The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today the Chair would like to welcome eleven Level III students from the Mealy Mountain Collegiate in the District of Lake Melville. The students are accompanied today by their Principal, Mr. Gary Barrett, and Chaperone Kelly Barrett.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will also hear the following members' statements: the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the hon. Member for the District of Bay Islands; the hon. Member for the District of the Straits & White Bay North; the hon. Member for the District of Terra Nova; the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the Member for the District of St. John's West.

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

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

It gives me great pleasure today to stand in the House and recognize the power of community spirit in my District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

This winter, two fierce storm surges damaged much of the Outer Battery's heritage fishing structures, including retired fishermen Jack Wells' wharf and twine store. In the face of this destruction, a number of residents have begun to organize an Outer Batter Residents Association to begin the job of rebuilding the heritage structures damaged in the wake of the storm.

At their first meeting, these people unanimously agreed their first job was to start raising funds to repair Wells' twine store, which has been the heart and soul of that community for over sixty years, as well as a popular St. John's tourist attraction. Jack Wells himself was married in the twine store over fifty years ago.

Mr. Speaker, a documentary by Battery Radio commissioned by Irish public radio on Wells' twine store can be heard this weekend on CBC's, The Performance Hour, Saturday and Sunday. Mr. Speaker, community spirit runs deep in all parts of our Province, and is alive and well in my district.

I ask all members to join with me in applauding residents Ches and Flo Sweetapple, Angela Drake, and others who are working hard to preserve the last examples in the St. John's metro region of a way of life that sustained this place for 500 years, a heritage all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians share with the people of Outer Battery.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize Mr. Frank Bartlett Senior on the occasion of his ninetieth birthday today, March 25.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bartlett was born in Curling to the late Charles and Laura Bartlett and is married to Mable nee Chaulk and they are the parents of five children: Joyce, Bob, Frank Jr., Terry and Kathy. Mr. Bartlett was self-employed most of his life.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bartlett lives on a very historical piece of property. During the First World War there were five Germans captured in the Bay of Islands and during the time of captivity these POWs built a rock wall around his property measuring four feet wide, four feet high and 700 feet long. Mr. Speaker, this 700 foot rock wall remains today and we would like to thank Mr. Bartlett for maintaining the wall and keeping history alive.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members here today to wish Mr. Bartlett a happy ninetieth birthday and many more years of good health.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

On January 4, 2010, the Province lost a tremendous individual, World War II veteran Mathew T. Brown.

Mr. Brown, a resident of Gambo, was born on April 2, 1923 and was only seventeen years of age when he enlisted in the Navy. In 1940, shortly after joining the ranks, he was sent to the European battlefront. While overseas, the most notable of Mr. Brown's experiences occurred when his ship was torpedoed off the coast of Italy; 102 soldiers were killed in that attack. Luckily, Mr. Brown survived. However, he was left stranded in the Mediterranean Sea for twenty-four hours before being picked up by Italian forces. He would spend three more months in Italy as a POW before being moved to Poland where he worked in a forced labour camp for another year and a half.

While in prison, Mr. Brown, along with many of his comrades, were faced with taking part in what was referred to as a death March in November of 1944. This saw prisoners forced to walk from Poland, across Germany and Czechoslovakia into Austria. Mr. Brown recounted how during this trek so many of his friends perished due to exposure and starvation. Shortly after arriving in Austria the war ended and he and his fellow allies were liberated, allowing Mr. Brown to return home to Newfoundland.

I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Brown in November of last year. It was unfortunately the only time we had an opportunity to speak, as he passed away on January 4 of this year. I attended Mr. Brown's funeral and bid farewell to a real life hero. His memories will live on through the people who knew him and his story, a story that must never be forgotten.

I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in recognizing this gentleman's remarkable life.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate the St. Mary's All Grade basketball team from the Community of Mary's Harbour on their terrific results at the recent provincial basketball championships held here in St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, Hoopla 2010 was held to feature top basketball teams in various rankings from across the Province. I had the opportunity to attend some of the games and to be a part of the medal presentations, and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, there were some great athletes amongst these students.

The St. Mary's Wolves girls' team won the championship for the Small School Division after an exciting playoff against St. Joseph's All Grade from Terrenceville who took home the silver medal. The winning players on the team from my district, Mr. Speaker, were: Tamara Pye, Lissa Rumbolt, Irene Simms, Kelly Russell, Carla Rumbolt, Stephanie Sooley, Alexandra Pye, Leslie Rumbolt, Cassandra Pye, Sara Lee Campbell and their Coach Todd Farrell. I extend them congratulations.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to acknowledge the St. Mary's Wolves boys team who won the silver medal in the Small School Division and put forth a terrific effort in a play against a very strong team from Valmont Academy in King's Point. It was a wonderful game to watch, Mr. Speaker, and I congratulate both teams, and as part of the Mary's Harbour boys team I want to extend congratulations to: Matthew Rumbolt, DJ Rumbolt, Colin Rumbolt, Taylor Farrell, Owen Randell, Courtney Pye, Kevin Farrell, Kenny Snook, Andrew Cumby, Cody Ryan, Morgan Snook, Shane Ryan and Daniel Johnson.

I ask members of the House to join me in congratulating all four of these teams for their outstanding performance in high school sports within the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of St. John's West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life and work of one of the most accomplished, generous, and remarkable women of Newfoundland and Labrador who passed away on March 23 at the age of 86.

Kathrine Elizabeth Bellamy was born in Bay Roberts and after completing her early education, entered the Congregation of the Sisters of Mercy of Newfoundland. Soon afterwards she was assigned to Our Lady of Mercy School, St. John's, where she began her lifelong vocation as a music teacher. During the course of her life as a teacher, she worked principally with the school choirs. Under her direction, Our Lady of Mercy Glee Club received numerous awards, and it was the first Newfoundland choir to win the Mathieson trophy for the best junior choir in Canada.

Sister Kathrine set the standard for musical excellence in our Province, and she trained and taught a generation of the brightest and best of our musicians, including Dr. Susan Knight, Susan Quinn, and Marie Piccinini, the world-renowned flautist. In over sixty years as a music teacher, never did she turn a student away regardless of their religious denomination, economic or social background. She taught them all.

In 1973, at the University of Wisconsin, Sister Kathrine became the first Newfoundland and Labrador woman to earn a Doctorate in Musicology. As one of the Province's most respected musicians, she advised MUN President Moses Morgan on the establishment of the Music School, and in the early 1970s she succeeded the noted composer Rainer Rees as organist and choirmaster at the Basilica of St. John the Baptist.

She was the moving spirit and founder of the inter-denominational downtown community kitchen known as The Gathering Place. In 2005, her scholarly history of the Sisters of Mercy in Newfoundland and Labrador, Weavers of the Tapestry was published, becoming a Canadian bestseller. In 2006, she became a Member of the Order of Canada, and was awarded an honorary Doctor of Laws by Memorial University, but her proudest moment was her induction that year into the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask my colleagues in this hon. House to join with me in extending condolences to Sister Kathrine's family, as well as to the Sisters of Mercy, particularly her colleague and dear friend, Sister Celine Veitch, as well as her many friends and students.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to inform members present and the public of an important initiative that is supported by the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. That is the annual conference and trade show held by the Newfoundland and Labrador Aquaculture Industry Association and the Aquaculture Association of Canada.

Both of these associations have been instrumental in advancing the aquaculture industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. Their annual conference has been a key component of their strategy for facilitating networking opportunities within the industry. To that end, my department was pleased to offer $50,000 to support event planning and hosting of this year's conference.

In 2009, the Newfoundland and Labrador aquaculture industry reached record levels of production and market value. Production of aquaculture species rose to 13,625 tonnes, an increase of 18 per cent over 2008. The 2009 market value for provincial aquaculture increased to $92 million, representing a rise of 45.9 per cent over 2008. Truly, aquaculture has developed into a full industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, supporting economic growth and development in coastal areas of the Province. This has been due, in no small part, to the high level of investment on the part of the Williams' government.

The theme of this year's conference will be Successful Partnerships for a Sustainable Future. Mr. Speaker, this is a very appropriate theme because of the collaborative efforts that have been made to facilitate the growth and the development of our Province's aquaculture industry. These industry associations have played a key role in making that happen. I am sure that the industry and its stakeholders will continue to work together toward even greater goals in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that this year my department will be co-hosting the joint Cold Harvest 2010 and Aquaculture 2010 annual meetings, conference and trade show in St. John's from May 16 to May 19. It has been an incredibly successful event in the past and we look forward with great enthusiasm to this year's conference.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like, first of all, to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Again, I would like to acknowledge the success of the aquaculture industry recognizing that it is a growing industry and one that will be very important to the Province as it goes forward. I am very pleased to see that it is doing well in getting the support of government that it rightfully deserves.

Obviously, at the same time we are very concerned about the rest of the industry. As we all know, with the percentage of the decline in the fishery in 2008-2009, I would encourage your department, yourself as minister of the government, to continue to see this as an industry that needs major investment and a lot of attention. I certainly would hope that as the MOU process continues to unfold, that whatever direction it takes us, to see that the industry improves and corrects itself, that we would take those initiatives.

Again, I thank you for your statement.

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

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

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

This is good news that he has presented. It is good that government is supporting the aquaculture industry, and I applaud the growth in that industry and the support of the government. But, as my colleague from the Official Opposition has said - and I know the minister knows this - that while aquaculture is growing, it is only a small component of our fishery. We still have our traditional fishery which is a major contributor to the economy of this Province.

We know we have a crisis looming once again with the price of crab and we have fishing people who are saying they are not going out on the water. So, I encourage the minister to show both to those in the industry and to the Province, even more strongly, that government is in there with those in the traditional fishing industry, because it does not look like a good summer. We knew this was coming and I know we have a process in place, but people are starting to need to see action.

I encourage the minister, to the degree that he can, to get the process moving and to see what action this government can be involved in putting in place to ensure people that they are not going to be living in poverty – more poverty – after this coming summer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform hon. members of the fifth annual two-day Aboriginal Women's Conference which took place this week in St. John's. This year's theme: The Path to the Good Life – Evolving Opportunities for Aboriginal Women, focuses on the growing opportunities in our expanding natural resources sector.

In a keynote address to the conference Tuesday evening, my Cabinet colleague, the hon. Kathy Dunderdale, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, pointed out how the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, along with the federal government, Nunatsiavut Government, the Innu Nation, the Labrador Metis Nation, and Nalcor Energy, recently announced a $30 million training initiative for Aboriginal women and men throughout Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, by providing training opportunities and improving the labour market for Aboriginal people we are not only increasing our skilled workforce, we are helping to enrich and improve the lives of many families, which will in turn improve the economic and social makeup of communities.

I was very pleased to have the opportunity to address the conference during a breakfast gathering on Wednesday, where I was joined by my Cabinet colleague, the hon. John Hickey, Minister of Labrador Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, these women always go out of their way to make me feel welcome, like family. I pointed out that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is a proud supporter of Aboriginal women and continues to invest in areas that are important to themselves and their communities.

As well, I had the great pleasure of taking part in a tribute to the late Flossie Oliver, an elder from Happy Valley-Goose Bay. She was known simply as Aunt Flossie. She was indeed a strong force in her community. I understand she provided much guidance to her family, her community and to other Aboriginal women. It was a great honour to join her family, her daughter Jenny, and her son Valance, who works in our Labrador Affairs office, and take part in a moving dedication to her. She will be a hard act to follow.

Mr. Speaker, Aboriginal women are the keepers of culture and traditions and they are a great source of strength in their communities. Like all women, they can be a profound force for positive social change. That is why the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is so pleased to lend its support to this conference which provides an opportunity for Aboriginal women from all over the Province to gather, exchange ideas and viewpoints, and give inspiration and support to each other.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. minister for an advance copy of her statement.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, how pleased I am that this conference around Aboriginal women's issues in the Province continues and continues, from what I understand, with tremendous involvement of women all across Newfoundland and Labrador who live in Aboriginal regions.

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge, of course, the involvement of Aboriginal women in different sectors of our economy, but obviously in the oil and gas sector, in the mineral and energy sectors where involvement has been evolving, I guess, against tremendous odds as women and Aboriginal women. I look forward to seeing more of that.

I also want to take the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, today to offer my best wishes to the Aboriginal women of Natuashish, who are being faced with some very difficult decisions in their communities, decisions that will affect them and their children for a long time. This is a community where we have seen tremendous progress because of the ban on alcoholism. I have listened to their stories on the radio. I have talked with many of them on the phone. I have met many of them in person. I know how important this issue is for them in being able to protect their children, protect their community and those that they love.

I want to use this opportunity to wish them well, Mr. Speaker, and ask all of us to give our best wishes and our blessings upon this community as they move forward with their vote and their deliberations.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. I really regret - and I sent my regrets - that I was not able to accept the invitation this year to be at the dinner at the conference and to hear the keynote address. I have enjoyed doing that in the past and this year it was impossible.

This conference is such an important event in the lives of the Aboriginal people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a way in which we are increasing the visibility and the voice of Aboriginal women in this Province.

Last weekend, when I was at the opening of the Winter Games in Grand Falls-Windsor it was really significant that a major part of the entertainment was the performance of the honour song by the Exploits native women's drumming group. I could not help thinking ten, fifteen years ago in this Province that would not be happening. So, we really are advancing as a Province in the recognition of Aboriginal peoples in general, and particularly of the Aboriginal women of this Province.

The annual conference is an important moment in strengthening the spirit of collaboration that is growing among the Aboriginal women themselves. I think that is what is really important too, that it is all of the Aboriginal people together, all the Aboriginal women together.

I encourage the minister to continue the work that is being done with the Aboriginal women.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, through the Northern Strategic Plan the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador work closely with the people of Labrador to improve social and economic circumstances throughout this vast and diverse region. Today, as Minister of Labrador Affairs, it is my pleasure to provide a progress update on the NSP through the release of our mid-term report.

Mr. Speaker, this report chronicles a record of unprecedented investment in Labrador since the launch of the plan in April of 2007. These investments are helping to build the Trans-Labrador Highway, a hospital and a college campus in Labrador West, and K-12 schools in Port Hope Simpson and L'Anse au Loup and enhanced winter trail infrastructure for North Coast communities. They are funding programs and services, including an energy rebate for isolated coastal communities, an energy efficiency pilot project in Coastal Labrador, a pilot project for year-round ferry service to the Island, a Medical Transportation Assistance Program, the Labrador Travel Subsidy, and Cultural Travel Subsidy.

The NSP is a five-year progressive strategy aimed to improve the lives of Labradorians through social and economic stimulus investments, including a record investment of more than $135 million in the current fiscal year. This mid-term report presents an important snapshot of the evolution of the NSP and initiatives that will be spearheaded in the coming years.

Mr. Speaker, this report deals with accomplishments that have taken place up until the fall of 2009. Since then, we have marked a number of additional milestones; most notably, the historic opening of Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway, connecting Labrador West through Lake Melville to Southern Labrador, which will cost approximately $138 million when completed. Other achievements include the opening of a francophone school in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, the establishment of a boundary for the Mealy Mountain National Park Reserve, and the initialling of formal documents for the New Dawn Agreement reached between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Innu Nation.

Mr. Speaker, groups and individuals across Labrador continue to help shape the Northern Strategic Plan. In April, a series of meetings in communities throughout Labrador are planned to provide updates on the NSP.

Mr. Speaker, we will be making published copies of the NSP mid-term report available to the public in the coming weeks. In the meantime, I invite people to view our report on-line at the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs Web site.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for a copy of his statement today. However, Mr. Speaker, I already had it from April 29, 2009. With the exception of a couple of words, it is almost nearly the same statement.

Mr. Speaker, the Northern Strategic Plan for Labrador should really be geared towards progressive lifestyles for the people of Labrador itself. I would like to know from the Minister of Labrador Affairs when they are going to start tackling the issues regarding high-speed access to Internet services for the eleven communities in Labrador that have no access; when they are going to look at things like cell phone coverage on a highway system, one of the most treacherous highway systems in this Province today, where people are driving hundreds of kilometres with no stops in between, Mr. Speaker. Maybe he could tell us what they are going to do to bring down the commercial energy rates on the North and South Coast of Labrador so that these people can be competitive in a Labrador environment. These are the kinds of things that people want to see under the Northern Strategic Plan and the efforts of the government under Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, maybe he could tell us if they are going to pave the only piece of highway -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - to the only tourism attraction the Province has in Labrador, which is in L'Anse Amour, where buses are refusing to go to the only provincial tourism site you own because the road is so bad. Maybe that is the kind of initiatives that the minister needs to start looking at as part of the strategic plan instead of continuing to put out statements on schools and buildings that he has been doing for the last six years since they got in government, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

Mr. Speaker, the Throne Speech made much about the developing of Labrador and that government was going to release the mid report of the Northern Strategic Plan and today we have it, and I am glad of that. The report tells us what the government has done, but what it does not tell us is what the people of Labrador think about what must be done.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labrador Affairs could not take time to attend the Combined Councils of Labrador, in Labrador West this past February, to listen to the leaders, the elected leaders of the municipalities and what they had to say about the needs of their communities. We now have, Mr. Speaker, in our hands a copy of the resolutions from the Combined Councils AGM. I know the minister has them; we were all cc'd on the bottom. I hope that the minister is going to get the time now to listen to the Combined Councils by reading their resolutions and responding to them.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the government today made an announcement around air ambulance services in the Province. I have a copy of the report here, which, Mr. Speaker, I feel is a very simplistic report to a very complex and critical problem that exists in air ambulance services in Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the decision that was made today you would think that government completely missed the boat in filling the gaps in air ambulance services throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister today, because looking through the report in the sketchy information that is there, it is telling us immediately that 63 per cent of the medevacs being provided in this Province will now not be serviced with the change in location. We were asking, Minister, for your government to fix this problem by adding a third air medevac aircraft. Why have you chosen to just shift an aircraft and not fix the gaps in the system?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A decision like this is never easy. We are aware of the effect on people in the St. Anthony area and we are aware of the consequences, Mr. Speaker, of making decisions, but decisions have to be made. We have to make strategic investments and we have to utilize the money that we have to achieve the best possible results.

Mr. Speaker, this is the same Leader of the Opposition who, on December 15, presented a petition of 3,000 people from the Labrador region asking to have an air ambulance service in Labrador. We have now provided the air ambulance service in Labrador. We have invested $8 million in a new plane to replace the old plane in St. John's, and we are putting a second medical flight services team in Labrador. I thought she would have been happy today, but I guess I was right yesterday when I said she would not like the decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will continue to raise issues on gaps in services in this Province, whether they be in Labrador or whether they be created by your government somewhere else in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister today, because addressing the critical gap of air ambulance services in Labrador is very important and needed to be done, but I ask you minister: Why you choose to do it at the peril of other patients in this Province who need air ambulance services and not invest the money to ensure the proper resources were there?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I indicated yesterday, on November 27 I met with the councils in the Labrador region. I met with the two families who were very severely affected by what they described as the failure of the air ambulance system. Mr. Speaker, having regard to that human toil and having regard to the issues raised, on December 14 I indicated that we would have a review conducted. On December 15, the petition was presented from the people of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I indicated at that point in time that we would hire a consultation with a view to taking the politics out of it. The consultant's reasons, Mr. Speaker, for suggesting the move were quite simple. One is that the population of the Labrador region is approximately 26,000 people, the population of St. Anthony is 2,450 people, with a population in the rural secretariat region of St. Anthony-Port au Choix of 13,000 people. So we have twice as many people in the Labrador area, Mr. Speaker. Secondly, the flight statistics show that twice as many flights are coming out of Labrador as are coming out of St. Anthony, and some of those flights out of St. Anthony are from the Southeast Coast of Labrador.

So, Mr. Speaker, what we have done here today, having regard to the problems that have arisen in the Labrador region, and three specific incidents come to mind, we have, Mr. Speaker, made a decision that we feel is in the best interest of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister should realize that every life is important, and ensuring services for every person in this Province is important. We do not want what has been happening in Labrador in the last year to be happening somewhere else in this Province, a year later, minister.

So I ask you: Why was there no consideration given in the terms of reference to look at how this is going to impact upon Central Newfoundland or Western Newfoundland, which are two areas that have used that same air medevac aircraft?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in relation to the private member's motion that was brought forward by the Opposition, we outlined how we are trying to address, strategically, needs throughout this Province and our commitment to rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, what we have done with this particular decision is to try to address the immediate needs in Labrador. The plane will still come to St. Anthony. It will come from Happy Valley-Goose Bay. It is centrally located. The Innu Nation, Mr. Speaker, the Nunatsiavut Government support this decision. What we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is use our resources as best as possible.

What the consultant did state, Mr. Speaker, I want to make this clear, in case the Leader of the Opposition has conveniently forgot it, the consultant said if there is a third aircraft it should be in Deer Lake. Not one in St. Anthony, not one in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, but in Deer Lake, Happy Valley-Goose Bay and St. John's, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What the study did not address in its simplistic format was the fact that: What are going to be the response times around the Province when we still have just two aircraft? All the minister did today was shuffle an airplane from one runway to the other runway. My concern is, how do you fix the gaps in service? Where is the demand, who is going to provide it, and why is it your government can put $15 million into collar caribou in this Province and cannot spend $8 million on a third air medevac for the people of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are spending approximately $2.6 billion a year on health care, up $1 billion from a number of years ago and up significantly from when the Liberals were in government.

Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of simply saying a third aircraft is required. We will continue to have discussions. We will continue to study this issue.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, can I –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member for her co-operation.

The hon. the minister.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, what we are looking at, Mr. Speaker, is: How do we address the situation for the Province as a whole, but specifically the people of Labrador right now, the situations that have arisen in Goose Bay, the situations that have unfortunately arisen in Lab West?

This plane is centrally located. It will be able to serve now the people of Northern Labrador, Southern Labrador and Lab West. Again, Mr. Speaker, there are approximately twice as many flights or pickups in the area as there are coming out of St. Anthony which involves the Southeast Coast of the Labrador flights; and secondly, Mr. Speaker, it serves a much greater population.

Also, we have significant industry going on in Labrador right now. What we have to be able to do, Mr. Speaker, is identify the areas of risk and try to address those issues. That is what we are doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the Leader of the NDP said it best yesterday in a statement that she made when she said that this government wants the federal government to set up additional search and rescue capacity in St. John's, but not lessen its service in Gander.

I say to the government: How could you be so hypocritical in your own approach in providing emergency response services to the people of this Province that you would singularly just move an aircraft from one runway to another runway in hopes of fixing a very critical problem that have claimed the lives of people in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So now I take it from the comments of the Leader of the Opposition that she does not want the plane in Labrador. Is that what I am hearing here today? That is what I appear to be hearing, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is not, again, simply a matter of transferring an airplane. We are moving a team of twelve medical flight service people to Happy Valley-Goose Bay so that there will be trained paramedics and specialized nurses on the flight. These people will rotate between St. John's at the tertiary care centre to obtain the clinical exposure they need. Secondly, Mr. Speaker - and this seems to be conveniently forgotten by the Leader of the Opposition - we indicated today that we are going to invest $8 million in a new plane to replace the plane in St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, the fact that she does not get everything she wants, but what I say to the Leader of the Opposition is: Be careful what you ask for, sometimes you get it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, it is not about what I want, but I say to you minister: I want an aircraft in Goose Bay. I want two aircraft on the Island portion of the Province and I want them because the people need the service. What you fail to do in your simplistic report –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - was study the fact and the need of where gaps are in this Province and omitted, omitted looking at all of Central Newfoundland, all of the West Coast of Newfoundland.

I ask you today, Minister: Do you feel that your solution will be the solution that prevents people from losing their lives in this Province because there will not be an air medevac service?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I say to the hon. member you cannot ask questions and shout at somebody who is trying to give an answer. I also ask members to my left for their co-operation so as the minister might be identified to provide his answer.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. KENNEDY: I just want to make sure I understand this now, Mr. Speaker, from the Leader of the Opposition. So she is okay with the plane in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, okay with the plane in St. John's but what she is saying is there should be a third plane in Deer Lake. Now if I have that correct, that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: A third one in Deer Lake is what the consultant's report said.

In any event, Mr. Speaker –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY - there are other issues that have to be looked at here, and basically the issues that we are looking at today are a significant investment. This is a significant investment. It is a significant announcement.

The Leader of the Opposition stood up on December 15, and misled this House by presenting a petition with her own heading that did not reflect what the people of Labrador said. Have you forgotten that I say to you? Then, Mr. Speaker, she stands up and says: Well, we want a plane in St. Anthony and in Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

Well, Mr. Speaker, what we have done is made a significant investment today. I thought again, in my naivety, that it would be well received, I guess not. Mr. Speaker, I assume that the people of Labrador will recognize this as government's commitment to them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to remind the minister, Mr. Speaker, that I am not the one being short-sighted here, but I do want to ask him this question.

I want to ask him why his government was not prepared to invest the money for a third air ambulance in this Province when it is clearly necessary based on the cases that we have seen in the last two years. I ask him: Where in this study it indicates that a third air ambulance was not necessary and not required?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we looked at where planes will be required. There has to be a plane in St. John's because we have a specialized neonatal unit at the Janeway which has to fly with the plane whenever they proceed to pick up neonates, and I understand there could be between fifty and sixty trips a year. So that is the first plane that has to be in St. John's. Also, in relation to the training for the medical flight service individuals as they rotate through the clinical services at the Health Sciences - first plane.

The second question is we have these issues in Labrador; we take these issues seriously. I have met with these families, Mr. Speaker, and I can tell you there was a significant impact upon me. What happens, what we look at, is that we are having the difficulties in Labrador. We hired a consultant. Maybe, Mr. Speaker, simplistic is not the word, maybe the answer is simple. Maybe when you look at the flight statistics and you look at the population, it is that simple that a second plane should be located in Happy Valley-Goose Bay as it is. We also looked at Lab West; the consultant made a recommendation and we accept that recommendation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today is a very sad day for the residents of The Straits & White Bay North, but they are use to sad days in recent years under this government.

On February of 2009, there was a news release put out by Trevor Taylor, the MHA and the then Minister of Transportation, saying that the reasoning that Dr. Thomas used back in the mid-1950s to base an aircraft in Northern Newfoundland, still holds true today. He noted that St. Anthony is located in the center of the Province making it a logical location -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DEAN: The center of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, yes, for those who do not understand the geography.

Also, the Member for St. Barbe suggested that its location here in the region will undoubtedly continue to serve the people of the Province well; that was just a little over a year ago. Since that time –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to complete his question.

MR. DEAN: Yes, I will, Mr. Speaker.

I am assuming that a decision with such a negative impact would have been discussed with the town. So, I ask the minister today: When was the community notified of this devastating decision?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I have indicated, after the consultant was retained and the terms of reference were outlined, the consultant met with the mayor of St. Anthony, I understand – I do not know but council – and met with the mayors of the other areas. I replied to a letter from the mayor of St. Anthony myself. However, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the actual announcement today, the announcement was made in a decision that was communicated during a press release, and like everyone else, they were notified at the same time.

Mr. Speaker, the last couple of days there have been discussions in this House, and I think it has been fairly clear as to the nature of these discussions. Today, we made our decision and that is what we have to do, Mr. Speaker, as a government and as ministers is make decisions. We made it based on a consultant's report.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, the point has already tried to be made that 63 per cent of this Province today has a lesser service than it had yesterday once this move is made.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

MR. DEAN: It is true.

Given that –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DEAN: Read the report!

Given that this here –

AN HON. MEMBER: Explain it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DEAN: Explain it? My explanation, Mr. Speaker, is that when an air ambulance service, a second air ambulance service has to be called and St. John's is busy, it will come out of Goose Bay instead of St. Anthony, and that is an hour longer to Gander by the way.

Given that this air medevac service is administered by the Labrador-Grenfell Health Board and given that this move is within their boundaries, I would ask the minister again: Were they a part of the decision-making process to move this air ambulance?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have to say I am a bit confused by the numbers being put forward by the Liberal Opposition – not that they have ever been concerned about the facts. When I look at the number of flights, we have a total number of pickups, in the spreadsheets I am looking at, of approximately 1,133. We have 150 in St. Anthony; 18 per cent of them are coming out of the Southeast Coast for another thirty. So we have 120 out of St. Anthony themselves; eighty of those people are residents of St. Anthony and that region.

So, Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the numbers are coming from. Labrador-Grenfell was involved in the discussion. They certainly knew what was going on, Mr. Speaker, but as a government and as a Cabinet, we make these decisions in the best interest of the people of this Province.

The Member for The Straits & White Bay North, he knew this was ongoing. I did not receive any submissions from him. I have not received any letters from him (inaudible) -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, you cannot get an answer to a question in the House, let alone consideration to a submission.

Nevertheless, the statistics are what they are. Sixty-three per cent, Mr. Speaker, of the medevac service in this Province today come out of other places across the Island, being Gander, Deer Lake, Burgeo, and so on, and the Northern Peninsula and Southern Labrador. When the aircraft is relocated to Goose Bay, those 63 per cent respondents out of Goose Bay will obviously take longer.

My question was not answered. Probably the minister would consider it again: Was the Grenfell board a part of this decision-making process?

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I met with the CEO of Labrador-Grenfell a couple of days ago. He was in here – I guess it was yesterday - for the Cameron update and we had a discussion as to what was going on, Mr. Speaker. The CEO was aware of what was transpiring. The boards, Mr. Speaker, have been – again, I assume the CEO will be in contact with the boards. This decision has been looked at. We have had discussions over the last period of time and, Mr. Speaker, what we have done - I come back to the basic facts here. There are twice as many flights out of Labrador, we have incidents out of Labrador, and the population of Labrador is 26,000 people as opposed to 2,400 people in St. Anthony.

These are the basic facts upon which the decision was made, Mr. Speaker. Again, having regard to the size of Labrador and the problems we have encountered, we felt that this is the best decision, based on the consultant's report.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: I realize, Mr. Speaker, sometimes it is difficult for a city person to get their head around rural Newfoundland, so I will not beat statistics any further. No wonder Trevor Taylor would have left.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DEAN: You know, who would have the stomach to stay and watch their government tear the district apart.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DEAN: This report talks about transporting –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to ask his question.

MR. DEAN: The report talks about transporting patients from the South Coast of Labrador to Goose Bay and St. John's, instead of St. Anthony. It sounds like we are planning to shut the hospital down, practically.

So I would ask the minister if he could answer this question: What does this mean now for the future of the hospital in St. Anthony?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The one point I will continue to make is that we have to make strategic investments. We have to utilize the money that we have in the best way we can. I have indicated on numerous occasions that we would talk to the people and discuss with the people want they want. What we are doing here is responding to the needs of the people.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if I could refer earlier today as to how we utilize our money. Earlier this week the Newfoundland Medical Association said it would cost $80 million to reach a deal with them. The Premier and Minister of Finance challenged them on that. Today it comes out, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Ritter says he admits that the figure of $80 million may be significantly higher, and it is possible that the government figures are accurate, but we do not know for sure. Here we have the doctors misleading us now. So what happens, Mr. Speaker, is we have to make sure that we utilize the money as best we can, and when we have the doctors trying to double figures like that and slide it by the public, we cannot let that (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, Eastern Health confirmed that frontline workers were accessing patient files without permission to do so. As a result, disciplinary action was taken and two individuals were suspended without pay for three months. We have been dealing with the case of a patient, Mr. Speaker, at the Gander hospital whose medical files were inappropriately accessed by her ex-husband's girlfriend who was an employee of Central Health. We wrote the health authority on a number of occasions, we asked for an investigation into this file and they did admit that there was a breach of privacy. We asked for disciplinary action to be taken and none was.

I ask the minister today: Why is there no standard policies throughout the four health boards involving patient confidentiality?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

One of the issues that we are dealing with in these privacy concerns, Mr. Speaker, is obviously the standardization of policies. That is certainly going to take time. What we saw yesterday was Eastern Health move quickly to deal with the privacy breaches. We have the Personal Health Information Act, Mr. Speaker, which is expected to be proclaimed later this year. So this act will govern the collection, use and disclosure of personal health information in our Province.

Under the act, Mr. Speaker, custodians of personal health information, which is Eastern Health or Central Health, are required to have safeguards in place to prevent breaches in privacy. Mr. Speaker, obviously this should not have occurred and Eastern Health has taken action. I would certainly check into that situation with Central Health, but, Mr. Speaker, the good news is, is that it was found out quickly and acted upon quickly and that is the way that the health system is trying to respond.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the case in Central Newfoundland, Central Health did confirm that this was in fact a breach of privacy on behalf of this individual, yet no action was taken. In a letter to the patient, Mr. Speaker, they did express that they had told this employee that they were not permitted to check the files any more.

I ask the minister - I am prepared to give him all the information I have regarding that patient and all the correspondence with Central Health. I ask you, minister, if you would investigate it and ensure that the proper disciplinary action is taken inside of that health board as it was in Eastern Health?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition wishes to supply me with the information I certainly will review it. As for what has taken place to this point, I cannot speak to it. When I saw yesterday - when I had this same member yesterday get up and quote me a conversation from March 12 as if it took place earlier this week, than I do not have any reason to trust the accuracy of what she says to me. So once I have a review of it, Mr. Speaker, I will consult with officials and see where it is going.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, the full docket is on the way across the House of Assembly to you and I expect -

MR. KENNEDY: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Yes I do.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

MS JONES: I do, I say to the minister, I have had it for some time. I have been dealing with this case for nearly two years.

Mr. Speaker, Eastern Health has announced that they conduct regular audits of patient files to ensure confidentiality. I ask the minister: Is a similar audit conducted in the three other health board regions and other government agencies, such as RNC and social services, to ensure the privacy of clients?

I have been waiting that long to get responses from Central Health I had to go back -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government has obviously outlined our concern for privacy. We brought in the Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act. We are going to proclaim the Personal Health Information Act. We are well aware, Mr. Speaker, of the privacy concerns, and these are issues that I am sure that the CEOs of the various health authorities are also very concerned about.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as the minister has outlined on page, I think it is 438 or 448 of the Cameron inquiry, I have an oversight role, but, Mr. Speaker, it is not the role of the minister to be involving myself in the operational day-to-day activities of the health authorities. Mr. Speaker, if a situation has not been handled properly – and it is not simply the Leader of the Opposition using these materials for her own motives – then we will look at it and see what is going on. If it concerns me, and once there is a review, we will get back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Health and Community Services. He said earlier in Question Period that he had made things very clear with regard to the air ambulance situation. Well, it is not clear to me yet, so I still have some questions. The report commissioned by government asked the consultant to consider only whether an aircraft should be in St. Anthony, Happy Valley-Goose Bay or Labrador City. Consequently, the consultant does not give an opinion regarding a third aircraft. He only says that if there were a third aircraft it should be located in Deer Lake.

I have to ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Why the terms of reference did not ask for a comprehensive review of air ambulance services in this Province, including recommendations regarding the need for a third aircraft?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at pages 7 and 8 of the report the consultant has a heading, number 11, Third Aircraft, and looks at the analysis of the pick up and destination statistics of the Western portion of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the consultant was asked to look at the need for a third aircraft based on the fact that the Liberals – and I cannot remember if the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi was involved in this because she has only raised this, this week, that I am aware of. Mr. Speaker, they were saying we should have one in St. Anthony and we should have one in Labrador.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what we had to first look at was if there is a second aircraft, or there is a second aircraft, where should it be? If there is a third aircraft, to dispel the notion put forward by the Opposition that we needed airplanes in every place in this Province, that if there was a third aircraft, where would it be? So there is a full section there. It outlines statistics, looks at the situation as it exists, and recommends if there was a third aircraft (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The minister continues to be disingenuous with some of his answers, because this is not a full review of the air ambulance services, and that is what I am asking about. He has said that we have to fit our resources. Well, Mr. Speaker, as I have said publicly and has been reported in the media, I find the government is being two-faced. This government is rightfully demanding that the federal government place additional search and rescue in St. John's without sacrificing services already in place in Gander, yet, Mr. Speaker, the same government turns around and plays a cynical political shell game by moving vital air ambulance services around, instead of adding resources for a third aircraft.

I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, why this government is not practicing what it preaches by putting a third dedicated air ambulance in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The consultant, Mr. Speaker, at page 2 of his report, indicated quite clearly that this is not an analysis of the complete air ambulance system in the Province. As a result of the situations that were arising in Labrador we had to address them, we had to move quickly, and he looked at the situation of the second medical flight service team and looked at the placement of an air ambulance.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said a few minutes ago, if the NDP wants us to give everything to everyone – do you want us to give the doctors their $145 million also? Because money does grow on trees, I say to the Leader of the New Democratic Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The minister has actually given me an answer here that means something to me. My point is exactly what he just said. This is a knee-jerk reaction to a crisis instead of coming up with a whole plan for the long term. That is my problem.

Mr. Speaker, today's decision potentially places lives at risk in Western Newfoundland and the Northern Peninsula.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: The air ambulance was originally stationed in St. Anthony for a reason. So I ask the minister to explain to the people of Western Newfoundland and the Northern Peninsula why they are less needing today than they were yesterday?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I guess you just cannot please some people. Today, this is a major advancement in air ambulance in this Province, a new airplane costing $8 million to replace one –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: I would rather be disingenuous than dishonest. That is the way I would put it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: Can I answer the question?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?

MS MICHAEL: Yes, I am.

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

MS MICHAEL: I am asking if I can –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want clarification as to whether or not the minister has said I am dishonest. It read that way to me, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I do not know if the hon. member wants to respond, but the Chair did not hear the hon. member say that the hon. member was dishonest. The member made a statement saying that he would rather be disingenuous than dishonest, is the way that I understood it, but I will gladly review the tapes if the hon. member thinks that what I understood is wrong, and if the hon. member meant anything different than that I am sure that he will be an hon. member and withdraw his remarks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. member rising on a new point of order?

MS MICHAEL: To make a response, Mr. Speaker, to extend why I am calling for the point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: I am, yes, because, Mr. Speaker –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has heard the hon. member's point of order. The Chair has responded to the hon. member's point of order.

I ask the hon. member if she is rising on a new point of order. If she is, I will recognize the hon. member; if not, I will respond to the former point of order that was made.

Is the hon. member rising on a new point of order?

MS MICHAEL: A new point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS MICHAEL: The point of order is phrased in a question. I saw the minister point his hand in my direction when he made his comment. Does action go with words, Mr. Speaker, in a point of order?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Government House Leader, to that point of order.

MS BURKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, certainly our contention on this side of the House is that as the hon. minister was answering the question today he was speaking about himself. He said he would rather be disingenuous as opposed to being dishonest.

Many times within the House we speak with our hands, with our arms, and he was doing just that. Mr. Speaker, there were no derogatory comments made toward the Leader of the Third Party.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has heard the point of order. The Chair has already indicated that it will review the tapes, both the video and the audio tapes, and if there is a need to respond it will respond later today or at another sitting.

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a copy of the update on the provincial government's progress in implementing recommendations of the report of the Commission of Inquiry on Hormone Receptor Testing, known as the Cameron report.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents.

In accordance with section 19.(5) (a) of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, I hereby table the minutes of the House of Assembly Management Commission meetings of December 2, 2009, February 3, 2010, and the revised minutes for August 29 and November 28, 2007.

Further, under tabling of documents, pursuant to section 10 of the Public Tender Act, I hereby table the report of the Public Tender Act Exceptions for November 2009 as presented by the Chief Operating Officer of the Government Purchasing Agency.

Notices of Motion.

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

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider a resolution for the Granting of Supply to Her Majesty. (Bill 6)

Mr. Speaker, I further give notice that I will move the following motion: That this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government, the Budget Speech.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act. (Bill 7)

Further, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act. (Bill 8)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to deliver a petition again from the residents of the southwestern part of the Province running basically from La Poile, Rose Blanche, Burnt Islands, Isle aux Morts, Port aux Basques, Cape Ray, and it is with respect to the lack of dialysis services in that particular area.

I said, the last day I rose on this petition - I believe this is my sixty-eighth time of presenting this petition – that I thought that was the only region of the Province that did not have such a service, but I stand corrected. I understand from an article that I read from the Member for Labrador West that he is also lacking such a service in his area. He can certainly appreciate as well the hardship and the stress that is caused to the residents of your district when they cannot avail of these services.

I do believe those are the only two areas of the Province today that people cannot access this service within a reasonable distance. He, of course, has impediments when it comes to air travel and so on. In our case we have geography, and weather being the primary one.

We had individuals - and I do not mind mentioning his name; I have been asked to mention his name in fact - Mr. Edward Keeping. He has been in touch with the minister directly himself. He has been in touch with me numerous times. He keeps me updated as to the expense that he has incurred, and the trauma and stress that it is causing his family.

As we indicated before, there are certain components that go into providing this service. Of course, you have to have the physical facility; we have that at Dr. Charles L. LeGrow. The people of the area are committed to raise the funds to buy the equipment. The staff at the hospital are prepared to undergo the training to do it. We do not know what else is missing. We understand that a report has been done by the doctors at LeGrow and submitted to Western, and that Western has submitted that to the department. Hopefully, if there are any budgetary considerations that are necessary in order to do this - because we understand that the operational piece in terms of physical infrastructure, equipment that is needed, and the training that is needed to administer it would, in fact, be available.

We have made a lot of strides. Nobody is disagreeing that we have made a lot of investments in health care in this Province in the last number of years. We would certainly be the first to see that as well, but this is one piece of the health care puzzle that, albeit is not overly expensive in order to operate, it comes down to basically preparation and getting the equipment in place and the trained staff in place. It is probably one of the most aggravating conditions that you can have. Hopefully in this Budget – and, again, it is not only the hope of Mr. Keeping; it is the hope of every family that has ever had to suffer through this affliction of dialysis and having to travel.

Anyone who lives there and is familiar with the weather, it is not like going down the street, for example, to see your doctor. This particular individual - you have to get in your car in the winter months, any time from October until April, and travel to Corner Brook three times a week. You do not have much left in your day when you have to leave home at six o'clock in the morning and you get home at eight o'clock in the night. You are taking all that time to travel to Corner Brook to get hooked up and to get administered. You get home and you get twenty-four hours, basically, to rest up and then you have to turn around and do it again the next day. That is your life.

Now, he says he does not have a life, and I think he is quite right. That is not life when you spend three days resting from what you went through and three days actually getting your treatment.

Hopefully there will be funding available. As we have said, we have not heard anything from the minister as to why it cannot be done. We have not heard anything from the Western Authority as to why it cannot be done, from either a financial or an operational or a technological point of view, so we are just wondering, what is the hassle and what is the problem here with getting this achieved?

Anyway, we look forward to seeing the Budget on Monday, and hopefully there will be some good news for the residents of southwestern Newfoundland in regard to the dialysis.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

Orders of the Day.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we will return to the debate we were having on Tuesday of this week. So, from the Order Paper, I call Order 1, Committee of Supply, to debate the resolution and Bill 2 respecting the Granting of Interim Supply to Her Majesty.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House now resolve itself into a Committee of Supply and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

CHAIR (T. Osborne): Order, please!

We are now resuming a resolution and Bill 2, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2011 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Today we are continuing the Interim Supply debate, which as I mentioned – I guess it was two days ago when the debate started, that this is the bill where the government seeks – it is a bill and it also a resolution where the government is seeking some money in order to pay its bills and to keep the cost of government being paid for and to keep the government operating for a period of three months, from the start of the next fiscal year, which is April 1, 2010, for a three month period to the end of June, 2010. As I said last time, government does not get any money unless it is voted upon, unless it is approved by the elected representatives of the people, the Members of the House of Assembly, who give that approval through the passage of the main Supply bill, which is the Budget bill.

The Budget Debate, as I said, takes about seventy-five hours, including the debate we are having here today, the debate on Interim Supply. When the Budget is over government will then have its funding for the whole year, assuming of course the Budget is passed and the main Supply bill is passed, but in the interim, we need some money to operate until the Budget Debate is completed and the vote has taken place.

During the debate, I responded to some criticisms by the Leader of the Opposition in terms of the government's decision to run a deficit, and I also outlined the fact that the government was running a deficit this year, or the Premier had previously indicated that we would do so. The reason that we were doing so is because of the importance of doing that for rural Newfoundland.

We are seeing in the world economy – we saw last year what the Opposition House Leader referred to as an economic tsunami. That was an interesting comment, and it truly was. It has been called – the recession that happened last year, and a recession being an actual contraction of economic activity. There was no economic growth. There was in fact a contraction, and in our Province it was almost 9 per cent. So we had this contraction and therefore, in order to deal with it, government had to determine in its fiscal policy how it would stimulate the economy. I said when I did the Pre-Budget Consultations as I went around the Province, I said it was like a line from Charles Dickens' novel A Tale of Two Cities, it was the best of times, then it was the worst of times.

We went from a booming economy with revenues coming in up in the $8 billion range – but we had oil revenues coming in; we had mining revenues come in, they were over $400 million; corporate income taxes were high; personal income taxes were high. The money just rolled into the economy and that gave government – and it was mainly triggered, of course, by the oil industry, and it was triggered by the mining industry as well. It gave the government revenues, and when government gets those revenues it can then use them to do some wonderful things, including distributing income to people in our society who need it, and in particular rural Newfoundland, because the - while in this recession parts of the Newfoundland economy did very well, particularly the oil industry. We are seeing business investment at the Vale Inco new hydromet site in Long Harbour.

What about rural Newfoundland? What was happening out there in rural Newfoundland, where you have the fishing industry and you have the forestry industry; a lot of people involved in sawmilling and cutting wood to feed the paper mills, and the sawmilling, and our manufacturing industry. All those industries mainly sell into the U.S. market. Canadian manufacturers; I think over 80 per cent of what we sell goes into the U.S. market, and the U.S. market was hammered. The U.S. market was hammered like you would not believe. They have had unemployment losses, which proportionally are three times as great as the loss of jobs in this country.

So Canada, because of its strong banking system and because of its strong fiscal position, has weathered the economic storm much better than the U.S. The problem for us here is that while we will do well from the oil, if oil prices are high – and we have to remember that the high dollar impacts that in a negative way, and the fact that the amount of oil coming out of the ground is much, much less than it was, for example, when I gave a Budget two years ago. I think it was over 125 million barrels were coming out. That is going to be down to less than, I think, 85 million this year. It was interesting - I read the fact that a famous American businessman named Boone Pickens, who was in the oil business said: there is one thing about oil, once it starts coming out of the ground it comes out very, very quickly. We are seeing that here. There is a chart that we have that shows mineral production in this Province, and it showed us hitting, what Jeffrey Simpson of the Globe and Mail called a wall. The natural production, there was a big decline that started this year and it is going to continue.

While production, natural production will come back when Hebron comes on, but it is never going to come back to what production was two years ago; unless, of course, we discover additional fields, such as in the other basins where they are continuing to explore. I cannot help but think of the fact that there has not been a major find in twenty-five years. Although, I notice that a significant discovery licence for a well, or a field called the Mizzen well was recently issued by the C-NLOPB.

Also, I am obviously excited about the fact that we are now seeing some onshore exploration which is taking place in Parsons Pond. I am very pleased to see that Nalcor has used some of its revenues to help some of the smaller junior oil companies – and I am trying to think of the names now. I think Leprechaun Resources was one; Vulcan Minerals is another one, and PDI and these companies. There is, in particular, some interesting exploration going on in up in Parsons Pond. Parsons Pond – there have been reports on oil coming out of Parsons Pond since, I think, 1840. That was when the first report about oil bubbling through the ground must have come from Parsons Pond into government. I know the first oil well in the Province was drilled in 1867.

It is very interesting that the year Canada joined together, the various provinces in Canada joined together, that the first oil well in Parsons Pond was drilled. They never did find oil in commercial quantities in Parsons Pond, but people say they did not go down far enough and that it is there, but we will see. We will see, and if we can have discoveries there, if we can discover oil onshore – and there is other exploration going on as well in the Deer Lake Basin, I think Deer Lake Oil and Gas is drilling there. Of course, onshore oil activity is a different industry than offshore. Offshore is obviously very expensive, you have to have these major companies that have access to great sums of capital. I understand to drill a well offshore it is $200 million to $300 million. So if you drill a well and there is nothing there, it has obviously been quite expensive, whereas onshore drilling is much cheaper.

I understand that in West Texas you can get an idea of what the onshore oil and gas industry would be liked compared to offshore. I am told that the onshore - or the oil and gas industry in the West Texas area is a mom and pop, a lot of mom and pop operations. People might own one or two oil wells. So the wealth is spread out amongst ordinary families and ordinary citizens rather than just being done by the big, major oil companies.

Mining; our mining revenues, the royalties that were coming in, were over $400 million at one point. Last year there was less than $100 million. That was the plunge. Our revenues plunged from last year to this year by $1.9 billion. Now just imagine! In one year our revenues go down $1.9 billion. Now if you take the Atlantic Accord out of it – you have to remember, the Atlantic Accord came in, the Premier got the cheque for $2 billion. From an accounting point of view, that $2 billion had to be allocated over the eight years and so much of it would come in each year. Of course, once we realized we were going off equalization it all had to be taken in at the one time. So if we take that out of the factor, if we take that out, I think the actual decline of revenues from oil would be I think about $800 million. It is still one heck of a lot of money. Personal incomes were down. Consumer income tax was down and it is even going to be down more this year because people, you know, if they have a bad year, you file your income tax return the next year, and that is where the loss of revenue to government is going to show up. So, a bad year, we are going to see the effects of it this year.

This year, mining revenue was down less than $100 million. It is quite a change from $400 million of just a couple of years ago, but it is very volatile and it could come back. I mean people are hoping that increased demand that come out of China and that come out of India will start driving commodity prices and driving that back, but on the other hand you see other stories. You hear stories about a possible bubble in the Chinese economy.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. MARSHALL: Well, Mr. Chair, I did not get to some of the points I wanted to make and I look forward to taking an opportunity - I will come back again in the debate and speak again.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr Chair.

The hon. minister could have had all the leave he wanted but seeing he has sat down, I will continue on.

As the minister stated, we are here today to discuss Interim Supply again. I guess I will take my turn as the other hon. members in this House. I just want to continue on from where I left off the last day that I spoke with regard to Interim Supply. I was into the debate with regard to the fishery, and I know the hon. minister mentioned it in quite detail, where we saw in the Speech from the Throne, which referenced the Fishing Industry Renewal Strategy back in 2007. The report went on to say about how there are many challenges in the world today, in the world markets when it comes to the fishery, and there is no doubt about that.

Also, Mr. Chair, the concerns that I have and the people that I represent, and I am sure throughout this Province each and every one of us hear the same concerns, is the concerns that they have for the fishing industry this year. I noticed in Interim Supply, I think under Fisheries and Aquaculture in the bill, there was $8.237 million and I think the minister quoted last week that 43 per cent of that was probably a carryover from last year and the rest would be used this year.

Mr. Chair, why I speak on the fishery, the fishery is not only important to my area, it is also important to the Province as a whole. No doubt, it is one of the most important sectors in the Province. I cannot help but remember the comments that were made - and I do not have the full quote here - after the election of 2003. When the new government took over they had a joint caucus Cabinet meeting - I think it was on the Bonavista Peninsula. One of the comments that we saw in the paper at the time was that the fishery more or less is the way of the past. I guess they were referring to the wealth that was about to unfold from the offshore, the oil industry.

Maybe that was true, but then again, the fishery cannot be looked at as the way of the past because the fishery is what keeps rural Newfoundland - many of these smaller communities around this Province, in order for them to survive, we have to have a viable fishery.

Mr. Chair, one of the things we have to remember, everyone cannot be involved in the oil industry. Each and every individual around this Province, whether they be plant workers, harvesters, processors, or whatever the title you want to put on them, all of them just cannot give up and become involved in the oil industry because that industry is flowing and very flourishing at the present time. But, if we compare the numbers, the importance of the fishery, the people who are involved in the fishery now - we know many people have left the fishery for various reasons. I cannot help but think of the constituents I spoke to last year who had a reasonable year but it was not the success that they had hoped it would be. They had difficulty getting through that year. One incidence, I know one individual who had an enterprise and I was told that he could have sold it two or three years ago for $1 million. This year, it is even a problem trying to get someone that would be interested even in purchasing.

I have many constituents, Mr. Chair, who are looking for funding to be retrained; they are trying to get out of the fishing industry. I know the minister and all of the other partners in the fishing industry are meeting, they are dealing with this MOU and hopefully, as I said previously, that something successful will come from that.

Mr. Chair, we know what the fishery means to this Province. We have to listen to the fishermen. Back in the 1990s when the moratorium came, it went on and on and on, the overfishing, but nobody listened. They did not listen to the people who knew what was happening. Even though they were the people who had to make a living from the sea, they knew what was unfolding.

Having come from a small community on the Burin Peninsula, a small fishing village that now has been resettled. Back in the early days, you would hear the fishermen talk about it, and I know my own father who would go to Lunenburg, Nova Scotia and take part in the dory fishery on the Grand Banks, how often would you hear them say that the Grand Banks was lit up almost like a city. There were so many draggers and trawlers out their fishing, just raking up the supplies. Then, in later years went on to the dragger fishery and we heard of it again. Not only foreign fishing, we heard it from people within our own country, what was happening to the fishing industry.

You cannot help but think and listen to the people that are so knowledgeable here in the Province. I just want to mention a couple of them. From time to time, you hear them on Open Line or you see articles that they have in the paper, like Mr. Gus Etchegary and Dr. Phil Earle of Carbonear. The knowledge those individuals about the fishing industry and it is too bad that we do not listen to them. Those gentlemen are putting forward a message that we have to listen to it, and we hear it so often, how they want us and want this government to make sure that we hold Ottawa accountable, and that is what it all comes down to.

From time to time, I know there were commitments made to the Premier of this Province by the Prime Minister and some of them were to support the extension of custodial management on the Continental Shelf beyond the 200-mile limit. What has been done, Mr. Chair? Nothing has been done about that and that is where I believe our own Minister of Fisheries has to be stronger, has to be firmer with the federal government.

Another one was a greater role in the managing of the fishery for the provincial government; thirdly, more investment in science and management and then a wider consultation with corresponding provincial departments and with fishermen. It comes back, I guess, to the very comment that I started with: Those are the people that we have to listen to.

Mr. Chair, I know in the debate from time to time it comes up about how the government has purchased investments into the oil industry. I have people call me or e-mail me and say: Look, why, why? Maybe it is a good point; maybe it is not. Then we hear talk, back a few years ago when the issue of FPI was on the table. Many people wanted government to invest in FPI, the wonderful, richest marketing arm of the industry. Lo and behold, we did not do that; we did not invest into it. This year, we have heard many times about the great wealth that someone else has derived from the purchase of the marketing arm of FPI, which we had in our own Province, which we had control of but we just let it slip by. We had that opportunity, but we failed to do it. We cannot let things like this happen. I know we said we would not get involved because of industry and so on.

Mr. Chair, another point that I want to touch on for the next couple of minutes – it was also in the Throne Speech – and that is about our Poverty Reduction Strategy. I understand there is a second Poverty Reduction Strategy action plan that will be released sometime this year. When I make those comments, Mr. Chair, I do not want to be negative because we all know that right across this country we hear great things about the poverty strategy we have here in the Province.

I said it before, and I have to repeat it, to me, the numbers do not add up. I am not saying there are changes not made - and I agree with that, there are things that are happening. We claim that in six years - I think was in the Throne Speech - as a Province we have moved from one with the highest poverty rates in the country to third place with the least amount of poverty.

I know there are different scenarios that we look at when we talk about poverty, but one of the things that I cannot understand, and hopefully it will be explained when the second strategy comes out, and that is our food banks. The people that are involved, they tell us that our food bank usage has increased by 10 per cent and we are pretty close to the highest in the country. People do not understand, if we are moving in the right direction, which I hope we are, and I think we are, why then do we have such great usage for food banks? The same report noticed one particular area of our Province, and I am sure there are others, but the one that was mentioned in the report was Happy Valley-Goose Bay where they said the usage of the food banks went up by 20 per cent. Hopefully, that is correct. It was in the report that came down.

Mr. Chair, regardless, we hear talk of the various religious denominations, you go to any particular church just about, and they have a basket where you can bring along items for the food banks, the need is so great. We have people who are fundraising for the same purpose.

Mr. Chair, the study, the HungerCount 2009 showed that it was 10.1 per cent - I said it was 10, but they claim it was 10.1 per cent. We have to look at the reductions that we are doing and the right way that we are travelling. I know the religious coalition has spoken out on many occasions and they have called for a social audit, something to show where we stand.

One of the comments I did read about recently was a gentleman by the name of Chris Sarlo, an expert on poverty. He studied poverty for some twenty years. His comment was: The first step to eliminate poverty is first to define it. I know it is not easy to define it. In Estimates I have asked different ministers for a definition of poverty, but have not been able to get one.

So, Mr. Chair, I hope that when the second Poverty Reduction Strategy comes down that there will be more money put into the areas where we can have less people who will have to go to our food banks in the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Sometimes when we are speaking in this House we speak about topics and then we forget to get back to the main point that we want to make, but thankfully, in a debate like this we can keep getting up and speaking again.

I was talking about, when I concluded my remarks, the fact that last year, the fiscal year 2008-2009, we had a booming year and then this past year – I keep saying this past year but it is really this year, which will end at the end of this month, 2009-2010, we had a major recession. As a result of that, our revenues plummeted and the decision was made from a public policy point of view that in spite of that we would continue to stimulate the economy. We would continue to move forward with infrastructure. We would continue to move forward with government programs. We would continue to lower taxes. The objective of all of this is to put money in people's pockets and create jobs and create opportunities for the people in this Province.

We are making the decision again. We are looking at the decision for the forthcoming year. Where are we now? We are seeing signs of economic recovery. I think it is pretty safe to say that the recession or the contraction in the economy has stopped and that we now have some growth. There are signs of growth there and there are some economic indicators that when you read them you will think the economy is starting to move along, and then you see other economic indicators which tell you quite the opposite. The one that concerns me the most is - I know there were comments by the federal Minister of Finance, James Flaherty said in his speech in New York, and he repeated it in London, that while we have economic growth in the world economy the growth is very fragile. Economists throughout the world are referring to the global economy, the US economy as modest, as fragile, as tepid, as flat and there is uncertainty surrounding the economic outlook and that uncertainty is high, it remains elevated.

We are seeing economists, some of Canada's major economists, some of whom I had the honour to meet in Toronto, and again they were concerned about the level of uncertainty in the economy. Therefore the question is: What do we do for the next year? What do we do for the year that is coming? What public policy do we put in place? Do we move back to a balanced budget? The Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition expressed concern about the fact that we were going to run a deficit. Well obviously, Mr. Chair, when things are going very well and your revenues go up and then your spending goes up because you now have the money to catch up with years of pent up demand and you now have the money to invest in the economy, when the revenues drop, when you hit a recession and your revenues drop, and I said before how our revenues had dropped to the tune of $1.9 million, what do you do with that spending? Your revenues go up, your spending goes up, your revenues drop, what do you do with the spending?

As I said in the debate two days ago, you have three choices. The first choice is lower taxes. That puts money in people's pockets. It helps people stimulate the economy. I have seen a number of economic reports which says that that is probably the best way to go if stimulation of the economy is your objective, to lower taxes, put money in people's pockets.

The other thing, of course, is to cut spending if you want to get back to a balanced budget, and I don't think that is the way we should go. Even the Leader of the Opposition said that most of the spending initiatives that government has taken forward, she asked for most of it. She mentioned one thing she would like to cut. She would like to cut the investment that government made in the oil fields. She felt that was adding to the deficit, and of course it is not. It is not a program expense. It is not an expenditure that adds to the deficit. It is an asset. It is an asset that is purchased, and it is not reflected in the deficit. She is wrong on that particular point.

When you ask why, I think the hon. Member for Port de Grave said: Why are we investing in the oil fields? Why are we taking a piece of the action? Well, one thing is that we want to be at the table and we want to learn that business. The major reason we are doing it is because we think it is going to bring to the people of this Province a lot of wealth in the future. We are not in it just for the sake of being in the oil business. We are in it for the sake of the revenues that will come out of the dividends out of the oil fields by being in that oil business that will come to the people of Newfoundland through their government, that the governments can then use to build hospitals and to provide better services and to build roads and provide nurses and police officers and social workers and veterinarians and all of the services that we need; and the programs and the projects, the dialysis, like the Opposition House Leader raised today, the need for a dialysis units in – he mentioned Labrador West and he mentioned his home of Port aux Basques. That is where the revenue comes from and that is why we are doing that.

Mr. Chair, now is not the time to cut back. Now is not the time while there is uncertainty. Now is not the time to slam on the brakes. I believe, for the sake of rural Newfoundland – because the oil and gas industry is not happening – the jobs are not in rural Newfoundland. The jobs are on the East Coast. The hydromet facility is in Long Harbour. What about the forestry and what about the fishery and what about our manufacturing products? They are selling into the U.S. The U.S. market is in big trouble. Europe is in trouble.

I saw a report coming out of the U.S. that their job losses were proportionately three times larger than what was happening in Canada. I am seeing the number of people who are filing Unemployment Insurance claims in the U.S. is actually increasing. We know the Canadian dollar relative to the U.S. dollar is very, very high, which will negatively impact their ability to buy our products. If Americans are not working, if they have no income they are not going to be buying our fish, they are not going to be buying our newsprint, they are not going to be buying our forestry products, and they are not going to be buying our manufacturing products. That does not auger well for the future of rural Newfoundland. Therefore, we cannot just let it die; therefore government must step into the breach. We must continue to invest in infrastructure as we did last year, as we did the year before. As a matter of fact, the Premier started that a few years ago.

The Premier instituted an infrastructure strategy in this Province that was in effect way before Barack Obama started to stimulate the American economy, way before Stephen Harper decided to stimulate the Canadian economy. We have to do that for the benefit of rural Newfoundland, because my fear is that while we are seeing economic growth in this Province, in many parts of the Province, in many sectors of our economy – not the oil and gas, not the hydromet facility, but in many sectors of the economy it is government investment, it is government infrastructure, it is government programs that are keeping that economy going.

If the economy improves, if the economy gains traction over time, if the uncertainty ceases to exist, and we know that the economic growth throughout the world and here in the Province is fully reinvigorated, then that is a time to get back to balance. That is the time to do what the Leader of the Opposition wants us to do, remove the deficit, but not yet – not yet. The dollar is high, that is not going to help. The economy in China, there is talk about a bubble in China. Uncertainty remains high, and government spending has to continue for the sake of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It would be a mistake to slam on the brakes. We have to stay on course. We have to keep the momentum going until the economic growth is fully invigorated.

We will get back to a balanced budget when the good times come back, when the economic growth gathers traction. We will get back to balanced budgets; we will get back to surpluses at some point in the future so that we can then continue to pay down the debt, which has handicapped and been a burden to the people and the government of this Province for so many years, but we are not going to do so to compromise, as the Minister of Finance in Ontario said. He said: we cannot do so to compromise the quality of public services that the people of this Province want protected, and we are not going to do it so quickly as to dampen the economic recovery, which in my view is just beginning.

So, that is where we are coming from and that is why the decision was made to continue to stimulate the economy until we know that the traction has come back and the economy has been fully invigorated.

With that, Mr. Chair, I will take my seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

I am glad to be able to stand again as we discuss the Interim Supply bill and raise issues that I began speaking to on Tuesday. One of the points I made on Tuesday, and it is where I want to start from again today, is that it is very good, of course, that we have economic stimulus going on and we have money going into infrastructure. One of the things I pointed out on Tuesday is that there is more to infrastructure than roads and bridges and buildings. Buildings, our hospitals, our schools, they all have to be maintained, they all have to be kept up, they all have to be improved, and in some cases we have to have new ones. New roads, new buildings, new bridges, et cetera.

We also have what is called social infrastructure. Social infrastructure refers to the systems that are put in place to deliver social programs to meet social needs. The one I started talking about on Tuesday was child care. I think I explored that on Tuesday to the degree I wanted to, I may come back to it again, but I would like to continue looking at other kinds of social programs that we need to have in place, or other aspects of social infrastructure.

The aspect I would like to look at this afternoon for a bit is that of affordable housing. When I say affordable housing, one has to define, affordable for whom? Obviously, a $300,000 home is affordable for a millionaire but it is not affordable for somebody on an income of $15,000. So when we are talking about affordable housing, we are talking about housing that is affordable for low to middle-income people, because for the most part, middle income and upper can usually find housing somewhere that will fit their pocketbooks. It is becoming much more difficult in Newfoundland and Labrador right now for people to find housing that is fitting their pocketbooks, when we are talking about low income and low-middle income. People in those categories, people with incomes that are just above or slightly above or even $10,000 above the poverty line, they do not have a lot of money when it comes to meeting all their needs.

When we are talking about affordable housing, we are talking about housing that fits all pocketbooks. At the lower end, people do not have an easy time finding housing that meets those needs. What has happened is, especially in areas like the Northeastern Avalon, people are finding that rents have gone up terrifically. It is not just in the Northeastern Avalon, it is quite amazing actually what I am learning about how rents have gone up in areas like Corner Brook, which do not have – Corner Brook itself does not have the same rate of economic growth as St. John's does right now because of the impact of the offshore development as it hits St. John's. Yet, even in Corner Brook, for example, rental rates are going up very quickly. In Labrador West, where there has been increased economic activity because of increased mining activity, the economy has been affected, rents have gone up there. The rate of rents going up is really quite shocking.

I became aware of one rent last night where those who are renting have been notified that their rent is going to go from $495 a month to $650 a month. That is an amazing jump. That is $155 a month of a jump in a rent. This is the kind of thing that is going on. The price of homes is going up and some lower, middle-income people would hope to be able to buy a home but with the way in which the price of homes are going up, that is going out of their reach.

I heard this morning in a coverage on CBC radio, a gentleman who was on, a developer - well, I guess he is a builder - talking about the new homes that are going up in the St. John's region, in the greater area. It includes more than St. John's. So, the area of the Northeast Peninsula, I guess the Avalon Peninsula, and now it is almost impossible to get a new home that is under $300,000.

Heating costs are also going up and low-income people, low middle-income people are finding that their salaries and their incomes are not going up at the same rate as all of those costs. So, what suffers? One thing that suffers is housing, adequate housing. The housing crunch, because people are having to put more money into housing, what is happening is that people therefore are having their budgets for food and other necessities of life, for themselves and their families, being eaten into because of the high cost of housing. Right now in the Province one-third of tenant households - so one-third of households were people are renting in the Province, that is about 14,000 households, are in what is called core housing need. Their housing is unaffordable or in bad condition or not the right size and there is no alternative.

People with disabilities - and many people with disabilities are low income. They cannot find accessible housing at any price. We do have a Social Housing Plan that government released last August but unfortunately that plan does not have specific actions or timelines for increasing the supply of affordable housing. We did have the federal-provincial Affordable Housing Program. It has put in place and has created an average of 100 new units a year, but we forget - people hear 100 new units, well we have waiting lists that sort of wipe out what 100 means. The other thing is that the 100 new units include shelters and there are all kinds of shelters that we have in the Province. So those units include shelters and supportive housing. So, part of that 100, they are targeted to special needs in different ways, and so it cuts into the units for people who their special need is that they are low income and that is the only special need they have. Families, in particular, who are low income, but we also have individuals who are out there who cannot find places to live, cannot find decent places to live which are affordable, which meets their pocketbook.

So the rate at which affordable units are being built is way too slow and what is happening is that the waiting lists where waiting lists exist, for example, with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing they have waiting lists, the waiting lists are growing. Their waiting lists are getting greater and it is not just in the St. John's area. It is province-wide with regard to the waiting lists. Obviously, it is bigger on the Northeast Avalon but it happening everywhere.

The thing is that housing, if we got into building more housing it is much an economic stimulus as building roads and bridges. If we did it as part of a whole plan of training and employment, we could train more people to be involved in residential building and we would have more employment opportunities if we increased the number of people being trained. So, it is a whole package. I have said this before in the House, a whole package of putting money into new units, training more people in an aggressive way, getting more people trained to be involved in the residential market and then we get employment and we have people working for good salaries. Things just improve all around, but it has to be a whole package that is put together. That is something that I would love to see in the Budget that we are going to see next Monday.

A greater investment in affordable housing would require a multi-year plan, not just a one year plan, but a multi-year plan and that includes more than just social housing; a plan that would have timelines, that would have targets and would have money put into the program. We just need more than 100 units a year. If we just keep going at that rate, we are always going to have hundreds of people who are living in unsatisfactory conditions, and this of course adds to poverty. Housing is an indicator of poverty and we have got to – because the more that people cannot afford where they are living, as I said a minute ago, the more other aspects of their lives are suffering because they do not have the money to put into other necessities -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: I have noticed, yes, that my time is up and I will stop right now because I will stand again and continue.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am certainly pleased today to be able to have my ten minutes speaking on the Interim Supply bill, a bill, as most people know, is one that will give us the capacity, I guess, to meet the current day-to-day expenditures of the government until the new Budget receives final approval.

I have been listening intently to the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board as he explained why we have continued to follow the course that we had set back in 2004. A course whereby we said that we would invest in infrastructure, we would reduce taxes, we would grow the economy, we would take steps to invest in our social policies, reduce poverty, and the evidence of that is certainly well known now whereby we were, back in 2004, a Province with the highest rate of poverty in the country, and today we are the third lowest.

Mr. Chair, based on that - and the other thing that we have done certainly, wherever we could, was to reduce the deficit; 2009-2010, as most people know now, has been a year of exception in terms of reducing the debt. We have had to do that because we are part of a worldwide recession. As well, our revenues for 2009-2010 have declined substantially. The minister referred just a minute ago to the fact that our revenues this current year have been reduced by $1.9 billion.

The one thing that he has referred to as well is that we have been consistent in the way we have managed the fiscal affairs of our Province. That is where the difference lies, Mr. Chair, between our government and the Opposition. We have heard the Leader of the Opposition say, from time to time, that she is concerned or she does not agree with the fact that we are incurring a deficit. We saw here again this afternoon, she is still going to find the money somewhere to put a third air ambulance in the Province. The one thing she has not said is where that money is coming from.

There are two choices, Mr. Chair, they either have to increase taxes or they have to cut services. So what are they going to do? Are they going to take away the $800 a year we have been giving our seniors? Not likely, Mr. Chair. Are they going to take away the improvements we have made to the Prescription Drug Program? Are they going to take away the fuel rebate? Are they going to take away a rollback, the wage increases that we gave to our public sector workers? I doubt it very much, Mr. Chair. Or are they going to increase our income taxes again? When we inherited government back in 2003-2004, our workers in this Province were paying the highest rate of income tax in the country. Today, with the reductions that we have made in income tax, that we are now the lowest in Eastern Canada.

Listening to the Opposition, Mr. Chair, again, with respect to the air ambulances it would appear that their policy would be to put an air ambulance wherever an accident occurred. They would probably have an ambulance, a road ambulance at the access to every skidoo trail in the Province waiting for an accident to occur, but, Mr. Chair, we all know that that is not reasonable.

We also acknowledge the fact, Mr. Chair, that the role of the Opposition is to criticize government from time to time; no one disputes that. Mr. Chair, there is something more too that the Opposition have to do if they ever want the opportunity to form government and that is to show the general public that they have alternative solutions to what the government is currently doing. In doing that, Mr. Chair, in making these alternatives, they have to be reasonable. They have to be realistic. They have to be rational and most important of all they have to be responsible. I think that is one of the reasons, Mr. Chair, why the people in Topsail district voted last week and only gave a combined total of –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: - 700 votes roughly to the two Opposition parties combined. I think that was one of the main factors. That is one of the main reasons as well, Mr. Chair, why our party was showing in the last poll that was taken the satisfactory rate for our government is around 93 per cent.

Mr. Chair, none of us in government want to hear of tragic accidents, tragic events taking place in the Province, not one of us. I would say to the Opposition that for every one tragic accident in this Province, for every one tragic case in this Province there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of good stories that can be told in our health care system.

I can tell you one now, Mr. Chair. A couple of weeks ago I had a call from a constituent, her sixteen- year-old daughter was having twins - sixteen-year-old daughter was having twins - and because of complications she had to be transferred to Halifax to have the babies. As it happened, everything turned out perfectly, the babies were born perfect and the mom is recovering wonderfully well, but after a week or so in Halifax with no friends, no family around, the young woman certainly wanted to get back as close to home as possible. The grandmother called me and asked if there was anything I could do. I made a couple of calls that same day. The next morning I had a call from the department saying: Keep your fingers crossed, it looks like we may get the three of them back to Gander later in the afternoon.

Mr. Chair, that afternoon I did receive the call from the Department of Health that just before 5:00 o'clock one of the babies was on the way to Gander. After that, the aircraft, the air ambulance was going back to Halifax again and bringing back the mom and the other baby. Mr. Chair, for every sad story there are always many, many more of good stories.

I know there are only a couple of minutes left, Mr. Chair, but I want to pay emphasis to another program that has been ongoing and it is with respect to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, the Home Repair Program. When I was elected back in 2002, we received numerous calls, myself and my constituency assistant. One of the major calls that we were receiving was from constituents who had applications in for the Home Repair Program.

After many, many calls to the Gander office that serves the Bonavista North region, we found out that applicants were back four years. Applicants had applications in for four years before they were being addressed. That is another area where our government certainly stepped in and came up with extra money year after year. Last week, I dropped into the Gander office, Mr. Chair, only to be told that this year now with our new budget they are going to be dealing with applications from 2009. That is a major improvement with respect to that housing program, and mostly, a large part of that is for rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Chair, I know that my time is up but probably later on I may have the opportunity to speak again. I also wanted to make some comments with respect to the fishery and a statement that was made by the Opposition House Leader a couple of days ago with respect to the way we were approaching the Memorandum of Understanding. He did say, and he could not understand, why we were doing what we are doing now in that we are talking to all the people in the Province in trying to reach common consensus on how we approach of the future of the fishery.

I guess, Mr. Chair, that I will address that sometime later and explain why we are doing as well, in addition to what the Minister of Fisheries has already said, as to why we are doing what we are doing in relation to that industry in our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

I am happy to stand again and continue the topic that I was speaking on some twenty minutes ago with regard to affordable housing. I spoke somewhat about the problems that exist and somewhat about the needs that are there in our Province right now with regard to affordable housing.

What I would like to do now is to think a bit to the future and some of the things that we need to have in place. Some of these things are things that require money, yes, and building the infrastructure, but some are regulatory. So, things that I would very much like to see in the Budget, and I will pick up where I let off some time ago, one would be, and I will repeat it now, I think we need a multi-year plan with a schedule, a multi-year schedule not just year by year but multi-year schedule for creating new affordable housing units every year - and understanding by affordable housing we mean housing that fits the pocketbooks of low to low-middle income people. The 100 units a year that we are getting right now, and which do not all go towards the kind of housing I am talking about, are just not sufficient. We are doing not too badly, actually, with regard to shelters, but we are not doing well with regard to people who require good housing. As I described earlier, people sometimes are living in housing, so they may be in a unit, but the units are not liveable and the units have all kinds of needs in terms of having to be upgraded, in terms of having to be repaired, et cetera. So, there is much more to this issue than having a person or a family in a unit.

One of the things that we need to see changed and improved - and I would love to see this in the Budget - is that we need a bigger budget for the Rent Supplement Program. Newfoundland and Labrador Housing does have a Rent Supplement Program. Last year we had 1,000 extra supplements in last year's budget, but those supplements were taken up by July. So, halfway through the year, if people started identifying themselves as being in need of rent supplements then the money was not there. This is becoming more and more a need because Newfoundland and Labrador Housing does not have adequate housing in its bank to meet the needs of people. They now have a wait-list for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, provincially, which is well over 1,000 now. It is going up and they have lost some control on stopping the numbers from going up and then trying to bring the numbers down.

What is happening is, they, with the supplements, it sort of gave them a breather because if somebody could not get into Newfoundland and Labrador Housing then NLHC could say: Okay, we can give you a supplement, you go try to find an apartment and we can give you a supplement that will help you live in that apartment. When people would find that apartment, NLHC would go and assess it, make sure that it was an apartment that was safe, an apartment that met the regulations of NLHC with regard to requirements in a rental unit. Then, if it met the regulations of NLHC – and it is important that NLHC does that because they need to know people are going into a safe unit – they then would approve a supplement, but the supplements last year were taken up by July. I am really hoping that on Monday I am going to see, in the Budget, that we have extra money in there that we have more units in there to allow for supplements for NLHC to be able to access.

The other thing that we need - and I am very disappointed that government is not moving more quickly on this - is money for the post-secondary institutions to build student housing because this is one big need we have. Both students in our universities as well as in our College in the North Atlantic are not being able to find decent, safe living quarters. They are literally, here in St. John's, I do not know if they did it over in Corner Brook this last fall, but here in St. John's you actually had students camping out in Pippy Park at the beginning of the school year because they still did not have housing. That is not adequate. If we had more student housing that was built in part of the university and the college, both here in St. John's in particular, in Corner Brook, and there is a need in Lab West also, then students having housing on the campuses would lesson the drain on the private market as well. So it would have a domino effect. It would free up apartments for other people if we had housing for students. It is a cost, but it is an investment, because helping our students to be able to be in safe housing and to be able to afford where they are will help them be better students, will help them graduate with better marks, will help them be able to get better jobs because of being able to do that.

If students have to put out too much money with regard to housing, then you see them also having to work more hours while they are students. I do not know about you, but I had the privilege of being able to study without worrying about having a job. Well, our students are out there – I know students who are holding down a couple of jobs while they are also trying to do degrees. It is not great for them. You can see it in the faces of many students how worn out they are from trying to work and also trying to study. So there are many aspects to making sure that we have housing for students.

Another thing that I would like to see happen is we really need a review of the Residential Tenancies Act. We are having people being evicted. We are having people who are not being treated well by tenants. We have rents going up exorbitantly. The tenancy act does say rents can only once a year, that is fine, but there is no cap on the rent increases. Provinces throughout Canada do have rent increase caps. So yes, you can raise your rent once a year, but there is a limit to which you can raise it, and that is usually based on the increase in the cost of living in any given community. So, this is something we really need here in this Province.

I mentioned when I stood before, and I will mention again, one rent that I became aware of last night, an apartment here in St. John's going from $495 to $650. That is a huge jump for people who could afford the $495, but for whom paying another $155 a month for their rent is going to be a real burden for them. There is nothing to stop the owner from doing that, from the person who does the renting from doing that, because of the way our system is now. We really do need a review of the tenancy act here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The other thing that we need to have in our act, which is not there, is protection of tenants with regard to evictions without cause. A landlord can get rid of a tenant for no reason whatsoever, and this is just not acceptable. It is really a human rights issue. We have to make sure that landlords just cannot throw tenants out. Now I also recognize that landlords have rights too and tenants also have to be good tenants and treat things well and not abuse the fact that they are renting. They also have responsibilities, but the eviction without cause is really needed because we are getting phone calls in our offices where eviction without cause is happening. This is very problematic. However, you could have - for example, one of the places in which it happens, a landlord wants to do a renovation and just decides to get rid of the tenant. You could have protection, what is called tenure regulations, where if a landlord is going to make renovations the landlord has to notify the tenant. The tenant moves out while the renovations are happening but they get the first option to move back into the apartment. Where that happens, where provinces do that, they also then have the rent increase cap. If the landlord is going to increase rent because of the renovations, there is also a cap on how much the landlord can increase the rent. These are a couple of examples of things that we need to have in place –

CHAIR (Kelly): Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: Okay, Mr. Chair, I will come back –

CHAIR: By leave?

MS MICHAEL: - I have some more points. By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, okay, because I have a couple of more points on housing and I could get that finished here now. Thank you very much.

Another area where we could help people who are in housing, as well as do it as an economic stimulus, is by expanding the Residential Energy Efficiency Program. Right now, we only are covering 1,000 households a year, and that really is not much. Again, that 1,000 households got used up really quickly last year. In a very short order all of them, those 1,000 were approved. People have to re-apply when the new budget comes out. I would really like to see a lot more in there with regard to residential energy efficiency.

Also, another place where I think a change could be made, and this does happen in other provinces, tenants could also apply to have energy efficiency. That is something else that could happen. You could also raise the income caps with regard to who is eligible to get into the Residential Energy Efficiency Program. Again, this is an area where the more we do, the more workers we need, but we could be training people to do the studies that need to be done in order to make the energy efficiency program work. So you have a training and employment aspect to this as well as creating better living situations.

Where this impacts on tenants, is some tenants in the private sector are in terrible homes when it comes to being able to heat them, because the places they are renting are not energy efficient. If tenants could access the money and get into having better energy efficiency, they would have less heat to pay for and their houses would be more affordable, their rental houses would be more affordable.

The last point I would like to make is – there are two actually, if that is okay. I think we need more support, and I think this needs to be in the Budget, more support for the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and Homelessness Network. We need committees everywhere in the Province. The Network, and the committees of the Network, need outreach workers to help local, non-profit groups build housing through the federal-provincial affordable housing program and homelessness partnership. The thing is that it is a great program, and here in the St. John's region, for example, the Northeast Avalon Peninsula region, a lot of people have experience with this kind of thing. They have experience with putting proposals together, they have experience with putting up housing, but out in smaller communities groups do not have a lot of experience and it becomes a real burden on them. What will happen is, because nobody in a smaller community has the experience, they will not try to access the funding under the federal-provincial program. So I believe that we really need to have money for outreach workers to work with the committees to help groups put their plans together and their proposals together. It really would benefit the communities, not just the individuals, but the whole community would benefit.

The last point, and I will make it now, Mr. Chair, is I really think we need a full housing division within government. We have Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation but that is focused on social housing and does not deal with issues with regard to policy, with regard to the broader housing issues. That is not their role. It cannot play that kind of a role. It does not get involved in looking at the issues of affordable housing. That is not their role as well. We need a housing division, not just Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, and I really encourage the ministers who would have interest in this, because it is more than one minister, it would be HRLE, it would be municipalities, there are a number of ministries that could be involved here in looking at what a division could look like and where it should be located and should actually involve people from more than one department because several departments would have concerns around housing. So those are the issues I will put out for now.

Thank you very much for leave for going on.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity this afternoon to stand in the House and have a few comments as we debate the estimates bill that is before us.

I want to make a few comments from the perspective of the Department of Education, but I want to first of all talk about my own district for a few moments. As I listened to hon. members opposite talk here and there, they often tend to make comments that there has been no investment in rural Newfoundland, and rural Newfoundland is suffering under this government, and we have shown no leadership to support the communities and the residents throughout the Province. I certainly have to smile when I think about my own district and reflect upon, first of all, the situation as it existed when I got elected in 2007 and the many challenges that were introduced to me; challenges around municipal infrastructure, in particular. Things like water and sewer issues, roadwork, fire department challenges, challenges with schools, and crumbling infrastructure and those kinds of things. I think about the challenges that were presented to me by community leaders and I started to reflect, I suppose, on where things are today. I wanted to start out by having a few comments about that because in the last week or so on the Burin Peninsula there has been some very positive news, some very good announcements.

My colleague, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development was with me for several days last week, or a day I should say, as well as my colleague the MHA for Burin-Placentia West, and the Minister of Fisheries. We made a number of very good, very positive announcements that will have a good impact not only on the communities that the announcement pertains to, Mr. Chair, but on, in fact, the entire region of the Burin Peninsula, because we all recognize, my colleague from Burin-Placentia West and I work together because we recognize that the geography alone of the Burin Peninsula is such that you have to work as one in a co-ordinated effort.

Certainly, there were a number of really good announcements. One was the continued growth, investment by our government to help continue to grow what started to be an extremely small company in Grand Bank, Dynamic Air Shelters, a very good announcement that will provide some assistance for physical infrastructure expansion for the company and the expansion and creation of more jobs for the company. It has hit, at peak, Mr. Chair, 120 jobs. Certainly, without bragging as the MHA, it is probably one of the top success stories in the Province for a small community, a small company in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. KING: I thank my colleague there from Trinity North for giving me the encouragement to go on, and I will. Suffice it to say, Mr. Chair, not all of the employees are from Grand Bank. The employees in that company come from many communities throughout the Peninsula.

Two other very good announcements; one was for continued support for the development of a marina in Fortune Harbour. As many would be aware, not only is there a fish plant there that got reopened probably about a year and a half or so ago with the support of this government, Mr. Chair, with Ocean Choice International, but it is also the home to many inshore fishermen, as well as international traffic through the ferry from Saint Pierre and Miquelon, and small boat users from those islands as well.

Also, we had some news for St. Lawrence. Two good announcements over there, actually, Mr. Chair. One was for the development of the trail for the Truxton-Pollux Memorial, which I guess is a tale of two stories, really. It is the tragic event with a loss of life of the American sailors, but also it is a real celebration of human spirit for the many lives that were saved by the residents of St. Lawrence, Lawn and surrounding areas who took part in the rescue mission. It certainly was a very positive announcement, both from a community development perspective, but also from the point of view of continuing to invest in and develop tourism opportunities on the Burin Peninsula. We have many, Mr. Chair. In my own particular district, Grand Bank, we have the Mariners' Memorial and the Grand Bank Theatre. Fortune we have, of course, an international archaeological find there, the Fortune Head Ecological Reserve. St. Lawrence I just spoke about. Of course, when we move right back around the Peninsula, my colleague, the Deputy Premier's hometown of Burin is certainly an historic community and done some very good things in preserving their history and culture. As I said, one of the things that we learned a long time ago is that we work together, because we recognize that we need to package the Burin Peninsula as a whole.

I also had the good fortune, Mr. Chair, during a couple of days in my district last week to meet with some seniors groups. For the second year in a row the Minister of Health and Community Services was able to provide some support to seniors groups in my district, to offer some support for the many programming initiatives that they are engaged in and very many positive things. Certainly, as a government we have made significant investments, both through the current minister and my colleague from Trinity North, the former Minister of Health, to support seniors in our Province. It was certainly a pleasure for me to be there and to have the opportunity to provide continued support to them.

Mr. Chair, I want to just move off, watching my time, I want to just talk about education and my department for a couple of moments. It is a very interesting dilemma, I find sometimes, Mr. Chair. We have made some very significant investments in education over the last number of years. We focused on the teacher allocations and the cultural connections, and the ISSP/Pathways and the Excellence in Math Strategy. We continue to invest and support those strategies because we recognize the value of those strategies to continuing to support our students in achieving to the best of their potential. Part of what we are debating today in the estimates bill is the provision of some Interim Supply of funding to continue to support those strategies through the remainder of the year.

Mr. Chair, the other one that always interests me is the ongoing debate around infrastructure and repair and maintenance of our facilities. It is interesting when you listen to the debate in the House over the last couple of days, some members opposite will stand, and in one particular time and in one particular speech they will throw some criticism at the Premier and government for continuing to spend while in a deficit position in this Province; continuing to spend money when we should be cutting back. Then, Mr. Chair, at another point in time the same individuals will stand and they will talk about wanting new schools in their own district and they will talk about wanting extended service for air ambulance and many other housing kinds of initiatives that we have heard talked about today. It is very interesting, Mr. Chair.

One of the challenges I have found in trying to talk to people in the House as the Minister of Education is that we keep getting encouragement to invest in infrastructure, because all members I think recognize that there is a need to do that and to make sure we have safe, clean facilities for our children. We are doing that; $121.5 million this year alone for a combination of new school facilities, major repairs and ongoing repairs and maintenance.

Mr. Chair, the minute that we go in and we make the investment - there are times when we discover problems, some as recent as last week. All a part of what happens when you go in and renovate. No different, Mr. Chair, as members would know, than if you renovate your home, you never know what you are going to run into once you tear the wall out of the bathroom. Schools are no different. We go in, Mr. Chair, and we make an investment to try and improve the facilities, and the minute we find a problem members opposite cry foul because there is a problem in the school. Mr. Chair, what tends to get overlooked is the only reason, in most cases, that we are discovering problems in schools with air quality and other issues is because this government has taken the initiative to invest more than $100 million to fix the facilities in the first place.

Mr. Chair, I say to people listening, people at home who are watching this and tune into the debate, I say there are two ways that this government could approach repair and maintenance in schools. We could revert to the old way, pre-2003, which would have been about $5 million a year total budget for the Province. Mr. Chair, I say an amount that we had invested in singly in one school this year alone in repair and maintenance. So, that was the total budget for the Province. Here is the upside, Mr. Chair, here is the upside to the old approach. The upside is you never had any problems. You never had any problems with air quality because you never went in and tried to make sure the facilities were safe and good for students to go into. So if you never went in and invested and did the investigative work you never found the problems; or, Mr. Chair, we could take the new way that we have taken and you could invest, like we are doing. You could invest $100 million or $120 million, we could invest $200 million and we still would not solve all of the problems, but the more money you invest in school maintenance and infrastructure, Mr. Chair, people have to recognize, the more you invest the more problems you are likely to uncover that may be hidden away behind ceilings, behind roofs and behind walls.

I say, Mr. Chair, for people who are tuned into this debate, that as we invest in our facilities and our infrastructure one has to expect that in order to make things better there are going to come bumps in the road where we are going to discover problems on the way that the old method of doing things, prior to our government coming to office, would never have discovered because they did not make the investments in the facilities. So you can't have it both ways. You can't stand and cry foul because we are not investing and then when we invest cry foul because we are discovering the problems.

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

MR. KING: With leave, Mr. Chair, to clue up?

CHAIR: With leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: To clue up.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate the co-operation of member opposite.

As I said before, Mr. Chair, it is certainly a pleasure for me to stand and have a few comments here today and to speak to some of the many positive things, not only in my district but some of the very positive things that are happening in education in this Province.

I guess by summary, Mr. Chair, I will simply say that people need to recognize that every day there are going to be challenges in education at the post-secondary level, at Memorial, at the College of the North Atlantic. There are going to be challenges at the K-12 level, but, Mr. Chair, I will simply say this to people, they need to know that this government is committed to making the strategic decisions, the tough decisions sometimes, and the strategic investments with one goal in mind, that everything we invest in education is intended to support student learning and to ensure that they are in facilities that are safe and supportive and assisting them to do the best that they can and to achieve to the best of their abilities.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to just speak for a few moments to this air ambulance report that we have received today. Looking at the terms of reference that were given as this study was done, it has brought a conclusion today that impacts tremendously in a negative way the service, not only throughout the Province, but as well the economic situation that it brings to St. Anthony and to the district.

What I note, first of all, is that the terms of reference are so incomplete in that it was a review of the air ambulance service in Northern Newfoundland and Labrador instead of being a review of the air ambulance service in the Province. That is fundamentally a flaw because the air ambulance service that is offered out of St. Anthony is offered to the Province, not offered to Northern Newfoundland and Labrador. While there are percentages, obviously, of patients that come from Lab City and Goose Bay and Forteau and St. Anthony and all the other places across the Province, this service is a Province-wide service and to isolate a particular piece of that and to determine whether it is operating properly based on those statistics certainly does not give the right information. I am appalled actually that we would even consider doing it.

As I look at the report and as I reconsider the decision of the department and of government today, the impact in this Province – we have just shifted a problem, basically, is what we have done. It is as though the air ambulance service in St. Anthony serviced only the Northern Peninsula and Labrador. If that were so, then you could perhaps create an argument for what has taken place, but the truth is that the air ambulance service located in St. Anthony services the whole Province. The numbers in this report suggests that about 30 per cent, 33 per cent of the air medevacs that take place in the Province take place out of places other than the Northern Peninsula and Labrador, places such as Corner Brook and Springdale and Baie Verte, Gander and Grand Falls and Burgeo and so on. They account for 30 per cent of the air ambulance calls.

What this report is concluding, or what this report is assuming is that all of these 30 per cent of these calls, all of these 270-odd calls that took place last year will be serviced this year by the air ambulance in St. John's. So that means that when an air medivac is needed in Deer Lake it will always be at a time when the St. John's air ambulance is available, because if it takes place at a time when the St. John's air ambulance is not available, than what it means obviously, I would assume, is that the air ambulance from Goose Bay is going to have to do that run. I know with certainty that it is going to take a lot longer to get from Goose Bay to Deer Lake than it would take to get from St. Anthony to Deer Lake. It would take a lot longer to get from Goose Bay to Gander or to Burgeo than it would take to get from St. Anthony to Gander or Burgeo. What we have done is we have shifted an issue, we have shifted a problem. While I appreciate the responsibility of the department to review this process, and I certainly appreciate the anguish and pain of families who have not had adequate responses to air ambulance requests in the past that have been a part of this study, I do not understand how we could determine that a fix is by moving it from one piece of asphalt, if you will, to another. I just do not see the rationale behind that at all.

Obviously from an economic impact, which is the other piece of this, this impacts St. Anthony and the Northern Peninsula, and The Straits & White Bay North area in a tremendous way. This government brags about all they have done for rural Newfoundland and how important rural Newfoundland is and so on. I have watched as a citizen of St. Anthony and as an involved person there in that community over the past eight or ten years, I have watched as things have left our district under the - while we have had a minister in Cabinet we lost our health board. I have watched as Goose Bay has established its great administrative structure for the health of Labrador and the Northern Peninsula, all at the cost of St. Anthony. I have watched as Flower's Cove was going to be cut and done away with, until there was a rally. Still today, it does not have the service that it had. It had twenty-four hour service for lab and X-ray and today it has eight hour service, and the blood work and so on has to be sent into St. Anthony. I have watched as the highway depot was closed. It is one of the ones that is targeted to be a seasonal operation in Roddickton. I have watched as the Viking Trail Tourism Association, that had its own executive director and its own staff, has been swallowed up by the Western Destination Marketing Organization and does not even have a staff member today to try and promote the area.

All of these things have been done and they all seem to be okay, and today I watched again as another major piece of the economy of the Northern Peninsula is taken away. Quite frankly, Mr. Minister, I do not understand. I do not understand how you can do that. I do not understand how this government can do that. I am being very passionate; I am being honest about where I am in that, I put political stripes aside. This decision today is one that will have a long-lasting, negative impact in the health services of Northern Newfoundland. There will not be a need for surgeons - if planes are flying beyond St. Anthony to St. John's and so on, there will not be a need for surgeons in St. Anthony. I really thought that when our surgeons from St. Anthony came forward last fall and expressed their concern in writing and in meetings and so on to this government, I really believed that the solution would be something different than removing the air medevac service and basically removing the need for their services in the district.

I am concerned that the amount of consultation that took place in this process - to call the town council in St. Anthony the evening before you are coming into town for a meeting then fly in the next morning and spend an hour and leave again and then make this decision, is a wrong approach. I do not believe that is the way that we ought to have seen this thing unfold.

I am kind of lost for words as I look at it. As I look through the numbers, and I have tried just to find some justification in that report, what I see in the report is that in the past three years the air medevacs out of St. Anthony has increased by 30 per cent. The numbers suggest that. While that need for air medevac service is increasing, we have decided, in the midst of that, to cut it out and get rid of it altogether and to take it and put it somewhere else.

My issue with the report is that the very first recommendation – as in any report, you would kind of think would set the premise for what this report is all about. This first recommendation is that the aircraft be located in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and that it can serve the people of Labrador and of Northern Newfoundland. That recommendation assumes that aircraft is not needed to service the rest of the Province. We know that is incorrect. When we consider many of your ridings, people that are being medevaced every day, are being medevaced by the aircraft in St. Anthony. You cannot fly an aircraft from Goose Bay to Gander as fast as you can fly it from St. Anthony to Gander. When that second aircraft is required, there is going to be a delay.

What we have done is we have taken a service that is so essential and vital – I commend the minister in recognizing the need for a second medevac team. I believe that is a great thing; it is obviously a part of the equation. What we have done is we have taken our two air ambulance services and we have placed one on the far southern end, if you will, of the district of the Province and we have taken the other one and we have kind of placed it on the far northern end. We expect that movement to work better than what we have today.

Again, as I mentioned in Question Period, the previous member, Trevor Taylor, was the Minister of Transportation and put out a press release acknowledging that St. Anthony was still after fifty-odd years still the best place for an air ambulance service to service the Province. Fourteen months later it does not work any more. It is not the right place for it. It needs to be taken and sent further north so that it can be further away from the airports throughout the Province, throughout the Island portion of the Province that it brings patients in from.

So, I think we need to admit that in this process we may have not considered everything that needs to be considered. I think we need to admit that probably again we need to go back and look at it with a larger scope, with a larger intent and so on. I believe that if we do that we will realize that what has taken place here today in the announcement here today was not the right announcement to be made. I will continue to advocate on behalf of the district - the people of the Province that are going to see delays. Moving it and saving one life at the expense of another, I do not believe is responsible government and something that we should be doing.

Again, thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to stand and speak to this issue for this time.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you for recognizing me, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon everybody. It is great to rise in the House this afternoon to speak to Bill 2. I would remind those that are watching it is An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31.

Mr. Chair, as previous speakers have indicated, this bill provides funding for various departments of our government for the first three months of the fiscal year up to June 30 to carry out the work of various departments of government. This is part of the Budget debate. The entire Budget debate will take approximately seventy-five hours, as the minister said earlier, and it includes this initial discussion on Interim Supply.

I would like to start my remarks this afternoon, Mr. Chair, by congratulating the MHA Elect for the District of Topsail, Mr. Paul Davis. I have known Mr. Davis for many years since I was a teenager involved in crime prevention community activities in Mount Pearl. At the time, he was a police officer serving the community in Mount Pearl, among other areas. I have certainly gotten to know him well over the years as he has entered public life through his involvement in the Town of Conception Bay South.

I had an opportunity to join him on the campaign trail as well. I have to say I think he is going to be an excellent addition to our caucus, to our government and to this Legislature. So, I welcome him and I look forward to working with him in his new role.

As the MHA for Topsail, he will represent two of the communities that I also represent in the House of Assembly – that is the City of Mount Pearl and the Town of Paradise, both growing, vibrant communities and I look forward to working with him and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to ensure that those communities continue to have good representation here in this House.

Mr. Chair, I think it is also appropriate today to talk a little bit about some news out of one of our neighbouring Atlantic provinces yesterday. I was thrilled to hear that the potential deal between New Brunswick Power and Hydro-Quebec has fallen apart. I think it is great news for people throughout Atlantic Canada that this potential energy agreement is dead. I think it is important for us to acknowledge that our Premier and our government played a very important role in the public debate that has occurred around this issue.

One of the key successes in Newfoundland and Labrador over the last number of years has been this government's philosophy that we have to be masters of our own destiny. We have to take control of our resources. We have to stand up for our rights as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and protect those resources that truly should benefit the people of this Province.

Why should the people of New Brunswick allow the Province of Quebec to control the economic direction of their province? I think what was proposed was a horrific power grab on the part of Quebec, and I think it is safe to say that our Premier was among the first people in this country to point that out. I think there are a lot of New Brunswickers that are very thankful for the role that our Province and our Premier have played in that debate thus far.

What we are really talking about is energy sovereignty. I had an opportunity to visit New Brunswick with a volunteer organization that I am involved with just after the potential deal was announced back in the fall. Since that point, during my visit and since that point, friends and colleagues across the country, they ask me all the time: Can we have your Premier? Can you please send us your Premier and let him lead our province? We wish he was ours. It is no wonder with the kind of leadership that our Premier has shown why he is the most popular in the country. I think he is so popular because people across Canada recognize that he is standing up for the rights of the people of our Province.

Mr. Chair, I think the demise of this New Brunswick power deal is good news not only for New Brunswick but for Newfoundland and Labrador. I think New Brunswick has definitely dodged a bullet, but beyond that I think it is good for our Province as well. Under the deal, Hydro-Quebec would have acquired most of the Province of New Brunswick's power generation assets.

Our involvement with Hydro-Quebec, for literally decades, has been incredibly negative. Now, with the opportunity to go enter into talks with New Brunswick once again I think our Lower Churchill access looks better. Hydro-Quebec has certainly obstructed progress to develop the Lower Churchill hydro-electric project. I think the death of this deal really does represent a possible opening for Newfoundland and Labrador and potentially the opening of that transmission corridor from New Brunswick into Maine.

I cannot underestimate, and I do not think we should underestimate the opportunity that this presents for our Province and the good news that this represents to the people of our Province.

Anyway, back to the matters at hand. I certainly want to congratulate our government on the recent Throne Speech. I look forward to Monday's Budget announcements. I think that the Throne Speech reflected an incredible level of optimism, of energy, of hope, an incredible level of momentum. The Throne Speech talked about how it is our time to shine, and it really is. I really do believe that the best is yet to come, and I think when you look at the kind of momentum in various sectors throughout Newfoundland and Labrador it is indeed an exciting time. I think that energy and optimism will be reflected in Monday's Budget as well.

However, that said if you listen to the Opposition's response to the Throne Speech, and some of the comments that have been made in this House in the days since, you would believe the sky is falling. You would believe that we should fold up our tents and pack it in. That is really sad because I do not see how anybody in this Province today cannot recognize the incredible prosperity that is growing, the incredible investments that are being made in every corner of this Province, but yet, the Opposition continues to suggest that the sky is falling.

I heard, in her response to the Throne Speech, the Leader of the New Democratic Party talk about the issue of poverty, which is a very important issue, but, Mr. Chair, it is well known to people not only here in this Province but across the country that we have gone, over the last six years, from having one of the highest of rates of poverty anywhere in the country to having the third lowest rate in the nation. That is an incredible accomplishment and this government has, quite appropriately, acknowledged that there is still work to be done. That is why another action plan will follow as outlined in the Throne Speech.

The Leader of the NDP also, in her remarks, talked about the need for improvements in home care. Well, Mr. Chair, I would point out that this government has made considerable improvements in the area of home care. We have also made considerable investments in long-term care facilities. Over the last six years the overall health care budget has increased by over $1 billion.

When I listened to the Liberals respond to the Throne Speech I heard them all of a sudden expressing concern about deficits. The Liberals know all too well about deficits. As the Minister of Finance has articulated, and as the Premier has articulated, the decision to plan for a deficit in the next fiscal year is a very deliberate and conscious decision. Some economists across Canada have said that the recovery is only just starting, that there is still a high degree of uncertainty, and we have to plan for that uncertainty and be aware of it. The economy today is still fragile, and right now, we have to continue to do things to stimulate the economy. We have to invest in various sectors.

The Member for Port de Grave earlier talked about the need for investments in the fishery. Well, this government has done a great deal for the fishery, and in the aquaculture sector, significant strides have been made. That is all part of having a balanced plan. It is not just about oil and gas; it is about investing in key sectors of the economy that will make a difference in every corner of this Province. It is also about investing in infrastructure and creating real jobs.

As the Minister of Finance said earlier today, now is definitely not the time to be slamming on the brakes. When the rest of the country, when the rest of the continent is struggling in these tough economic times Newfoundland and Labrador continues to lead the nation. It is because of the good decisions that have been made. It is because of the tough decisions that have been made, and it is because critical decisions about investments in the right sectors have been made.

If we were to follow the advice of the Liberal Opposition, we would do one of two things. We would simply be cutting programs that are much needed in this Province, or we would be raising taxes. I do not think that is what the people of this Province are calling for at the moment. We have weathered this economic storm very well, and it is because this government has had the foresight and the conviction and the courage to make the right decisions, and make decisions that have not always been popular.

The prosperity that we now enjoy has not happened by chance. It is not simply about the price of a barrel of oil. It is about making strategic investments, and I do not understand how the Opposition fails to recognize and see that. It is all about standing up for this Province and defending our rights and our resources, and I think that approach is really paying off.

Mr. Chair, I could talk at length about the investments in the next number of months that are going to be made, both in Mount Pearl and Paradise. There is incredible infrastructure investments being made in both of those communities, and I hope that during this debate I will have another opportunity to speak and to address those particular investments that relate to my district and will be good for this district.

I look forward to participating in the Budget Debate, and I thank you for the opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

I am very happy to have another opportunity today to raise some issues. I heard my colleague just talking about the prosperity that we have, and we do have prosperity. There is absolutely no doubt about it. I decided to do a little bit of number crunching with regard to our prosperity right now. We are a have Province, and we all know that. So I thought, let's look at the rest of the provinces in Atlantic Canada. What I have discovered, looking at the three budgets for the same year, all of us looking at all of our budgets that exist at this moment for the four Atlantic Provinces, we are doing really well.

Newfoundland's Budget comes to $11,593 per head, per person in the Province. So for every person we have a budget of $11,593. That is better than Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia is almost $2,000 behind us. The budget in Nova Scotia gives them $9,557 per person, so $2,000 less than here in Newfoundland. New Brunswick, which we all consider is not quite as well off as Nova Scotia, in New Brunswick even they have $1,000 more a head than we do in their budget - I mean less than we do in their budget. Then P.E.I. surprisingly has - not surprisingly - is $1,500 a head less than us, with regard to their budget. We have, in comparison to the rest of Atlantic Canada, a very, very good budget. We have, in comparison to Nova Scotia, $2,000 more a head per person in our budget. I find it very interesting then when I look at that figure, that we have such a wealthy budget per person in our Province that we have a government that is saying we do not have the money, for example, to spend $8 million on a third air ambulance in the Province, or we do not have the money to put in place a fully funded home care program in the Province, or we do not have the money to make sure that every senior citizen in the Province has a drug card. It is really funny.

Nova Scotia, with $2,000 less a head per person, a budget of $2,000 less a head per person has a fully funded home care program. Nova Scotia has drug cards for all seniors. Very, very interesting. Little P.E.I., with $1,500 less a head in their budget, has a drug card for every senior citizen and has a home care program. It is the same way for New Brunswick. Guess what? All three of those provinces also have 911 everywhere in their province. So, there is something wrong when a government has this much money in comparison to Atlantic Canada – and I am not going anywhere else in Canada, but just look at Atlantic Canada. We have so much more money per head to spend on the people of this Province and yet this government continues to put on the poor face. I do not understand it. I do not understand it at all.

Let's look at just one of the things I just talked about, home care. Home care, because it is such a need in this Province and it is something that all three of the Atlantic Provinces have with much less money per head to spend on programs in their province. I heard my hon. colleague a few minutes ago say there have been improvements. No, I really beg to differ. There have not been improvements in home care. We have a desperate situation in this Province with regard to home care, and when we are talking about home care we are talking about - for the sake of those who are watching and others - people being able to be kept at home, needing some care, whether they are children who have a chronic condition, whether they are somebody, children or adult, who have a chronic illness, whether you are a senior who is becoming more disabled, to be able to live at home with the personal care that you need, the care of the person, as well as the care of the house in which you are living. There are different aspects to home care. We do not have a home care program. We have agencies that deliver home care that do get assistance from government; we have community services which does not have home care attached to it. We do not have a home care program.

The interesting thing that has just happened for me is the report that has come out, the Patient Flow report. I cannot tell you how happy I was to see the Patient Flow Study come out that was released to us by Eastern Health last week. The reason I am so happy to see it is because – and I would invite my hon. colleague to read the Patient Flow Study if he has not read it, because that Patient Flow Study has verified everything that I have been saying about home care in this House.

That Patient Flow Study, which was released to us on March 18, states: "Lack of community based resources to provide homecare services are affecting the organizations…" the organization being Eastern Health "…ability to discharge patients to their community. Without a fully funded community based model of homecare support Eastern Health will not be successful in achieving length of stay targets and its commitments to the community and province". In other words, Eastern Health has what I have heard somebody in this House refer to as a bed blockage. They have beds that get caught up with people in the beds, because the people cannot go back into the community because there is no place to take care of them.

I have some figures today from Eastern Health. They are interesting figures which are figures which would have been some of the things that Siemens consulting would have looked at when doing the Patient Flow Study. Right now in hospitals under Eastern Health we have forty-one people in hospital waiting to get into long-term care facilities. Now that is long-term care facilities; forty-one people. That means that is forty-one, very often and for the most part, elderly people who have come into hospital, and have come in from their own homes, but cannot go back to where they came from. They now require long-term care in a facility. They are in beds in our hospitals under Eastern Health waiting for a long-term care facility to go into, but because the waiting list for the long-term care facility is so great - and here I am talking about now the public long-term care facilities - that the waiting time for people, I have heard recently of two people in hospitals here in St. John's who have been months in those beds waiting to go into a long-term care facility. Months in those beds. That means that they are at least two beds that are held up, that a patient in critical care cannot get into because these patients cannot get into a long-term care facility.

The total wait-list right now, under Eastern Health, with regard to the long-term care facilities, is 276 as the total wait-list. Yet, we are building a new facility here in St. John's to replace Hoyles-Escasoni which has a handful of new units in it. I forget the exact number, but it is a very small number. I do not want to say it because I will get the number wrong. I know it is less than twenty. We have a very small number of new units going into the Hoyles-Escasoni building that is going to be built.

What is this all about? We had these figures and these figures are going to increase, they are not going to decrease, they are going to increase because of the aging nature of our population. Yet, we have this government saying that everything is okay, that there are no problems. Well, there are problems. There are lots of problems. We have to face reality. We cannot be in denial. We cannot continue in denial and saying that there is not a problem. When you have -

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: I got caught up, Mr. Chair; I did not even realize I was that close.

May I just have a couple of minutes to clue up? I will be cluing up.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

CHAIR: Leave to clue up.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

There are two points I wanted to make. One is that I am tired of this government playing the poor mouth with us knowing that we are so much better off than the other Atlantic Provinces. We have so much more money per head than the other Atlantic Provinces yet, we are saying that cannot have a home care program, so that is one thing; and the other point I want to emphasize is that I advise everybody on the government side to read the patient flow report and get a good understanding of why we have to increase a community-based home care program in this Province. This is like Eastern Health, but if we got a study done for all of the other authorities I am sure we would find the same thing.

We do have a real problem and we do need community-based home care. So, I urge this government, I urge the Minister of Finance, I urge the Minister of Health and Community Services to take this report seriously and to start coming up with proposals that will lead us into having real home care in this Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is good to follow the hon. member across the way there because the only positive thing I can say about that is that they are always negative. I am positive about that. The glass is always half empty with them - always half empty. I cannot remember, Mr. Chair, I cannot remember when they said something positive, but anyhow, they might.

Mr. Chair, there are a couple of things here that with this government over the last number – when you look at the speakers over the last number of days, spoke about what we have done for our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the infrastructure thing. If you go back, some of the things that I am very proud of, one is the tuition freeze that happened at Memorial University, and the up-front, needs-based grants, which we gave students, and we were recognized highly by the Canadian Federation of Students.

Municipal Operating Grants, the cost-sharing ratios, as some of the members mentioned. What we have done to reduce the cost to municipalities, and allowed them to get infrastructure that is necessary in their municipalities. The road construction, the amount of road construction - last year, going across Newfoundland and Labrador, which I did many times, I cannot count how many times I was stopped by traffic lights, because of construction that was proceeding at the time. It was enormous. People recognize it, Mr. Chair. People recognize just exactly how much construction did go on.

Also, another thing is the Poverty Reduction Strategy. The hon. member across the way talks about our poverty reduction, we have not done enough. Well, $130 million has been significant. Let me tell you, when I ask the people who were directly affected by the amount of money we put in that program, and how positive they are, and how they sing the praise of this government is unreal. The only time I hear something negative is from across the way.

Mr. Chair, that is not what I really want to get into. I want to change the tenor of discussion here today. Mr. Chair, as Minister Responsible for the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector, I represent a significant portion of everyone's district. Each and every one in here today, all forty-eight members, if they go back and looked at their communities, look at what people gave up their time and how they contributed to the social fabric of our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador - absolutely tremendous! Our government made a Minister Responsible for the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector, and I am so very, very proud to be that person.

Mr. Chair, there are 197,000 volunteers in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador - 197,000. They give 35 million hours of work free each year - 35 million. That is a significant amount of time and effort. Also, Mr. Chair, there are 23,000 people employed in that sector - 23,000. Some people say: Well, I did not realize that. Do you know something? Until I got into that sector I did not realize how many were there either, but that is a significant - if you look at that, that is a whole industry of its own. What does it do?

Well, Mr. Chair, it does a lot of things. You see people at dinners. You see people at the fire hall. You see people doing banquets. You see people cleaning up their city, their towns and their municipalities. They do the things that they enjoy doing. They do it for one thing, which is they really enjoy doing it and they give their heart and soul to their communities. They are the ones who do an awful lot of things for their communities and we need to say a thank you to them.

Mr. Chair, when I got into this portfolio I said to my staff: I would like to go around this Province. So every rural secretariat area, I went to each and every one of them. I had twenty-three meetings with seventeen communities and ninety-four communities represented there, community volunteer groups represented, and they shared their success and frustrations with me. I tell you when we got in there we said during the summer I do not think - people were saying: Well, maybe we will not get them out. Well let me give you a few examples. Of all the meetings we had there were 300 people that came out. I will just go to one, in Springdale - with some of the members here were there - it was a summer day, twenty-six degrees, beautiful blue skies, thirty volunteers in discussing their issues. I do not know what sector would get that many people out on that beautiful day to sit down and discuss their issues. They came out because they had concerns for their community, they loved their community and they wanted some changes; that was significant.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DENINE: No question.

Mr. Chair, let me give you some of the stories that went on. I go down to Harbour Breton, the hon. Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune was there, and down there in Harbour Breton they have this café which I always brag about. It is a beautiful, beautiful concept, what people are doing and the positive things they are doing in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Down there you have the Community Youth Network, the young people, and you have the seniors down there working together. They have an Internet café which is open to everyone in the communities. They have coffee and they have sweets.

Now, Mr. Chair, let me tell you that was something I did not want to get into. I wanted to stay away from that as much as I could, but let me tell you the cooking down there, the baking down there was unreal. What you had down there - a real success of social enterprise. You had the Community Youth Network, the young people out there helping out in the cafeteria, the Internet café, helping out what they can do, serving the tables, doing the tables, cleaning up, et cetera. Then you had the seniors. The seniors down there were baking the goods, and let me tell you, they do a good job. Just recently, I heard the fact that when they started out that, the funny thing is that the seniors did not want to get into giving up their recipes. You know what seniors are like now. They had their recipes for generations. Oh, no, I cannot share that; that is my secret - but they did. Let me tell you, it is very, very successful. You go down there today and you will see a café down there that is doing very well, not only for that community, but the whole Connaigre Peninsula itself. I think the Member for Cape la Hune should be very, very proud of that. Good job down there!

Mr. Chair, that is what you got when you went out to these communities. I sat down, I listened to what they had to say, heard their problems and seen what their issues were. Let me tell you, there are a lot of good things that they brought to my attention, and I just pointed that one thing out. The other good that came to my attention was the fact that the participation level was so high. That is what this government thought about. We just did not – I think we are probably one of three or four provinces maybe, three, that have a Cabinet Minister Responsible for the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector. I think, when you go back to the volunteer and non-profit sector, they are very appreciative of this government, of what they have done and what we are doing for the volunteer and non-profit sector.

Mr. Chair, just recently our government, in conjunction with my department, held a volunteer summit in Corner Brook. The volunteer summit was to basically bring all the volunteer groups that I met, and some of the other ones that I could not get a chance to meet with, together and look at some of the issues that the volunteer and non-profit sector were looking at. Some of the things they were looking at would be capacity, promotion, recognition, and training. Mr. Chair, we have not done up the final notes on that, but I tell you, when we do, that would be a roadmap for this department to have a look at to help solve those issues that are facing the volunteer and non-profit sector. Let me tell you, when a group collectively, as a whole, give 35 million hours of free time to Newfoundland and Labrador, to each one of their communities, then we have to stop and say a special thank you to each and every one of them.

Mr. Chair, my time is getting on. There is one thing I want to mention - I have to hurry up this one. One of the things that we had and we brought into that is going to be –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DENINE: I guess they will give me leave over there.

One of the things we are bringing in here is the URock Volunteer Award. On April 24, it is going to be put off here in St. John's. We put out applications for that. That is for people under thirty. That is organizations, individuals under thirty - I just missed it by a few days – organizations that represent organizations of people with thirty years and under. This is going to be a gala performance. We are now taking the time, right now, to honour these people, our young people. Why? Because the young people in all of our communities, all over the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, we need –

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. BUTLER: Time to clue up.

CHAIR: Time to clue up.

MR. DENINE: Thank you very much.

We need to honour these people. We need to say thank you to them because these are the ones we are going to count on in the future. We want these people to continue to build on the solid foundation that is laid by the volunteers before them.

Mr. Chair, we have all the applications in. There have been a significant number of representations from our Province. It is going to be a great thing, and when you look at the proposals for individuals that were put forward here, it is just amazing. It is just amazing when you see all of the young people out there giving freely of their time. I am just going to give you one example. There was a lady in Springdale who said to me - I said: What about the young people? She said: Do you know what you got to do? She said to the organizations around here, she said: All you have to do is ask us, because young people are there to co-operative and help out this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is a big initiative by this government. A lot of times it does not give out millions of dollars to the community, but it gives out a million dollars of effort; a million dollars of people who care about their community; millions of dollars of people giving freely of their time to make each and every one of their communities a better place to live. Who put this in? Our government, and I am very proud of that.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

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

I will take an opportunity to have another few words with regard to the debate when it comes to Interim Supply. I want to go back to the comments made by my hon. colleague from Mount Pearl South when he said that he was going to change the tone of the debate here today. I guess he was not listening on Monday when I got up and praised the very same people that he is talking about. He forgot about that.

Anyway, Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure to be able to stand again and make a few comments. I have several topics. I know we only have ten minutes, and I know this debate has to close today. So this is the last opportunity, I am sure, that I will get. There are several things that I just want to touch on. One of them, Mr. Chair, is with regard to the upcoming Budget, and I am sure we are all looking forward to good things.

There are a couple of issues that I am really looking forward to because it started last year, and that has to do with the long-term care facility. There was money put forward last year. During the last session I asked the minister a couple of questions about the $500,000 that was put forward and he said everything was moving along. Then we got some freedom of information back from the department saying that there was no documentation on file. So I put out a news release trying to get more detail into it. I have to say, I guess when you search you really find out what is going on. I am looking for wonderful things in the Budget this year with regard to that facility, because when the minister responded, even though he said I did not know what I was talking about and I did not understand the construction industry, he did say that the same plans that were being used for Hoyles Escasoni would be what will be used for the facility in the Conception Bay North area. He also stated that there would be $100,000 for evaluation and assessment. He also stated in that release that it would go to tender in 2010. It would be awarded in February, 2011 and construction would start in April, 2011. So that is a lot of wonderful information, and I will be very disappointed if there is not something in the Budget when it comes down in order to meet all those deadlines. That is a good thing.

With regard to one of the other comments he made, and I know we are in a political arena, he said I was just playing political games. I brought forward petitions, news releases that go back to 2003-2004, even prior to that when we were in government, and I have to say, regardless of who gets the credit, because he made it very clear I had nothing to do with making the decisions, that is true, and he praised our hon. colleagues in the area, the Member for Harbour Main and the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde. I do not care who gets praise for it as long as that facility goes to that area of the Province to serve the people. It is a facility that is –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: I gave quite a few petitions. Yes, my hon. colleague says quite a few petitions, and that was on behalf of the residents of the full area, not just from my district. Where the facility is built does not mean a row of beans to me. I mean I would love to see it in my backyard and say it is in the Port de Grave district but that is not the issue, as long as that facility comes forward.

The other issue I want to touch on, and I notice in the Interim Supply, for education there is $435 million and I think that is only for a three month time frame. I am looking forward to some word on a school for Coley's Point, Coley's Point Primary. The hon. minister knows full well about the facility that I am referring to because when he was head of the school board he met with the parents there. He knows the situation and his department knows the situation. So I am looking forward, I know everything cannot be built overnight but hopefully there will be some minor announcement saying that this is in the plans for the future, and that will mean a lot to the people.

I know during much of the debate we have heard the scenario about the glass being half full and half empty. I have to say, with the wealth that this government has inherited from projects of the past, the wonderful project of Voisey's Bay – even though the Premier said he tweaked some of them, good tweaking, but still and all, I think our glass should not be half full or half empty, I think it should be overflowing with the wealth that we have coming in.

MR. HICKEY: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: I hear the hon. Member for Lake Melville, the Minister of Labrador Affairs. I do not know if he is giving us the same speech he gave to the Joint Councils, but if he is, I will sit down so he can get up and proceed with it. I do not want to sound critical but the facts are the facts, Mr. Chair.

The other issue I hope that will be dealt with, that there will be some financial support for the smaller municipalities, we read about it in the papers recently, Eastern Waste Management. We know that the issues now are being considered. I am sure the department is dealing with that. It is a major problem for some of the smaller communities. It is my understanding that they were looking at the possibility of having transfer stations in some of the areas. Now the plans are they will not be coming forward by the end of the month as they had anticipated, but they will be dealing with more consultation on that issue.

The issue is - and we hear mayors from a lot of the smaller communities, and even some of the larger municipalities and towns, saying it is going to be a tremendous cost if the full amount of the waste has to be transported to Robin Hood Bay. They have a wonderful facility there, what is taking place. Some of our staff, I did not get the opportunity to go and visit it, but they say it is a tremendous facility. So I am hoping that government in some small way will be able to help those smaller communities with the concerns that they have.

Another issue I hope that is dealt with in some way, and that is the used tire recycling program. I know this goes back for quite some time now. The minister stated, I think it is about two years ago now in Estimates, again last year and another Estimates year is coming up now, the 1.8, or probably in excess now of 2 million tires that are being stored in the Dunville area. The people in that area have major concerns. I heard so much about it I said I will have to go out and look at it. I did not go in on the site because it is on private property, but I can assure you there are major concerns that the people have in that area. I hope nothing ever happens there but I am hoping that government, whether it is through the Budget or in some other process, in the very near future will be able to announce a program that they had determined would take place some time ago.

The other issue - and I know this came up during the Budget consultations - was the Newfoundland and Labrador Pensioners' Coalition, the concerns that they have. This group is made up of some 22,000 petitioners. There is a Newfoundland and Labrador Public Sector Pensioners' Association, the retired teachers, Memorial University Pensioners' Association, the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Public Employees, the RNC veterans, St. John's fire fighters, and the retired pensioners, the penitentiary wardens.

Mr. Chair, what they are saying in their consultations with the minister - they refer to the Premier where he requested a new deal with Hydro Quebec governing the 1969 Churchill Falls power contract and how the Premier had said the gross inequity of this agreement cannot be denied. They are looking at their scenario as being in the same situation. They believe that by not dealing with those individuals – and what they are looking for, they say that rather government has to approach the issue as their former employer. It is not that you are just dealing with seniors and so on. Some of the key issues that they are looking for is an increase across the board for all pension recipients; increase the spousal amount; those in receipt of 55 per cent of the benefits would increase to 60 per cent; elimination of the claw back at sixty-five; redress of the years government held back on the contributions to the pension and indexation. That is some of the issues that they would like to see brought forward and hopefully we will see it in the upcoming Budget.

One of the other things I was hoping that we would see - and hopefully the legislation will come down, whether it will be in this session or maybe in the fall session – is the ATV regulations. This is something that has been promised for quite some time. It is still outstanding and it is a major concern, because all too often we hear about incidents throughout our Province where accidents are taking place, but the rules and regulations were to be changed. I met with the minister on a couple of occasions, especially when we used to have the run for the Janeway in the Conception Bay North area where we raised over $400,000 or $500,000 in a five or six-year period. Once the rules were put into force that were there, people became concerned and that major project had been denied because people were concerned about what might happen.

Another issue I hope that government would look at, and it goes back to the Department of Environment and Conservation again; that is the issue the Auditor General brought up, that is the gravel pit campers. I know there are various opinions on that, but one thing I would like to see is government would sit down. They requested a meeting with the minister, and maybe it has taken place recently but I know up to a couple of weeks ago it had not. They want to sit down and see if something can be ironed out. They are not just wanting to go out and have areas in the Province where garbage and everything is thrown around, even though they enjoyed this for the last forty-five or fifty years. I think when the Auditor General got onto it, the department became uptight about it and they got in a panic situation and they told them: Look, if you are not out in thirty days or sixty days, that is the end of it. We will make sure that you are out of it. Those people, they do not want to do anything to hurt the environment. You have the odd one; you have a bad apple in every barrel.

Honourable members, I think this is something that the department should look into and hopefully we will have word on that.

So thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Baie Verte-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am very grateful to the people of the District of Baie Verte-Springdale for entrusting to me the awesome responsibility of representing them in this hon. House. I count it an honour and a privilege and I thank them for their support.

For the purpose of my talk today, I would like to make a comparison to where we were in 2003 and to where we are today, Mr. Chair. Back in 2003 when this government assumed office, we were in very poor, desperate financial shape and we were surrounded by crumbling, aging infrastructure. Our Premier pointed this out in January 2004 when he addressed the Province. Road maintenance was ignored and deferred; school maintenance was ignored and deferred; hospital maintenance was ignored and deferred; bridges and ferries were ignored and deferred; infrastructure needs were ignored and deferred; programs were stale and stagnant; and services were deteriorating.

What a bleak picture, Mr. Chair. That is not much to boast about. All that was compounded by a very weak, short-sighted leadership that was ready to sell the shop in 2003; so after fully assessing this dismal situation, our Province, our Premier, our Cabinet took decisive action. What did they do, Mr. Chair? They reduced taxes; they reduced debt; they increased infrastructure spending; they knew they had to grow the economy; they knew they had to create jobs; and they knew they had to expand the revenue base.

Also, Mr. Chair, in 2003 this Province was under a dark cloud of despair and despondency. There was no strong effective leadership, no vision, no hope, no dreams, no direction, no long-term planning, no sense of pride, no confidence, no self-esteem. In other words, our Province was suffering from an inferiority complex. Everyone was going around the Province, their mouths down, shoulders drooped, their heads down, wondering what was the plight of our Province. Everything was at a standstill. The Province was paralyzed by a mountainous debt load.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: It was short-sighted or checkmated. This Province was checkmated by a short-sighted, visionless lack of leadership, to put it bluntly. How can I put it more bluntly, Mr. Chair? This Province was in desperate need of an inspirational, a visionary, and a passionate leadership. Mr. Chair, needless to say, the rest is just history.

Today, seven years later, just a mere seven years later, Mr. Chair, our confidence is renewed and restored. Our dignity and pride is restored. Our passion and vision is restored. Our dreams are restored. We are holding our heads up high. Our shoulders are put back. We are standing tall and firm once again, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Our attitudes have changed. What has changed all of this attitude, Mr. Chair? Why the great big metamorphosis? It is all about leadership. One word: leadership, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: A Premier, rather than seeing a difficulty in every opportunity, we have a leader who sees an opportunity in every difficulty. In his address to the Province in January 2004, this is what he said, "Though the obstacles are great, I know that the opportunities are even greater." Now you wonder why we are so strong in the polls; there is the answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Mr. Chair, no mistake about it. It is all about leadership. Every school, every town, every organization, every community, every government, every agency, every hockey team needs a strong, bold, determined leader – and we have that in Premier Williams.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Every province is envious of our Premier. We are frightened right to death that he is going to go somewhere else.

Without a strong, bold, visionary leadership, we have no direction, there is no achievement, there is no success and there is no advancement. Yes, Mr. Chair, leadership is critical. As a former educator, we know what leadership is all about. They are in our schools, they are in our communities, they are in our government and they are in Cabinet right now as we speak. Leadership is indeed crucial to any organization.

A plan was devised in 2003, a strategic plan was put in place, a new course was charted, Mr. Chair. Investing in roads and bridges worked - that plan worked; investing in hospitals and schools worked; investing in water and sewer worked; investing in long-term care facilities worked; investing in diversifying the economy worked, Mr. Chair; an unprecedented $800 million investment in infrastructure spending worked, Mr. Chair - that plan worked.

What plan you might ask? Reducing debt to a manageable level; reducing taxes worked; increasing infrastructure spending worked; combating poverty worked; investing in quality education worked; investing in personal self-esteem and personal self-reliance worked; investing in youth worked; investing in seniors worked; sticking to a long-term plan worked; investing strategically worked. May I go on?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Investing in forestry; investing in mining; investing in the fishing industry; investing in aquaculture worked, Mr. Chair. As a result of all these steps, what have we done? What is the result today, Mr. Chair? Our plan, that plan, put this Province on solid footing. Coming out of the global economic recession, we are better positioned than any other jurisdiction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: That is something to brag about, Mr. Chair. Listen to what the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council said that in 2010, the Newfoundland economy will grow by 3 per cent, in fact, leading Atlantic Canada. In fact, to my knowledge, Mr. Chair, I think we are second only to B.C. in leading the country in economic growth. That is even after a global economic recession, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Now, the only reason B.C. is ahead of us is because of the Olympics.

Since 2003, what a metamorphosis! What a transformation has occurred! By comparison, it is night and day. Seven years ago, weak leadership; today, strong leadership; seven years ago, poor credit rating; today, good credit rating; seven years ago, massive debt; today, manageable debt; seven years ago, crumbling infrastructure; today, modern infrastructure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Seven years ago, low consumer confidence; today, the highest in the nation, Mr. Chair; seven years ago, negative attitude, poor attitude pervaded the entire Province; today, 2010, positive, can-do attitude, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Seven years ago, a have-not province; today, a have province, Mr. Chair.

So, indeed we have made a difference. Oh, just a small difference? No, we made a huge difference, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: How did we make that difference? Why did we make that difference? Because we have compassion and because this government cares, Mr. Chair. Why is the minimum wage increased? Why is the Home Heating Rebate Program continued for the fifth consecutive year and made permanent? Why is there a freeze on tuition fees? I need everybody's help: Because we care!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Why did we eliminate the interest on the provincial portion of student loans? Why did we launch a new Web site to promote healthy and active living? Why did we implement the Youth Retention and Attraction Strategy? Because we –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Care!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you. Because we care!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Why did we give out free textbooks? Why did we reduce taxes? Why are we committed to opening fourteen Career Work Centres in this Province? Why did we implement the new 90-10 cost-share ratios? Because we –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Care!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Yes, we care about rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Did you know - I will ask you again for the third time – that 80 per cent of infrastructure funding is spent in rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: If we did not care, focussing on my district for thirty seconds, why did the Town of King's Point get a portable pump or funding for playground equipment? Why did the Towns of Jackson's Cove, Langdon's Cove, Silverdale, Nicky's Nose Cove, Harry's Harbour, Brent's Cove, Harbour Round receive pavement? Because we –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Care!

MR. POLLARD: Why did Fleur-de-Lys receive a $15,000 grant toward their playground? Why did they receive funding for a lift station? Because we –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Care!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you.

Why did the Towns of Westport, Middle Arm, Baie Verte, Springdale, La Scie and Ming's Bight receive funding for fire trucks, bunker suits, pager system and other emergency response equipment? Because we –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Care!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. POLLARD: One minute to clue up, Mr. Chair?

CHAIR: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: Leave to clue up, hon. member.

MR. POLLARD: Why are we building a new state-of-the-art K-12 school in Baie Verte? Because we –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Care!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you.

Why did Burlington receive funding for a new fire truck? Why did we upgrade the twelve kilometre gravel road through Nippers Harbour? Why did Beachside receive funding to purchase a building for its new town hall? Because we –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Care!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you.

Why did this government just recently hand out over half a million dollars of Provincial Wellness Grants, of which, Life Unlimited for Older Adults in Springdale received $33,000? Because we –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Care!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you.

Why did Little Bay, Pacquet and Shoe Cove receive funding for water upgrades? Because we –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Care!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair - I could go on with this but my time is up. Mr. Chair, from 2003 to 2010 our government, along with our proud, determined people have conquered and met and far exceeded the challenges that confronted us as a government in 2003. I am proud to be part of it, and I am proud to be MHA for Baie Verte-Springdale. I am proud to be in that area and –

AN HON. MEMBER: We care.

MR. POLLARD: We care.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, there are a lot of great speakers in this House, and there is one lesson I have learned, there is no way I am following that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: I have to say, there have been great speakers in this House, on the Opposition side and also on government side, and I guess there is a certain style you like and appreciate. I happen to like the style of the hon. Member for Bonavista North. I have to tell you, Harry, I might change my mind here.

This has been a very interesting debate through Interim Supply. This has been an interesting process for me. This has been the third time [technical difficulties] to go through pre-Budget consultations and to have an opportunity to travel around the Province and talk to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and hear what their asks are, and hear what their needs are, and hear what their hopes and dreams and aspirations are. It has been an honour and privilege for me to do that, and I value what I heard from them. I value what I heard from them in their communities, and I am delighted - and I want to thank the Premier and I want to thank this government for giving me the opportunity to have had that opportunity.

It has been quite a process. The ministers here have brought forward their asks to me, in my capacity as Minister of Finance, and the Budget that will come down on Monday will be a Budget that will – although, as the Minister of Finance, I am the person who will present the Budget on Monday and read the Budget on Monday, but the Budget is a document which represents the vision of the Premier and the entire Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. So, hopefully we will bring down a Budget that the people of Newfoundland deserve.

I am looking forward to Monday, and I want to thank everybody for taking part in this Interim Supply Debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

A bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2011 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service". (Bill 2)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 4 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 4 inclusive carried.

CLERK: The schedule.

CHAIR: Shall the schedule carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, schedule carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: WHEREAS it appears that the sums mentioned are required to defray certain expenses of the Public Service of Newfoundland and Labrador for the financial year ending March 31, 2011, and for other purposes relating to the public service.

CHAIR: Shall the preamble carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, preamble carried.

CLERK: An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2011 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

CHAIR: Shall the long title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee rise, report the resolution and Bill 2 carried without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise, report the resolution and Bill 2 carried without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report the resolution and Bill 2 carried without amendment, and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Deputy Chair of Committees and Member for Humber Valley.

MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Deputy Chair of Committee of Supply reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred, and have directed him to report that the Committee have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

When shall the report be received?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, report received and adopted.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the Committee have leave to sit again?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance that the resolution be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that this resolution be now read a first time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: "That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2011 the sum of $2,398,481,900."

On motion, resolution read a first time.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance, that the resolution be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this resolution be now read a second time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: "That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2011 the sum of $2,398,481,900."

On motion, resolution read a second time.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance, for leave to introduce the Interim Supply Bill, Bill 2, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce Bill 2, the Interim Supply Bill, and that this bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce the Interim Supply Bill and that this bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31 2011 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 2)

On motion, Bill 2 read a first time.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Finance, that the Interim Supply Bill be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 2 be now read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 2 be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2011 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 2)

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2011 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," read a second time. (Bill 2)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance, that the Interim Supply Bill be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 2 be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 2 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2011 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 2)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 2 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2011 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 2)

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

MS BURKE: With that, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, that the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is properly moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

This House now stands adjourned until 2:00 o'clock tomorrow, being Monday.

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