition freeze. The hon. members across the way said: Well, remember when we reduced it by 25 per cent. We reduced it by 25 per cent. They forget to tell you, prior to reducing it 25 per cent, they put it up a couple of hundred percent, 250 per cent. I guess that is the reason we put the $11 million into the math program, to make sure the Opposition could understand exactly what we are talking about here. That is why we are investing in that. When you look at a 250 per cent increase, a 25 per cent rollback, there is still a significant increase in the Budget, I will tell you, hon. members. That is exactly what happened. So, we have frozen tuition for four years here now. Four years since we have been in office, there has not been an increase in tuition.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DENINE: The hon. Member for Bellevue cannot say that. He cannot say that they froze tuition for four years. They increased it by 250 per cent and rolled it back 25 per cent. That is what they did!

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the truth.

MR. DENINE: And the truth hurts.

Also, Madam Speaker, I want to talk about our Poverty Reduction Strategy. We have probably one of the most progressive Poverty Reduction Strategy's that is in the country. The only other Province, I think, that has one written down is Quebec, and we have one.

Madam Speaker, some ministers - I served with three ministers in HRLE, and each one of them were asked to go to different provinces and explain our poverty reduction, just exactly what we are doing here. Here is the key to this, here is the key to all of this poverty reduction: the poverty reduction is not just a document that was put on the shelf. It is a working document. It is a document that encompasses all government policy - all government policy.

Madam Speaker, I can remember being at meetings and, every time a policy was developed, one of the first questions that was asked was: What does this do to help reduce poverty in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? Then, the officials would have to say: Well, this reduces the poverty by whatever - whatever the policy was. That was the first question we asked, and that is why I look at this as a policy that this government can be very, very proud of.

Madam Speaker, are there a lot of things we can do? Yes, there is no question, there are a lot of things we can do. If we were on the other side, when they were in government, they would have spent all of the money they had here. They would have spent the surplus that was left over. Madam Speaker, by not spending the surplus, and implementing all of the initiatives in this Budget, I think this government has done a tremendous job in putting forth a Budget that will be accepted by every member in this House, every single member. It should be, if it is not, and I do not know why they would not vote for it. Because, no matter what budget you put in, there is always someone who will say, well, something else should have gone out, or should have been added.

What are they going to vote against? Are they going to vote against all of the good initiatives that they mentioned over there? Do they want them? Do they not want free tuition - a tuition freeze? Do they not want -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DENINE: I cannot believe it. The hon. Member for Bellevue found one thing he could talk about. Unreal. Unreal. He has listened very attentively, you know, to my conversation here, or my speech, I guarantee you, because he has listened to every single word. Not much is sinking in, but he is listening to it.

Madam Speaker, are they going to vote against up-front, needs-based grants for students from rural Newfoundland who, basically, are the students who borrow the maximum amount of money? Are you going to vote against that? Are you going to vote against the income tax reductions? Are you going to vote against free books? Are you going to vote against our dental program? Are you going to vote against the money for roads? Are you going to vote against money for diabetes? Are you going to vote against the policy on the dental program? What are you going to do? Are you going to vote against those?

Every one of them over there can come up with at least one or two things that we should have had in the Budget, but do you throw the baby out with the bath water? I think not. This is a good Budget. I can see the hon. members over there - it is too bad the cameras do not scan that over there, because I can see them jumping up and down. Way to go, hon. Member for Mount Pearl, you are telling it as it is.

Madam Speaker, some of the things we have done when we go back to the poverty reduction, we took this poverty reduction very, very seriously. We put $24 million into PHRP, that is the home repair program. That will basically eliminate the waiting list. Prior to this year's Budget, $24 million was needed to bring us up to date, as we speak. This will virtually wipe out the waiting list for PHRP, and who does that help? Who does that help? It helps people who cannot afford to repair their homes. There is certain financial assistance given to those people to repair windows, roofs, siding, sewer systems, insulation, whatever. These are some of the things - energy efficiency - that is what we did.

Another thing we did, we offered a $200 rebate for home heating. The first thing they said: Oh, my God, hold on now, $200 is not very much. The thing here is this: we included electricity with this one. That is what we did, we included electricity, because the people - and wood burning - not only because you have oil do you need help and assistance for this, but also if you have electricity. You still have to heat your home. So that is what we did. I ask you: Are they going to vote against that? No, they cannot; they do not have the nerve.

Madam Speaker, also, $2.3 million to further enhance the dental program for children between thirteen and seventeen. Sometimes when we look at the health of our children in Newfoundland and Labrador, we have to look at everything. Healthy teeth are also very, very important because that is the overall health of the individual, so we invested money in that and I thought it was a great program.

The insulin pumps for diabetes, for children under fourteen years, these are expensive things for parents to come up with the money. This is expensive. What did we do? We eliminated that, the cost of those insulin pumps, and that was significant, tremendously significant.

Madam Speaker, what else did we do? I go down through this and I look at the members across the way and they are shaking their heads and saying: My God, I can't believe all of the things you are doing, can't believe it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DENINE: I have them convinced. I know I have.

Madam Speaker, $650,000 to increase funding for the Community Youth Network and to expand to new areas of the Province. Now, what do these Community Youth Networks help? Well, they help out with homework programs, life skills, they talk about literacy, family life programs, parenting skills; and, Madam Speaker, who does that help? That helps the people of low income families of Newfoundland and Labrador, again another initiative that helps out the poverty reduction.

Now, when I talk about the Opposition, I know the NDP Party will support this Budget because this is more of an NDP Budget than anyone. This is what they are always talking about. This is what we are doing, poverty reduction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: The hon. member is shaking her head over there, and I cannot believe it. I mean, what things did I say that would not fit into their policy? I do not know. I do not know. Anyone listening out there now, a lot of people out there listening to what I have to say, if they put it all together they would say: Well, why wouldn't the NDP vote for this? Why wouldn't they?

Madam Speaker, also, $350,000 to enable Newfoundland and Labrador Housing to provide a lower rental rate for senior citizens, Sir. Senior citizens, adults aged fifty-five and older, 30 per cent to 25 per cent in rent, $27 a month. That helps out the seniors in our Province. That is significant.

All of these things that we have given to the people, all of this, $25 here, a couple of hundred dollars here, these hundreds of dollars here, these hundreds of dollars there, Madam Speaker, they all add up. They all add up. Even the hon. members across the way can do that much, and if they cannot I will give them my calculator.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DENINE: He can, so he doesn't need it.

Madam Speaker, we have also looked at the increase to the minimum wage. Now, would the NDP vote, say, against that? Do you know what they would say? Well, it should go up to $10. Well, maybe it will one of these days. It will get there, but we are doing it on an incremental basis. We are taking one step at a time, and we are moving there. I think this is the second increase to the minimum wage since we got in power. Who does that help? That helps the people out there who need extra money to afford different things for their families and for themselves. That is what it is.

Madam Speaker, I can't wait for the vote on this Budget. I really can't. I am going to ask for a Division on this Budget because I want the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to see everyone in this House to stand up for this Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: No matter what party you are on or what side you are on, you can vote for this Budget.

MR. BARRETT: We will see if you will vote for a tax break for the rich. We will see.

MR. DENINE: He talks about a tax break for the rich. What about the poor? Is he forgetting about the poor and the middle income, the people who can't afford it? What about that, the hon. the Member for Bellevue? Is that the only aspect of this you don't agree with? If that is the only aspect you don't agree with, go back and rethink your decision.

Madam Speaker, when I look at our Budget and I look at what we have done, we have put $28.9 million into this current investment to reduce poverty and work on our poverty reduction. That is a total, since we have been here, of $91 million. That is what we have done, Madam Speaker, $91 million, and that is significant investment. To me that is real leadership, real vision for the future.

The other thing, Madam Speaker - what did we do? I mentioned them the other day and I am going to mention them again, because hon. members tend to forget; school fees. Who did that help? That helped every student attending school in Newfoundland and Labrador. Six point five million dollars: Where did that go? That went right into the pockets of the parents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Now, again $25 or $30 - I hope they are adding up all these figures over there, because let me tell you at the end of the day, when they take the $25 here, the couple of hundred dollars there, the $200 or $300 here, the income tax reduction, the school fees -

AN HON. MEMBER: Hundreds and hundreds.

MR. DENINE: Hundreds.

I am going to mention another one now, Madam Speaker, free school textbooks. No child in Newfoundland and Labrador will have to pay for textbooks; none, not one. Not one!

AN HON. MEMBER: Not one what?

MR. DENINE: I cannot believe - they are obviously not paying attention. Not one what? Read my lips. Not one student will pay for textbooks next year. Now, I cannot say it any plainer than that. I cannot say it any plainer.

If the hon. members across cannot understand that, Madam Speaker, I am going to give up. That is it! They are not listening, obviously. You can read my lips on this one, I say to the Member for Bellevue, and there will be no one paying for textbooks next year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: I can say that.

Madam Speaker, when we look at this Budget, we look at the drug program; the drug program the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services brought in. I congratulate the minister, what a great job. That was one heck of a program. Could the NDP vote against that one, I wonder? They might want a little bit of manoeuvering back and forth. Let me tell you, the number of people who would benefit by that provincial drug program is phenomenal, absolutely phenomenal. Again, they will pay a certain percentage of their income on a pro-rated scale. That is what they will do. I do not want to go over the scale, Madam Speaker, on this because I just want the members across the way to do some simple mathematics, and that is arithmetic, that is adding. That is what I want them to do. If I put in pro-rated scales, then that is going to really throw them off over there because they will not understand it.

Madam Speaker, with that we were - MS drugs, we had been lobbied prior to the Budget for MS drugs. I can remember sitting here - we got a carnation from the people who lobbied us for MS drugs, and congratulated us for what we have done. The Premier went out and met the people who came to the front steps of Confederation Building; which, in numerous times he has done. He listened to what they had to say. He was concerned. He was concerned about them. He was concerned about the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the cost for drugs.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. DENINE: This whole government was, I tell the Member for Bellevue. This whole government is concerned.

When you go back to the question that the Leader of the Opposition asked. He said, basically, the Premier did not care about the people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I thought it was the most underhanded comment I ever heard. The Premier has shown he has cared. This government has shown it has cared. This government has put its best face forward and we are going to do that. We have done that numerous times, and MS drugs is just one example of that. The free textbooks is another one. The home repair program is another one. The fuel rebate is another one. The dental program is another one. The free tuition freeze is another one. The upfront needs based grants is another one. The CT scans is another one. The diabetes thing is another one. Madam Speaker, I had better stop because their heads are spinning over there. They are absolutely spinning! It is to bad we cannot scan this House of Assembly here today, they are absolutely spinning over there.

When we look at what we have done, when we look at where we were and where we are today, I think we have taken a giant step to solve the problems of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, do we have a long way to go? The answer to that is a very simple, yes. Would I have loved to see other things in the Budget? Yes. I say to the members across the way, and I say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, stay tuned, our next budget will be a good one, too.

I will tell you, and I said at the beginning of my speech, and see if I am wrong because I am going to ask our House Leader here to call a division on the Budget, because I really want to see people who are going to stand up for people in Newfoundland and Labrador. I want to see the people on the other side, because I know they support it. I know members from the Opposition said they support it, and I cannot believe that the NDP would not support it. These are a lot of NDP policies that we have here.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. DENINE: Can I have just one more minute to clue up, please?

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. DENINE: Thank you.

I thank the hon. member from (inaudible). You are an hon. gentleman, sir - honourable. I really appreciate it. There are two over there, but you are honourable.

Madam Speaker, this government has shown tremendous vision, tremendous responsibility. We took action. We put policies in place that directly affect the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That is what we did. That is how we are going to do it. That is what we are going to continue to do. We took one step at a time. This Budget here, I think is a giant step towards solving a lot of problems. Do we have a long way to go? Yes, we have a long way to go, but I say to the people across the floor here in this House, stay tuned, and I say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, stay tuned.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

I am very happy to have the opportunity this afternoon to speak to this section of the concurrence debate. My colleague from across the way was talking about our heads spinning on this side because of everything that he was throwing out to us. My head is spinning because my colleague was sounding like a parent who has come into a lot of money asking to be given credit because he is feeding his children; because he is giving them a roof over their heads; because he is paying for their education; because he is making sure that when they are sick they are being taken care of; because their needs are being met.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: Well, I do not think any parent who has the money should be given credit for doing that. That is what the parent should be doing. I think that is a real parallel with the role of a government. This government is in one of the most fortunate situations any government has ever been in, in the history of this Province. We have money that we never had before in revenues, and it is the responsibility of this government, along with the co-operation of this side of the House, to spend that money for the good of the people.

When I am stood in this House, I have not stood very often, but all last fall and when my predecessors stood in this House and spoke to some programs that are now in this Budget, you have them there because we have kept talking about them and we have kept telling you, this is part of your responsibility as a government. So do not take credit because you are using our money, the money of the people of this Province - do not take credit because you are using that money to try to bring us up to a standard in Canada that in some other provinces they take for granted. Please don't take credit for that. Don't take credit for the fact that you are putting better roofs over the heads of people. Don't take credit for the fact that you are doing a little bit of a better job with regard to paying for people's drugs. That is what you are supposed to be doing.

The day of the Budget, when I saw the Budget and I saw the section called, Action To Promote Social Justice, I have to say that I chuckled to myself and I thought, well, they like the term social justice and yes it is a term that we use in our party quite a bit. Then, when I read through the Budget I thought, well, I am not really sure they understand what social justice is all about. I certainly do not see paying $1.3 million for the construction of a new regional office building to be a social justice issue; just to take one example.

Social justice is a very profound term and I do not think this government understands what it means, because if it did I do not think that my colleague, the MHA for Mount Pearl, would have made the comment he did with regard to my party. Obviously he does not understand what our party is all about. Social justice, the basis of social justice, means equitable distribution of the resources of a country, of a society, of a community, that the resources, the wealth, are distributed equally among people, that people have equal access to wealth. I am using wealth in the terms of having money. I do not mean wealth in terms that you have a lot of it, but to the wealth of a country, having equal access to it. That is what social justice is about. Social justice means trying to make things equally good for everybody in society.

If I take that understanding of social justice and I come to the tax cut that was in this Budget, then I say, no, this government does not understand social justice. I am really sorry. You are all nice people over there, you know, I have nothing against you. I really do not. I have known some of you for years. But you really do not understand social justice if you can tell me that this tax cut is something that is a sign of your understanding of social justice, because it is not.

A tax cut that would have taken less away from the highest earners and given more to the lowest earners, that is social justice. That is what you do not understand. That is social justice. Just imagine if the single income earner with a taxable income of $15,000 had saved $1,000 instead of $238 a year, just imagine what that $1,000 would mean to the person who only has a taxable income of $15,000. Instead, I have to come up to the single senior who is earning $50,000, has a taxable income of $50,000, before I see almost $1,000 saved.

I heard an explanation of this from somebody on the government side when we were debating the Budget earlier on. I remember the person explaining: well, the more money you have the more that gets taken out in income tax, therefore in the tax cut that is the more money that you get back. That is not social justice. To me, that is really, really simple. You do not let the rich benefit more in a tax cut if you believe in social justice. There was no need, for example - I have said this before and I will say it again - there was absolutely no need in doing this tax cut to take away the surtax from high payers. That surtax on high payers, they should be paying that. There is nothing wrong with that.

I am afraid my colleagues on the other side of the House do not understand what we stand for and what I stand for here in the spot that I am in. I stand for a recognition of equity, a recognition of equality. That is at the bottom of social justice. I take that and I look at the fact that $25 million is going into trying to get companies who are interested in large scale development to come here and to set up business. I suppose down the road that is going to pay off, it may or it may not, but those companies that are coming, you know, I bet they do not need the money that is going to be offered to them. They will take it, and they will take advantage of it, but if they have a good idea there will be other reasons for them to come here with their business, or if they are here to set that business up.

When I think of that attitude towards business, I say, I wish that attitude was as prevalent when it comes to people who are low-income. If we think about giving more money to low-income people, you know we did not give any more money to people on income assistance in this Budget. People on income assistance are not getting any more money in their hands. Yes, I know that they are going to be better off when it comes to drugs, but they probably would not have had the money to buy the drugs anyway. People who have called my office and spoken to me about drugs, what they are complaining about is that they did not have the money to buy them, so the new program is going to help them get their drugs. It is still not going to give them more money in their hands.

I know you have heard me say this before, but I have heard you say your stuff before too so I am going to keep on saying it just like you are going to keep on saying what you have to say to me, that real poverty reduction is more money in people's hands. If the minimum wage were to go to $10 an hour and government would actually say in this Budget, which they did not do, that that is their goal - my colleague again made reference to it and said, if it goes there. Well, to me it should not be if it goes there, it should be when it goes there. If the minimum wage were $10 an hour, then we actually would have some real poverty reduction because people would actually be moving in above the low income cut off.

Now, you know, when people move above the low income cut off, they are still not wealthy. They are still living on the edge of our economy. We do not think about that often enough. None of us is living on the edge of today's economy. Some of us may have in the past, I am not saying that. Some may have, and I know some have, I know that. I know that not everybody in the House was part of a family who had an income of $100,000 or $120,000 or $130,000 a year. I know that. I know that for myself and I know that for some of you. Some of us know each other's history.

Now that we do have this income, we have to remind ourselves of what it really is like to be living on the edge, and therefore we have to look at changing the economic system in this Province so that more people are moving further and further away from that edge and living more comfortably. That is what it is all about. Yes, there are things in the Poverty Reduction Strategy, what you call the Poverty Reduction Strategy, that are helping make things a bit better for people, but it is still not increasing income. Until we do that, we are dealing with a band-aid solution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: The government is dealing with the effects of poverty, it is not dealing with the reason for poverty.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am afraid that my colleague is missing my point. The thing is, they do not have the money to spend on those things, therefore it is not more money in their pockets. That is the point you are missing. It is not more money in their pockets. They do not have it.

May I remind my colleagues on the other side of the House, that we have fifty-five food banks in this Province. Our food bank use in this Province is the highest per capita in this country. That means we have people who need food and we have more people per capita who need food than anywhere else in this country. So let's remember that. Those people do not have money in their hands, so when we have them having drugs covered that is an extra for them; finally, their drugs are being covered. If their children's teeth are being fixed, that is an extra. The thing is, their children's teeth were not being fixed because they did not have the money to do it, so it is not extra money in their pocket. They are getting good things, but they do not have more money. To me, it is very simple, it is very clear. I do not think it is complicated.

I am not trying to be difficult here. It is very logical. If you are going to talk about my party and you are going to talk about what I stand for, then I need to tell you what I stand for and what my party stands for.

Even if there was one thing in the government documents that were to cause me to vote against it, the thing that would cause me to vote against this Budget - I do not need anything else - is the tax break. Nothing else. The tax cut is the thing that would say to me that this is not a social justice Budget. It is not. Yes, you may want to tell people that it is, but I know that people do not believe it is either. I know that, and I know that people agree with what I am saying so I will continue saying it.

I want to take one piece, Madam Speaker, and concentrate on, an omission. I, like a lot of us in this room - and I do not even think it was just Roman Catholics - a lot of us had a religious upbringing and a lot of us were taught about sin, and a lot of us thought that there were sins of omission and sins of commission. Well, in this Budget we have things that are committed and we have things that are omitted. So I want to talk about one of the major things that is omitted.

We have a few blights in our Province, and this is one of the blights in our Province: the fact that we do not recognize - and I mean this really seriously, I really do - the fact that we do not recognize home care as being a part of health care. It is an essential part of health care, being able to have people taken care of, in their homes. It is a part of health care, but we do not have it part of our medical system. Other provinces do; we do not. This is a real blight.

We have a home care program. We have people in the private sector who do home care, there is not doubt about that. It is unregulated and, believe me, I can speak from own experience on this one, it is so unregulated that, no matter what goes on, you have no recourse as a user of the system because you are dealing with a private company. There is no training going on, of home care workers, or the training that is going on is inadequate. The training that is going on is paid for by the companies that the people work for -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh ,oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: - but this government is putting money into home care, to the private sector, knowing that they do not have any control over that private sector.

We have people who are working either right at the edge of the minimum wage or slightly beyond it, and here is one of the things that is happening in the sector. If it were regulated then government would have something to say about it, but it is not regulated. There have been some agencies that have always paid more than the minimum wage. Say they paid $1 more, so when it was $7 they were earning $8. Then, when it went to $7.25, it went to $8.25, if they were lucky. What is happening now is - and there have been home care workers calling me about it, and if any of you were listening to Open Line this morning, there were some on Open Line this morning - what is happening now is, with the minimum wage going up, some agencies, instead of saying, okay, I add on, I keep adding on, are starting to say: Oh, well, the minimum wage is finally where I was paying so I am going to stop. I am not going to put it up any more.

That is what is happening, and that is part of what happens with lack of regulation. I do not know how we can justify either home care or child care to be - well, I will take home care by itself - I do not know how we can justify home care to be a totally private business when we do not see it for our medical care system. We pride ourselves on the fact that we have a public medical care system, so it does not make sense to me, then, if we pride ourselves on the fact that we have a public medical care system, why we do not realize that home care has to be public as well, because home care is medical care. It is health care. It is taking care of people who are either chronically ill or who are in a critical mode and need it for a short period of time, or who have left a hospital and for a short period of time need care at home, rather than keeping them in a bed in the hospital, being sent home, people being sent home with stitches. You know, forty years ago people were not sent home with stitches. You did not leave the hospital until the last stitch was taken out. I think it is great that we do not do that any more, but then we have to recognize home care as being part of the medical system. We are so far away from that, it just really bothers me. The lack of regulation is really, really serious.

Basically, our home care system is a mess, and the workers will tell you that. They stay in it because they believe in what they are doing. They stay in it because they want to do the work that they were doing. My own experience of workers in the home care system is some of the most committed people I have ever met, and doing it for a pittance. Most of them doing it with another partner helping out, putting in all kinds of overtime so that they can make extra money, working for many more hours than thirty-five or forty hours a week so that they can make enough money, while at the same time we have people in a bed, very often bedridden, absolutely dependent on that care.

Not everybody who is requiring home care has other family members to take care of them. Sometimes a person who is in a home, demanding home care, has nobody else in the community who cares about them. The only person they see or get any help from is the home care worker, without anybody to advocate for them, without anybody to speak up for them, and that is a really serious problem, that not only is the home care system unregulated, it is that the people who are requiring that service are people who are very, very vulnerable. They are either elderly, lots of times they are low-income, very often they are bedridden, they are extremely vulnerable, and very often do not have an advocate, do not have anybody from the family who can advocate for them. It is a luxury if they have an advocate.

This is something that I cannot take lightly. It really bothers me that this government, basically, is not taking it seriously. You know, my goal is to stay standing in this House and to make sure I am here after October, to make sure I have more people from my party with me after October 9, so that we can keep hammering the issues that we are talking about.

My colleague again, from Mount Pearl, talked about the Premier coming down on the steps to meet with the members of the Multiple Sclerosis Society.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time....

MS MICHAEL: Could I just clue up this one piece?

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have time to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: By leave.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

I just want to make this point, that every time the MS Society was out on those steps, I was out there with them. Finally, about the third time, they said to me - one of the people, not of the society but the husband of one of the women with MS, looked at me and said - Don't you think if Lorraine went inside - my name, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi - that she could call the Premier and he would come down? I said: I will do whatever you want me to do.

I went in, I called the Premier's office, and I said: I am really requesting, on behalf of the MS people who are out on this step in the rain and in a freezing wind, would the Premier please come down and meet with them?

That was the one time the Premier came down. The Premier came down because finally he couldn't say no anymore, because I kept at him. That is why the Premier came down, and that was the day he told them he had come down from a Budget meeting and he said: I can tell you, there is going to be something in the Budget for you. That was the day he said it, was that day on the steps.

MR. T. OSBORNE: That is an unfair statement.

MS MICHAEL: That is what he said. I am sorry, Madam Speaker.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I am not talking about he is saying, I am talking about you (inaudible) come down. That is not fair to say.

MS MICHAEL: I am not going to speak to that, Madam Speaker. All I can say is that the Premier had said he wouldn't be down on the steps that day. I was asked to call the Premier and I was told, we will talk to the Premier, and the Premier came down. I am reporting exactly what happened.

All I am saying is, I am glad I am in this House, I am glad that I can raise the points that I am raising, and I am glad that I can tell you what I think social justice is. If you are going to say you believe in what I believe in, you better understand what I believe in. That is all I am saying.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

MR. FORSEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate this opportunity, however sometimes on the other side of the House they have problems getting their facts straight.

Earlier, the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans said there was nobody there from government, at Aur Resources, there was no message from government. That was very untrue. That was actually false, because our Member for Windsor-Springdale, Ray Hunter, represented the government and brought a message on behalf of the government.

MS THISTLE: A point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, on a point of order.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I have a clarification to make. I said, and you should have listened attentively, there was no ministerial presence nor was there a Premier's presence at the opening of the Duck Pond mine in Millertown.

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point order.

The hon. the Member for Exploits.

MR. FORSEY: I believe she said there was no message from government. That is what I went by. I went by one line, I didn't go by all three of them.

However, it gives me pleasure to speak on this Budget because it seems that on the other side of the House they are so negative, and it is a little bit depressing. It almost reminds me of a bank statement, because every time I get to it there are minus signs there, and that is how negative it is.

I am sure there are a lot more positives. I know the positives because I have been in my own district in the past couple of weeks since the Budget came down. There seem to be members on the other side who know more about my district than they do their own. It is too bad they didn't spend time in their own districts for the past fifteen years, concentrating on their own districts. I appreciate their support in mine. Probably they would have gotten more road work in their own district, and they would not be complaining now if they had to do that in the past.

However, a couple of weeks ago I had the pleasure of attending the Fourth Degree Knights of Columbus speak-off in Bishop's Falls. It was the provincial speak-off for the high school. There was seven students, seven regions represented. Really, it was a great place to be, not only to listen to the talents and the skills of these young people, but to actually read the message in their speeches and in their answers to the questions, and how they were commending this government on the initiatives that are in this particular Budget.

They spoke on rural Newfoundland. They spoke on fitness. They spoke on global warming. They were questioned by the questioners and one of the questions was: What would you do for rural Newfoundland? These were students and what they actually said - this was them, this is what the students said: Tax reduction, more investment in education, especially in post-secondary. This was actually very good and a good commendation for this government because they realized the investment in post-secondary, they realized the 2.5 per cent reduction on the student loans to bring it down to 12 per cent, they realized the grant that was available and they also realized the freeze on tuition. These are things that we are doing for rural Newfoundland, and these students expressed it.

The same thing in the K-12 system. I drove down through the district and they said, with the money, saving 18 per cent, the tax cut - in the K-12 system as well, with the extra $41 million this year, we are going to see more infrastructure, we are going to see more upgrades.

As a matter of fact, if we are not doing anything for rural Newfoundland, as they say - last year in the District of Exploits, $2.3 million in education, upgrades and the skilled trades program. That is in rural Newfoundland. A new school in Leading Tickles - along with the new school and the investment in skilled trades, we are looking at a $2.3 million investment, the biggest investment in that electoral district for the past fifteen years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Thank you.

For these people across the way who say there is nothing going into rural Newfoundland and nothing going into the Exploits District, then maybe the member -

MR. JOYCE: It is all federal money, boy. (Inaudible).

MR. FORSEY: This is not federal money, this is provincial money.

It seems like when anybody gets up to speak on this side and the Member for Bay of Islands is over there, there is nobody else can talk and nobody can listen. He cannot learn to stay quiet. I do not know why. It is not fault you did not look after your district for ten or fifteen years. I do not know how long you are elected over there. Now you are calling to this Minister of Transportation to give you some money for road work. Well, boy, you should have gotten it the same time Mr. Grimes, the previous MHA, was in for Exploits, when we in Exploits receive $2.5 million in road work in eleven years. Well, we are after putting $4.5 million in the last two years in the District of Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, if these gentlemen were as interested in their own districts than probably out trying to conjure up some excuses and lies about the other districts, then I think probably we could be operating better in the Province and in the House, without a question.

I have a lot of respect for the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, but there are a number of times he has spoken in the House and he talks about water, the right to water, and drinking water; actually a good suggestion, a good question. You know, in the District of Exploits there is a place called Cottrell's Cove. I would say it is probably one of the most rural community on the Northeast Coast. It is the only community in the Exploits District that had a boil order on since the year 2000.

AN HON. MEMBER: 2000. Who was in then?

MR. FORSEY: Who was the member? I believe it was the Premier for two years. In the year 2000, they know that we need good drinking water. Yes, of course, they promote it. They want us to do it because they never had the ability to do it and they never had the finances and the negotiation skills to be able to negotiate with Ottawa and get what we need from our resources so that we can put it back into the Province.

MR. JOYCE: Sit down.

MR. FORSEY: I would love to sit down there, I say to the Member for Bay of Islands, but this is good news and you hate good news. I am sorry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: It is my turn to speak and when you get a turn to speak you speak and when you sit down you still speak. You do not say anything but your mouth keeps going.

Here is what the Minister of Municipal Affairs, our minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

MR. FORSEY: - who is doing a good job - the people across the House there, the members across the House, have always said, he is probably one of the best ministers we have. It had to be done. That is what Jack Byrne, Minister of Municipal Affairs, said about the chlorination. The Chair of the LSD, the local service district, said: I sit down and look at the water and drink it and I think, boy, that is pretty good for a community like Cottrell's Cove after the year 2000, seven years later.

Mr Yates also goes on to say, he is appreciative of what this provincial government has done for the town. May I be so bold as to say that he said, I have to say thanks to Mr. Forsey. He said, he made more trips down to Minister Byrne's office for this place than he had done for anybody else, because everyday there was a problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: We have well respected people in this Province, intelligent people, business people, people like the Board of Trade, people like the Nurse's Union, the Federation of Labour, university student councils. What did they say? It is probably the best budget they ever saw.

If I can quote, I think, my colleague from St. John's Centre - and I heard him on Open Line one day. He said: We are being fiscally responsible but we are being socially progressive. I thought that was a very good saying. The man knew what he was saying.

I was elected in the year 2005, I came in on a by election, and policing was probably close to an all-time low with the manpower we had in the Province. I know out in central Newfoundland the minister of the day was getting calls, Minister Marshall at the time: We need more policing. There are a lot of break and enters, a lot of theft, a lot of vandalism, businesses are getting doors beaten down and windows knocked out in Bishop's Falls, in Botwood, in Point Leamington, in the Central area and in the Exploit's district. Last year, we invested in policing, in the safety and security of our communities. This year, we are doing the same thing and adding another twelve RCMP officers in the Province.

I go back to as recently as two days ago, on a Saturday night in Peterview, at a dinner, and a representative from the RCMP gets up and he makes a little speech there to the general body. He said, back in the 1990s they were pretty much on a shoestring. They could not perform. They could not provide the safety that we needed in the communities.

Right now, we do not have as much break and enter and vandalism in this district, or probably in the Province, but I can certainly speak for the Exploits district. That gentleman and that officer got up and said: We are starting to make our communities more safe because, in the past couple of years, we have added to our forces. He said: I guess we will thank the provincial government, and probably even thank the Member for Exploits because he happens to be sitting there.

If he wanted to thank the Member for Exploits, I was ready to take the credit; however, this is what the police force is saying, this is what the RNC is saying, this is what the RCMP is saying, so these people are providing the security that our communities need. Why are they doing it? Because this government took the initiative to invest in safe and secure communities and invest in policing.

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FORSEY: I could tell the minister for the Bay of Islands a lot of things and they would be all positive, but he -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FORSEY: What was that?

AN HON. MEMBER: He was never a minister and he never will be.

MR. FORSEY: I didn't call him a minister, did I? Well, I certainly apologize and I certainly should feel bad about it as well.

He seems to know a lot about what is going on in other areas.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FORSEY: Talking about investment -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes that the House is a volatile debating forum; however, we do have to abide by certain fundamental rules.

The Chair is asking members for their co-operation. There has been too much shouting across the floor in the last while.

The Chair, in recognizing the hon. the Member for Exploits, asks all members for their co-operation.

MR. FORSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell you about wood supply, and I can tell you about agriculture. I can tell you about what this government is doing for rural Newfoundland when it comes to investment in agriculture and in aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: They do not want to hear about that. They do not want to hear what is happening on the Northeast Coast, although, yes, the South Coast is probably building right now. It is fairly strong in the aquaculture business. As a matter of fact, a few weeks ago I had the opportunity to go down to Harbour Breton to represent the minister on an economic development session down there. There were about fifty different groups of people down there, the developments associations and some of the business people, and they were very upbeat. Actually, it brought me back to when I got elected here in June of 2005, when they were outside the doors and they were ready, probably, to tear the jacket off me, and two years later I was down there speaking to them and they were offering me a coffee. It was a big difference.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Even though we see development in aquaculture down on the South Coast, on the Northeast Coast the same thing is happening. We also have a couple of mussel plants on the Northeast Coast, right in the District of Exploits, I say to the members opposite. We have the fur farming there, aquaculture and agriculture. Actually, last year, just last year alone in the District of Exploits, $1.3 million in agriculture, agrifoods and aquaculture.

Now, health care. I have been through the district in the past couple of weeks. I have not had a chance to speak on the Budget; however, everybody out in the district that I have been talking to will always make a remark and a comment on the Budget. The first thing they will say is: It is a good Budget. That is the first thing they will say, but everybody out there has individual needs and everybody out there will pick a certain thing that is beneficial to them.

I had a lady who talked about MS drugs. I met with her several times and I also brought her concerns to Minister Wiseman, and she said: Clayton -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that ministers should be referred to only by their titles or by their portfolios, and members should be referred to by their districts. We should never refer to members by either their surnames or first names.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Exploits.

MR. FORSEY: I am sorry about that. I apologize.

I did report back to the Minister of Health, and I brought her concerns back. She said: Clayton, you know the cost of MS drugs? She is a teacher. I did not realize that she had MS. When she told me she had MS, I really sympathized with her. I said: Sure, I will bring your concerns back.

I guess a lot of other people put in their concerns about the cost of MS drugs. What did we do? We brought in, in this Budget, Mr. Speaker, a drug program that is second to none right now in Atlantic Canada, and that lady right now is tickled pink, if I may say so, about the drug program.

I also travelled down through the district and I got other reports back from the Budget itself, and what we were doing. The drug program certainly came into place. They really supported this government on the drug program.

There was heavy investment - and I will get back to education and I will get back to the K-12 system. I will get back to what we did last year when we eliminated school fees. The people were delighted. They had more money in their pocket. This year, we are eliminating the cost of textbooks, so we are giving them more money in their pockets.

This Budget is probably one of the best - I guess it is the best - the Province has ever seen. Why? Because of this Administration, the Premier, the ministers and this government. That is why it is the best Budget that we have ever seen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FORSEY: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FORSEY: While I am up speaking, Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of good things in the Budget and I always have colleagues trying to say, well, we have this in the Budget, we have that in the Budget, but you only get twenty minutes so you want to try to get as much in as you can.

Yes, the grants are excellent but I would like to stick to the K-12, because of the K-12, because of the retention in teachers, because of the $41 million that we are putting in there this year, because our Budget right now has gone over $1 billion, the biggest we have ever seen in the Province, that is why we are able to offer them services.

In the District of Exploits we are very fortunate to have that same investment. That is why we can go down through six out of seven schools in that district this past year, Mr. Speaker, that received upgrades and investments. Six out of seven. Seven schools, six out of seven, and that included a new one as well. This Budget, there is all kinds of good news in it.

I will touch on health care again, just quickly, because there is something there that pertains to the Exploits district, because the Exploits district had the representation there from their former member but the investments never went back into the district.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair reminds the hon. member that his allotted time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: To clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. FORSEY: Thank you, gentlemen.

I will just say that we have a facility in Botwood that is second to none, the Dr. Hugh Twomey Centre, and if we did not invest the money in it this past year or two, we would not have a facility there because it would be deteriorated.

I would just like to say that -

MR. JOYCE: No leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

An hon. member has withdrawn leave.

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

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, we try to operate the House by consensus, and I know Your Honour is bound by whatever a member wants to do, and I understand that, but generally when leave is asked from the other side, whether it is the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi or some other member, I will, on behalf of the government, indicate there is leave, or I will if there is not. The Deputy House Leader, as I understood it, indicated on behalf of his colleagues that there was leave, and Your Honour was guided by that.

We know what happened, but I just want the House to know that we all recognize what happened here, and the leadership on the other side has a problem, obviously.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my understanding that I have ten minutes left today that I can speak, and I can speak again on tomorrow on the Estimates.

Mr. Speaker, listening to those opposite this afternoon, you would think two things. Number one is that the money that they are spending in this year's Budget came out of their own pockets, and that they were responsible for raising that money. The other thing that they would lead you to believe is that - especially the Member for Exploits, who just then was standing, that it seems to me that he must talk to very few people, I say to the Member for Exploits, because he said everywhere he goes people want to talk to him about the positive things in the Budget.

Well, I represent a district somewhat similar to yours, or at least parts of your district, the fishing area, and I can tell you that I have travelled through my district in the last three weeks since your Budget came down and people are not coming up to me and talking to me about what is good in the Budget.

I will tell you what they are talking about, I say to the Member for Exploits, and maybe if you went down to the fishing communities in your district you would hear what they are talking about. I am sure there is no one down in Leading Tickles today, if you walked in there, there is no one down there today who is going to come up to you and only want to talk to you about what great things are in the Budget for them, I say, Mr. Speaker.

MR. FORSEY: (Inaudible) I was down there last Saturday.

MR. REID: So, what you are saying is that all they want to talk to you about is the positive aspects that are in the Budget?

Well, Mr. Speaker, I have been in my district and I have been getting calls all along the Northeast Coast of our Province and into Labrador concerning one main thing on their minds today, and that is: How are they going to survive until the ice leaves the shores of that general area and they can get their lobster pots in the water, their lobster pots, their crab pots and their shrimp nets? That is the only thing that these people want to talk to me about.

It is not just my district, I say to the Member for Exploits, because the District of Bonavista South is impacted by it, Bonavista North, my own district, which is Twillingate & Fogo, Lewisporte district, Windsor-Springdale, the area up around Triton, and that area, is affected by the ice today, big time. Baie Verte, White Bay has been affected. St. Anthony has been affected, Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and Torngat. All of those districts are affected today by ice conditions along that coast, and these people are crying out. There is no one opposite, in any of those districts that I just mentioned that are represented by a Tory member, who have not received calls about the ice conditions in that area. If they have not, it is because their constituents either have given up on them or they realize that it is no good for them to call; because, believe me, that is the most important issue facing those people today, many of them who have not received a cent of income since April 1. Many of them - hundreds, if not thousands - have not received a cent of income since April 1.

I say to anyone opposite, because somebody got up there today and talked about it, I think it was the Member for St. John's North, talked about falling behind in a mortgage payment, or falling behind in a student loan payment. Well, just think, many of the people I am talking about today have already missed their mortgage payment and they are looking at missing a second one. Many of these people have not paid their light bill this month because they cannot afford to. Not to mention the fact that they have to go out now and find some money so that they can gear up to go fishing, because they cannot afford the fuel to put in their boats.

Unlike what some of the members opposite might think, not all fish harvesters in this Province are rich. I can tell you, they are very few and far between who are rich, because the vast majority of fish harvesters in this Province operate vessels under thirty-four feet in length. The maximum amount of crab that any of those fish harvesters in vessels under thirty-four or under thirty-five feet in length have on the Northeast Coast is 12,000 pounds or 13,000 pounds of crab. If you look at the prices last year, and even this year, the gross income from that fishery is going to be somewhere less than $12,000 last year, because it was only ninety-four cents a pound. So, if you wonder how these people made it through the winter and are now expected to live on absolutely nothing because their EI benefits are being cut off, then I say to the Member for Exploits, and all of you who have stood this afternoon and patted yourselves on the back about what a great Budget it is, you are missing the point. You are missing the point.

Budgets come and budgets go, and you can talk about what you put money into, but the fact of the matter is, for a large portion of the people in this Province today, nobody seems to be listening to them, whether it be in the Government of Canada located in Ottawa or the Government here in St. John's, because I have not heard any of the members opposite on an Open Line show, or read their comments in a newspaper, pertaining to the plight of these individuals I am talking about today.

Maybe if some of you have, and I have missed you, stand up and I will apologize to you. I have heard other members. I have heard Gerry Byrne, the federal member from the West Coast; he has raised the issue on a number of occasions. I have heard Todd Russell, who has raised the issue on a number of occasions, but I have not heard any of the members opposite. It is almost like they do not want the federal government to come up with an ice compensation package or an extension to the EI, afraid that someone out there in Newfoundland and Labrador might say, well, maybe the federal government is not as bad as we think they are. That is what I think the plan is.

Mr. Speaker, I have been asking our Minister of Fisheries, what has he being doing about it? He said: There are conversations going on with Ottawa; we have had conversations.

The minister missed a very important incident where he could have raised this issue, last Sunday, when he met with the federal minister in Ottawa, when he sat across the table from Loyola Hearn, our federal Fisheries Minister, when he had an opportunity to look him straight in the eye and explain to him the plight of the people on the Northeast Coast and ask him to just give them a break - not a lot of money, Mr. Speaker - to extend their EI for a month.

If you look at it, apparently now there is a $50 billion - $50 billion, not million, $50 billion - surplus in that fund, and the federal government cannot find it in their hearts to give these people a break and give them a month's extension on their EI program, which will mean absolutely nothing to that program. They will make it back in interest in a couple of days what they would pay out in that fund. I think it is atrocious. To hear everybody stand today and talk about the great initiatives - and the Member for St. John's North summed it all up. He said: You have to have priorities.

Well, I think one of the major priorities that we should be discussing today is what we are going to do to help those people along the Northeast Coast of our Province. That is what I think we should be talking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: When you are talking about priorities, the Member for St. John's North says, we spent money on this, this and this. There are more people looking for money for child care, there are more people looking for money for home care, but you have to set your priorities. I agree that you have to set your priorities, but I would place child care and home care for our elderly far above giving fur coats to Ralph Klein and his wife. I would place home care for the elderly in our Province and child care for our youth far above spending $200,000 on one night of entertainment for Premiers when they were here last year, I say to the Member for St. John's North.

When you are talking about priorities you should stop to think for a minute exactly what you are talking about. You might think it is fine to give Ralph Klein and his wife $8,000 worth of fur coats. I happen to think that is repulsive when you think today about the people along the Northeast Coast of our Province and Labrador who have been going without, do not know where they are going to get their next meal because they have no income. I know that a lot of you who agree with tax breaks to the rich, you cannot comprehend - that is what I said to the Premier this afternoon. What is it you cannot understand? These people have no money. Then I get attacked by the Government House Leader, the Minister of Fisheries, because: How dare you say the Premier does not understand! I do not think he understands, Mr. Speaker; no disrespect for him. There are people who make a lot of money who do not understand how the rest of us live, or they do not understand how the people who are less fortunate in this Province live.

I tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is time that this government stood up and said something to the government in Ottawa about what can be done. If they cannot, if the federal government does not come forward, what are we going to do with these individuals if the ice stays in for another month? Are you going to cut them loose, let them starve, or is this part of your plan to drive them out of the Province? Because, as we speak here today, you have got a $260 million surplus from this year that you are sitting on. Let's not just talk about what the federal government is sitting on in the EI fund. You have a $260 million surplus. Why don't you cough up some of that money to help these individuals on the Northeast Coast who are experiencing such a difficulty today?

Mr. Speaker, I understand that my time is going to run out for today, but I will be back on tomorrow. With this, I make a motion to adjourn debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the debate would adjourn. I think there is consensus on that. I do understand there are seventeen minutes left in the debate for tomorrow.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: I just want to inform the House, Mr. Speaker, that tomorrow we will be debating the Private Member's Motion that stands in name of the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair understands that the Chair would ask the hon. the Government House Leader to make the motion to adjourn the House.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to make the motion to adjourn, but I understood that the Leader of the Opposition had made it. In his absence, I make the motion that the House on its rising do adjourn until tomorrow at two o'clock.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Leader of the Opposition adjourned the debate, so now we have the motion to adjourn for the afternoon.

The motion is that the House adjourn until tomorrow at two of the clock.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

This House is now adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock.

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