March 12, 2013                         HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS             Vol. XLVII No. 75


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of order regarding a question posed to me yesterday during Question Period. Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP had a question yesterday with respect to the budgetary process in the House of Assembly.

I quote Chapter 11, page 505 of O'Brien and Bosc, "All questions relating to the internal and financial management of the House of Commons fall within the statutory responsibilities of the Board of Internal Economy …. Such matters do not fall within the administrative responsibilities of the government. That is why responses to these questions cannot be expected from the ministry."

Mr. Speaker, according to this section of O'Brien and Bosc, government ministries can only answer questions for which they are responsible. The Leader of the NDP should have directed her question yesterday to the Management Commission, of which she is a member.

It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that on the issue she questioned yesterday, it was dealt with on February 28, 2013 in a meeting at which she was in attendance. Furthermore, I understand that when the vote was taken regarding to the cut to positions, there were no dissenting votes. So the Leader of the NDP knew the decision, agreed with the decision, and voted for the decision. This was a management decision that she made as part of the Management Commission, not one that I was involved in as Premier of this Province.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you rule on the point of order, according to the section of O'Brien and Bosc, Chapter 11, page 505, which clearly indicates the question was inappropriate and outside the realm of government responsibility.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party, to the point of order.

MS MICHAEL: No, I am rising on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker will address the point of order first.

Our Standing Orders are silent on this issue. There are some references in our Standing Orders, Standing Orders 51 to 56, dealing with written questions and the appropriateness of some types of written questions and that some may be ruled out of order.

With respect to Oral Questions, though, the Premier's point of order and the issue that she has raised with respect to whether or not questions posed by members of the Opposition to members of government can, in fact, be out of order, we have not had, in my personal recollection, any circumstance where questions have been ruled out of order, but, in fact, citation reference of O'Brien and Bosc does deal with the issue of appropriateness of certain questions within the House of Commons. As we have said many times here, when our Standing Orders are silent on an issue, we refer to our past practice of the House, and in the absence of guidance there, we will would look to O'Brien and Bosc for guidance.

There is a point of order, a valid point of order, that the question was obviously well beyond the administrative responsibilities of the government, and further a reference to O'Brien and Bosc with respect to where such questions might be directed, because we are all aware in this House: the House has a Management Commission. It is our Management Commission that is akin to the Internal Economy Commission referenced in O'Brien and Bosc in the House of Commons.

We have, as a Management Commission, the same responsibilities to this Legislature and to its members as would the Internal Economy Commission in the House of Commons. All matters with respect to the administration of this House, whether it is financial or other related matters with respect to how we function as MHAs, and the administration of the House of Assembly Services, which include the supports for us as members, all of those administrative issues and the budgets associated are dealt with by the Management Commission; and the representation of that Commission is made up of members of all parties. As the Speaker, I Chair that.

Collectively, we as members in this House manage our own affairs through that Management Commission. It is only ourselves who are responsible for and answerable for the issues that the Management Commission takes under consideration and decisions that it makes. It is not the responsibility of government.

There is a valid point of order and I would ask members to be guided, because as a Speaker, in future the Chair will rule questions that are not appropriate and beyond the responsibility of the government's administrative responsibilities; such questions will be ruled out of order.

The Leader of the Third Party, on a point of privilege.

MS MICHAEL: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

I am raising this point at the earliest opportunity of the issue being brought to my attention. On December 18, 2012, I asked the Speaker for a point of order due to hearing accusations from the government side of the House that I was falsely accused of cursing and swearing during the debate on Bill 53, An Act to Amend the Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act and the Electrical Power Control Act, 1994. I was unable to identify who made the comment I heard as I spoke while recognized by the Speaker on this very important piece of legislation that we were debating at the time.

The Speaker investigated the instance; on Thursday, March 7, 2013, his first opportunity after this incident, the Speaker gave his ruling that no unparliamentary language, either written or audible, had been made by me. The Speaker noted that Hansard did identify the accusatory comments of unparliamentary language made by a member and on March 7 the Member for Mount Pearl North, on prompting by the Speaker, identified himself as the person who had accused me of using unparliamentary language and apologized for his comment.

Unfortunately, on March 10, 2013 I was made aware of comments made on Twitter on March 8 and continuing on more than one occasion on March 9 by the Member for Mount Pearl North, restating his unparliamentary accusations –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: – that I had cursed and sworn in the House of Assembly, in spite of him having stood in the House two days before saying that he meant no ill intent and apologized to the Speaker and the House.

Mr. Speaker, you made a previous ruling on May 9, 2012 regarding unparliamentary language used on Twitter. In that ruling you talked about the standard of conduct which we, all elected members, should expect of each other. You also talked about the dangers of using social media while the House is sitting so as to escape being sanctioned for unparliamentary language while still making an accusation. You said you would consider that a breach of privilege of the House.

The Member for Mount Pearl North has shown great disrespect, Mr. Speaker, for your ruling on March 7, 2013 and also for the previous ruling on March 9, 2012 by repeating on Twitter this weekend the words for which you ordered him to apologize. His behaviour undermines the authority of the Speaker and the dignity of the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, you made the ruling May 9, 2012 regarding an accusation made on Twitter against a member saying, "Here is a point I would ask you to keep in mind, or one of the points I think it is significant to be guided by: had this accusation of lying been sent while the House was sitting so as to escape being sanctioned for unparliamentary language while still making the accusation, I believe it would be a prima facie case of privilege. I remind all members of the privilege they enjoy as members of this House, and with that privilege comes a responsibility that all of us have to maintain the integrity of this House."

Mr. Speaker, these words of yours were very sage advice to all of us who sit here as parliamentarians. It is possible that today's situation is graver than the occasion in May of 2012. Mr. Speaker, that the Member for Mount Pearl North apologizes to you in the House of Assembly on Thursday and then proceeds to retract his apology by repeating his accusations on Twitter over the weekend, reveals that the member was not at all serious about his apology. The Member for Mount Pearl North is, in fact, mocking the dignity of all of us as members of this Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: The Member for Mount Pearl North has negated the apology he made to the hon. Speaker and to the House of Assembly, and is breaching his privilege. He is trying to do through the backdoor that which he cannot do in the precincts of the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you investigate this matter, and in the event that the actions of the Member for Mount Pearl North are found to be a breach of privilege, ask him to absolutely and unequivocally apologize and withdraw his remarks.

I do have copies here of this point of privilege for both of the other caucuses, Mr. Speaker, and for yourself.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I apologize unequivocally.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker acknowledges the point of privilege that has been raised, and the fact that the redress required was an apology from the Member for Mount Pearl North, I consider the matter dealt with.

Today we have in the public galleries; I want to welcome the Mayor of the Town of Botwood, Mr. Jerry Dean. He is accompanied by the Town Manager, Mr. Steve Jerrett.

Welcome, both gentlemen, to our Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we have members' statements from the Member for the District of Bay of Islands, the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North, the Member for the District of St. John's North, the Member for the District of Mount Pearl South, the Member for the District of Bellevue, and the Member for the District of Lake Melville.

The Member for the District of Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a special annual event in the Town of Cox's Cove.

On February 1, I attended the opening ceremonies of the Mark Baldwin Hockey Tournament. This annual three-day event is in recognition of the late Mark Baldwin, a young man from Cox's Cove, an avid hockey fan, who unfortunately died in a tragic vehicle accident in Alberta in 2002.

Over sixty players took part in the tournament, and this weekend also included various competitions for the children. This year's tournament was especially significant as it also recognized Tommy Buffett, who was instrumental in organizing the event every year. Unfortunately, Tommy passed away this past November after a courageous five-year battle with cancer. In his honour, the organizers have renamed the tournament the Mark Baldwin/Tommy Buffett Memorial Hockey Tournament.

All money raised over the years has been used to fund a scholarship established at Templeton Academy in memory of Mark. Proceeds from this year's funds will now also include a scholarship in memory of Tommy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in recognizing this event which honours these two great individuals, the volunteers, the town and participants who keep their memories and dreams alive.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize the Grade 6 classes at Elizabeth Park Elementary for completing the DARE program.

The DARE program is an international program designed to teach students to abstain from participating in illegal activities, using drugs and alcohol, as well as other violent activities. It is taught in partnership with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, and Constable Patricia Stanley played a key role in delivering the program to the classes at Elizabeth Park.

By completing the program, these students are learning valuable skills that are essential for their personal development. I would also like to thank the teachers, the administrators, the parents and the RNC for their contribution to this program. This is a great accomplishment for these young students and hopefully what they have learned through the program will be an asset to them for years to come.

I would like to once again congratulate these students for graduating from the DARE program and ask that all members of the House of Assembly join me in congratulating them as well.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Go ahead, please.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, it has taken me a couple of minutes because I needed to verify a few things and I had my own point of privilege to raise. I am raising a point of order with regard to the minutes that were quoted by the Premier.

The meeting that the Premier is talking about on February 28 was an in camera session. I know that we in the Management Commission continue in camera sessions as private sessions that we do not talk about outside of those meetings.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I am raising a point of order with regard to the Premier who is not a member of the House Management Commission quoting from minutes of a private in camera session of the House Management Commission. I am not sure I have seen those minutes yet, and I am a member of that Commission.

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

MR. KING: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure that I see a point of order being raised here. I very much see a double standard that the member opposite stood in Question Period and raised an item that was discussed in a private meeting, yet feels that it is not okay for a member on this side to raise a point of order respecting that.

I do see if there is any merit to raising that question, that it is not for this House of Assembly but it is for the Management Commission. The member opposite clearly, clearly initiated this discussion when she raised the topic on the floor of this Legislature, a topic that was discussed in private by the Management Commission.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party, to the point of order.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the question I raised here in the House – and I accept your ruling earlier that it should not have been raised here in the House. The question I raised was based on the fact that the members of the Public Accounts Committee had been notified that the researcher who had been working with them was released. That person was no longer going to be working for the House of Assembly.

It was based on that information and that information only that I asked the question. It was not based on any knowledge from an in camera session of the House Management Commission. It was because the MHA for The Straits – White Bay North, who was on the Committee, was notified by one of the co-chairs that the researcher was gone. That was the basis for my question, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Government House Leader, to the point of order.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I guess the point I would make here is that the trail of events is what is most important here. The member opposite asked a question in this House which she says was a direct result of a press release being issued, which she feels, based on her statements today, gives her the right to step outside of the role of the management committee and try to hold the Premier of this Province accountable for a decision that she had nothing to do with. It was a decision taken by the Management Commission.

The point of order raised by the hon. Premier in this House today was simply challenging the authority of the member opposite to try to hold the Premier of the Province and the government accountable for a decision in this public Legislature for which we had no input in, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has heard the point of order raised and has heard a couple of interventions with respect to it. Very reluctantly, to be frank with you, those of you who listened to my ruling with respect to the Premier's point of order would have heard me describe the role of the Management Commission, its function, who sits on it, and the distinction between government and the Management Commission.

That Management Commission has a responsibility to all of us individual members. The Commission has a responsibility to all the individual members in this House. The composition – I will repeat again – of that Commission is made up of equal members from government, as with Opposition. I sit as the Chair of that Commission.

I think we do the Commission, this Legislature, and us as individual MHAs a grave disservice if we continue to debate the function of the Management Commission and try to undermine the function of that Management Commission and how it acts on behalf of all of us as members.

There is no point of order because it is inappropriate to be discussing within the Legislature issues with respect to the Management Commission. If members of the Commission, or members of this House, in fact, have an issue with the function of the Management Commission, I invite them to write me and express their concern. It will be on the agenda of the next Management Commission, and we can have a full discussion as Commission members in a televised debate around what the Commission is doing or not doing and how it functions.

I will not entertain any further comment with respect to the function of the Commission, and I consider this issue having been dealt with.

The hon. the Member for St. John's North, with a private member's statement.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate two students from Leary's Brook Junior High. Rita Huang and Tiffanie Hayter walked away from this year's Model Bridge Day competition as the 2013 Master Bridge Builders.

The Model Bridge Day competition is an annual highlight of National Engineering and Geoscience Month. Junior high and senior high students from the greater St. John's area design and build model bridges. The only materials they can use are Popsicle sticks and white glue. The bridges are then tested with a hydraulic actuator. Basically, they are subjected to increasing amounts of pressure until they break.

The bridge that Rita and Tiffanie built, the winner of the junior high division, did not break until the pressure it was facing reached 771.1 kilograms. Now, to put that in perspective, that is nearly 1,700 pounds, the average weight of one fully-grown male polar bear or nine fully-grown male Members of the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the House to join me in thanking the Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Newfoundland and Labrador for sponsoring this annual competition, and congratulating Rita and Tiffanie of Leary's Brook Junior High for winning this year's challenge.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Mount Pearl South.

MR. LANE: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in this hon. House to congratulate the Mount Pearl Soccer Association on their fortieth anniversary. Since its inception in 1973, this tremendous organization has been teaching youth in Mount Pearl the value of hard work, endurance, wellness, and teamwork and is responsible for many experiences and friendships that will last a lifetime.

In recognition of this significant milestone, the Mount Pearl Soccer Association held numerous events including a kick-off luncheon, a dance, several tournaments, a forty-hour marathon game, a family fun day, a closing dinner, as well as a number of initiatives to recognize sponsors and volunteers. They have also embarked on a legacy project in partnership with The Rooms, which will see the establishment of a permanent archive to capture the history of the association over the past forty years and into the future.

I would ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating the Mount Pearl Soccer Association on achieving this significant milestone, and thank the many volunteers and community-minded sponsors for their continued support of youth in our community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PEACH: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to extend congratulations to Tricentia Academy Timberwolves of Arnold's Cove for winning the gold medal in volleyball in the C division, eighteen and under juveniles.

There are ten girls on the team: Keisha Temple, Nicole Seaward, Amber Ryan, Hilary Reid, Natalie Throwbridge, Kayla Mulroney, Jessica Warren, Joanne Fry, Jasmine Hiscock, and Kayla Hollett. The girls' victory is attributed to the valuable coaching of Ms Crystal Penney. The young ladies who participated were Grade 11 and 12 students. There were sixteen teams involved in this tournament and it took place in St. John's on February 23. They battled through from 8:00 a.m. to midnight to make for a long day, but it was well worth it in the end.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in extending congratulations to the Tricentia Timberwolves for capturing gold, and wishing them the best in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

MR. RUSSELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize the athletic achievement of several individuals from my district during the Labrador Winter Games.

Mr. Speaker, Rick Burden of Churchill Falls single-handedly represented his community of Churchill Falls. Rick competed in six of the seven mandatory events of the games, achieving more points than many communities who had full rosters. He did it with a smile and a spirit so enjoyable that the athletes chose to honour him with the award of Most Spirited Athlete.

Mr. Speaker, Rick Kennedy and Cathy Jong also showed the grit and determination of true Labradorians and were successful in their events. These two individuals were chosen as the Top Male and Female athlete from the great District of Lake Melville.

While, Mr. Speaker, I recognize the achievements of these athletes, I must say, all of the athletes from my district gave it their all during the games, entertaining us with nail-biting events such as the ball hockey final, where Sheshatshiu came out victorious against Cartwright, or when Joseph Tuglavina from Northwest River won the men's snowmobile race.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of this House to join me in celebrating the athletes who competed in the 2013 Labrador Winter Games.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, this morning I had the pleasure of visiting students and staff at Brother Rice Junior High for the opening of their annual science fair, which coincides with the recognition of March as Youth Science Month in schools across Newfoundland and Labrador.

As it turns out, the school is holding its annual Heritage Fair at the same time, so I was fortunate enough to view a wide range of high-calibre projects in both the science and heritage fields. I commend the students at Brother Rice, as well as all students from across the Province, for their hard work and innovative thinking in preparing for these events.

Mr. Speaker, each year students compete in school and regional science fairs during the month of March. These fairs stimulate curiosity, provide motivation for learning, and encourage our youth to develop an appreciation for science. As in past years, several students from this Province will attend the Canada-Wide Science Fair, which is taking place in Lethbridge, Alberta in May. I have no doubt that students from Newfoundland and Labrador will once again represent us well.

In today's classrooms, Mr. Speaker, students learn about the fundamental principles of science and how to apply this knowledge to the world around them. Recognizing this, in recent years science laboratories in schools have undergone a major refurbishment, with investment of $5.6 million in lab safety and science equipment. We have also renewed curriculum, so that the entire K-12 program is aligned with the pan-Canadian framework for science.

I invite my colleagues in this hon. House to join me in congratulating students across the Province whose hard work results in some top-quality projects. Join me as well in thanking the many teachers and volunteers who spend countless hours mentoring our students, and for organizing science fairs and other events which complement the education curriculum.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: I thank the minister for an advance copy.

One of the defining characteristics of any government is its education system. A great education system produces healthier and happier citizens, effects that trickle down for generations to come. Well-educated people are healthier people, better able to make positive lifestyle choices, and generally they perform better financially. Well educated citizens are empowered citizens, better able to access government services. They confidently navigate the world around them.

As Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, should we be satisfied with a good education system or should we insist on the best education system? Don't we want the best schools? If we were at the Olympics wouldn't we strive for the gold medal? Of course we would. So why don't we apply the same standards to the education of our children? That is the potential that is the possible.

What is the reality of our education system? The reality of our educational system is this, in spite of this government investing 51 per cent in K to 12 on 17 per cent fewer students since 2003, our education outcomes have declined over ten years. The government can dismiss this claim but clear objective proof of this decline can be found in a review of PISA scores.

The Programme for International Student Assessment, or PISA, was developed by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. PISA is an assessment tool that tests how well fifteen-year-olds around the world perform in literacy, numeracy, and science. In all three divisions, our Province's scores have declined from 2003 to 2009. It is objective proof that this government does less with more, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Thanks to the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

We are all proud of our teachers and youth who are engaged in pursuits related to science and technology, like Rita and Tiffanie from Leary's Brook, who I mentioned earlier in my statement. All of our students should be provided with an opportunity for a quality high school experience regardless of the subject, whether it is science related or not.

Since there are no class size caps for Grades 10 to 12, I continue to encourage the Minister of Education to turn his attention to correcting the problems created by his flawed and outdated teacher allocation model.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform this hon. House that March is National Nutrition Month. The month's theme, Best Food Forward: Plan Shop Cook Enjoy! encourages consumers to make healthy choices when grocery shopping.

To assist consumers in navigating the grocery store, the Affordable Healthy Eating Guide has recently been made available through the Department of Health and Community Services. Based on Canada's Food Guide, the Affordable Healthy Eating Guide provides helpful meal planning and grocery shopping tips and recipes. This resource was developed as part of the Eat Great and Participate program in collaboration with regional nutritionists from the four regional health authorities. The guide is now available on the Department of Health and Community Services Web site.

Mr. Speaker, Nutrition Month is an initiative of the Dietitians of Canada, the association representing registered dietitians across the country, with more than 100 members in Newfoundland and Labrador. By visiting the organization's Web site at www.dietitians.ca, people can access fact sheets that feature helpful tips to help them plan, shop and cook; an iPhone app that will send users a tip-a-day on the Nutrition Month theme; and, a list of Nutrition Month activities that are taking place throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we know that good nutrition is a key component of overall well-being. Our government recognizes the importance of living healthy and promoting wellness. Each year we focus on programs and projects that further the goals of the Provincial Wellness Plan.

In 2012, we provided grant funding to thirty-seven community-based organizations through the Provincial Wellness Grants program. Projects funded under this initiative included community gardens and kitchens, and a program that brought youth and seniors together to learn how to prepare healthy, low-cost meals. We are currently reviewing applications for the 2013 program.

Mr. Speaker, our government will continue to strengthen our community partnerships and encourage residents to take an active role in their health and their wellness. We all have a role to play in implementing the actions required to improve wellness.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, a healthy diet is a key determinant of health and will save our health care system money down the road. We have been criticized for getting the worse bang for our buck in the country with regard to health care, so investing in these preventative measures, like a healthy diet, is certainly imperative. We have issues in this Province like the high obesity rate, as well as the highest rate of type 2 diabetes. So we still have a ways to go.

Distributing information on healthy eating is only one step. Sadly, access to healthy eating is a luxury for some. People on income support cannot afford to eat by the Canada Food Guide. I understand the challenges of living in this Province that we have when it comes to our geography and when it comes to transport, but we still have the highest food bank usage in Canada. Too many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians cannot afford to make healthy eating choices.

We deal with food insecurity in Labrador, where a case of baby formula that costs $35 here in St. John's costs $79 up in Labrador. A pamphlet is nice but we need to do more. I would note the irony and the fact that the JCPs that were cut just before school started, one of the programs they delivered was a healthy lunch, a school lunch program. So there is irony there. We cannot just educate, we need to facilitate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

The role of dietitians in promoting healthy living and promoting wellness is crucial. Good health is a vital aspect of our personal lives and a vital aspect of a viable health care system. The old expression: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

We applaud the government for the Wellness Plan and hope through layoffs and cuts that the government will at least have the good sense to spare these programs. To our dieticians in the Department of Health and Community Services who have done such important work and continue to do so, bravo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Member for St. John's South have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Four years ago today, seventeen people lost their lives while travelling to the offshore in the crash of Cougar Flight 491. There was one survivor. Almost two years after the Wells inquiry recommended the establishment of an independent offshore safety regulator, there has been still no movement. At the time, the Premier supported this recommendation.

I ask the Premier: You have said in the past that amendments would have to be made to the Atlantic Accord to set up the safety regulator, so what have you done to make this happen?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government accepted all of the recommendations of the Wells inquiry and we stand by that commitment today. We do support an independent safety regulator, but we are only half of the C-NLOPB. The federal government has responsibility and would have to agree with the recommendation for that to take place. We continue to press the issue with the federal government, but concurrence has not happened up to this point. We firmly support the establishment of an independent safety regulator.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, of course, what is being done to make this happen; what I would look to hear is what the holdup is. What are the outstanding issues? Mr. Speaker, we did ask the minister. We asked Minister Penashue about that and he is wondering where the Province is, by the way.

Mr. Speaker, in the 2010 Throne Speech, her government promised to establish a memorial to the victims of Flight 491. Now, three years since that commitment, no location and no design details have been set.

I ask the Premier: When will we finally see this memorial and why is it taking so long to honour the lives of those who died working in our offshore?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct in regard to that was a terrible tragedy. Four years ago today, seventeen people lost their lives. This government made a commitment to the families of those particular people and there were seventeen of them. There were a lot of people involved and their lives were changed forever, forever and a day.

We have entered into consultations. We had to contact those particular families; some of them are outside of the Province. We consulted with them. Now we have a consultation report in our possession and now we will move forward. We want them to participate in regard to what that memorial is going to look like.

I remind the hon. member as well it took three years before a memorial was actually established in regard to the Ocean Ranger. You cannot rush these things because as I just said, people's lives were affected forever and a day.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last month the Government of New Brunswick released their regulations about hydraulic fracturing in that Province. It was a 106-page document that outlines the rules for the industry to ensure responsible environmental management. Meanwhile, our Province, there are no established regulations around fracking.

I ask the Premier: Why are you dragging your feet on setting government regulations for the industry to follow?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government supports economic development in this Province. We support the development of the oil and gas industry, including in Western Newfoundland. We support the forestry industry. We support the mineral industry. The only way to have prosperity, the only way to receive revenues, is from economic growth which provides jobs and provides resources that we can use for important things like health care and hospitals, and progressive social programs that we can afford.

We support this development. We have legislation. We have the Petroleum Act; we have regulations under that act dealing with environmental assessments that deal with oil drilling onshore. We have the C-NLOPB that regulates the offshore. Through an MOU, our government, with the C-NLOPB, regulates onshore to offshore wells.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In recent weeks, we have heard that the NDP, of course, promote a job-killing moratorium on fracking. Government has failed to establish clear regulations putting our environment at rest and suppressing industry investment. Industry wants clear regulations, but this government has not been clear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BALL: I ask: Will this government put in clear regulations? Where do you stand on the shale oil plan on the West Coast that has a potential over 20 billion barrels of oil?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: I am glad to see somebody on that side supports economic development and prosperity for the West Coast of Newfoundland in addition to the East Coast.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, we support economic development, but at the same time, we also support robust environmental regulation. You can have both. It is not a matter of banning one and having the other. You can have both.

It is about finding a balance: a balance between economic development on the one side and a balance between environmental protection and regulation on the other side. It can be easily accomplished, and we will proceed with development in all fields – and I like the one on the West Coast in particular – so that we can have more prosperity for the people of the Province, especially those in Western Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I believe there is a way to promote the industry, and there is a way to do it and our environment is kept safe.

What I ask the minister is: Will you commit to bringing in regulations so that this industry can be developed?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, we have regulations. We are all concerned about the protection of our workers and safety of our workers in the offshore. We are concerned about protection of the environment, whether it is on land or whether it is on our shore. We have an environmental process. If economic development, if certain projects are to proceed, there is a process that has to be followed. The Minister of Environment, my colleague here, he certainly looks after that.

We can have economic development that delivers prosperity to the people of this Province, at the same time having robust environmental regulation that protects our environment and our people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, yesterday in Question Period the Premier said that $245 million has been transferred to Nalcor in Budget 2012.

So I ask the Premier: Before we actually officially sanctioned Muskrat Falls, there was $45 million sent to Nalcor. So are we to assume now that in the last two and a half months you have sent $200 million to Muskrat Falls?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the parties opposite refer time and time again to the fact that $600 million was earmarked last year for transfer to Nalcor for Muskrat Falls and for our equity investments in the offshore, when in fact, approximately $245 million was transferred.

Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition asked how much money had been spent on Muskrat Falls since sanction, and that number is $103 million, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, government originally budgeted, as I said, the $664 million to be transferred to Nalcor. We know there was $245 that has been transferred, so there is a considerable amount of money that has been left over here.

Will the remaining over-$400 million be transferred to Nalcor, or will we use it to cover some other costs in this year's Budget? Indeed, will Nalcor get it, or will we take that money back to use in other programs, such as the Adult Dental Program?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I again have to implore the members opposite to stop pretending that you do not understand the fiscal structure of the Province. The $600 million that was earmarked in the Department of Natural Resources was not contained in the current budget, Mr. Speaker. That was contained in investment. There is a difference between a capital budget, the investment budget, and the current budget.

Muskrat Falls has nothing to do with the deficit we are experiencing this year. It has nothing to do with the projected deficit for 2013-2014. Mr. Speaker, I offered a briefing to members of the media with regard to Muskrat Falls in the budget last week. I now offer it to members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: I remind the Premier, I think I can understand that we write cheques. I also understand that there is a bank account that you wrote that money from. Somewhere there is an extra $400 million. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Finance, just a few months ago said that we were flush with cash and that we had surplus. We had a surplus of about $2.3 billion, actually.

There is another thing that affects our deficit, Mr. Speaker, and the co-managers – I will refer to this – of the Tory election campaign are senior bureaucrats in government and they were eligible for a bonus program, a secret bonus program that the Premier just suspended.

I asked this question last week. I did not get the answer. How much money did Ross Reid and Len Simms collect under this bonus program?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me address the Leader of the Opposition's preamble before I get to his question.

He clearly does not understand the difference between capital, investment, and current. I truly, sincerely invite you to a briefing where we can explain the difference or you will stop pretending that you do not know the difference, because it is not good enough, Mr. Speaker, for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to be subjected to these kinds of false arguments.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a bonus system in place for a number of years for all deputy ministers within government. That is not new. The only thing new is that program has been suspended.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: I find it interesting that the Premier today wants to give lessons on fiscal management when we are entering a $1.6 billion deficit –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: – a forecasted $1.6 billion deficit for the following year and, incidentally, forgot that there was a $44 million surplus that was forecasted in year three. That was just this week.

Mr. Speaker, senior bureaucrats at Nalcor had this similar bonus regime to the one that was just suspended by this government.

I ask the Premier: Why are we allowing the officials at Nalcor to continue to receive bonuses while you are suspending all others?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, again, the Leader of the Opposition continues to demonstrate his ignorance with regard to the financial structure of this Province. There is no surplus of cash, Mr. Speaker. Every asset this Province owns, whether it is in buildings, whatever the type of infrastructure, or cash on hand, is taken into account when we talk about the fiscal situation of the Province, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, stay tuned in terms of Budget. This Province is in better shape than it has ever been in the last fifty years, Mr. Speaker, and that is due to good progressive management on this side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week we did not get the question answered. It seems that the Premier does not want to answer this question today.

Will the Premier please tell us, or just tell us if you know or not: How much did Len Simms and Ross Reid get from the bonus program?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Reid and Mr. Simms do very valuable work for the people of the Province. In fact, Mr. Speaker, both of them have been lauded at various times by members of the Opposition for the quality of their work and their contribution to the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, all ADMs are eligible or have been eligible for a bonus, depending on their performance in the workplace - all deputies, Mr. Speaker - and as their assignment is as a deputy minister, both of these gentlemen were eligible for those bonuses. All of that is accounted for, Mr. Speaker, in our Estimates.

All of that is out there and transparent to the people of the Province, Mr. Speaker. There is no secrecy. We make very clear what is happening in terms of our salary vote, Mr. Speaker, and anybody who checks the minutes of Estimates would know that is true.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in 2011 the government accepted all the recommendations of the MOU on fisheries marketing, yet we have no progress in this critical policy. Fisheries commentators attending the Boston Seafood Show state that one of our Province's glaring shortfalls is the lack of branding of our seafood products.

I ask the minister: When will your government show some interest in fisheries and help us compete in world markets with a strong branding and marketing campaign?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, our government, through the process of MOU and beyond, fully acknowledges the importance of marketing, and acknowledges with the industry the challenges that we have to compete in the global marketplace.

Some of the initiatives we have engaged in as a result of the MOU and the request from industry is that we would put money forward to develop a seafood marketing council, in which we did. We would put money forward to work to develop a seafood council and sales consortia, where we would provide inventory financing to help with the industry to make them more sustainable and viable, and, Mr. Speaker, we did.

The reality is, Mr. Speaker, industry uptake has been very slow on that initiative. It has been very measured, but we continue to work with industry. We continue to support them in their marketing needs, Mr. Speaker. This goes back, we have a long history of supporting the marketing needs, when our government offered to buy the marketing arm of FPI and industry rejected it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, negotiations with private ambulance operators should have started in 2011. After saying the ambulance review would not interfere with negotiations, government is now refusing to negotiate until a review is complete.

I ask the minister: How do you explain this gross miscommunication?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is a hard job some days trying to figure out which way the Opposition is going to go. It was not very long ago, Mr. Speaker, they were in the House and they were saying when is the ambulance operation review going to start? Now, Mr. Speaker, I think they want me to ignore the ambulance operation review. Which is it, Mr. Speaker? It is hard to figure this out.

We are doing an ambulance operations review in this Province, Mr. Speaker, because we need to do a review. We need to ensure the efficiencies that can be brought to bear on the ambulance operators in this Province are something that benefits the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the operators, the ambulance attendants, the general public, RHAs, were all invited to be part of that process, to voice their opinions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the ambulance operators are wondering out there too how come the government seems to flip-flop on what they say. They say one thing one day and then they change it the next day.

The contract with private ambulance operators expired one year ago. The AG criticized the program two years ago. This is a government that consistently misses its own deadlines.

I ask the minister: What took you so long to initiate the review and negotiations, knowing it would force operators to work without a contract?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of the fact that we have hired Fitch & Associates to do this review for us. We spend $56 million a year on ambulance services in this Province, Mr. Speaker. We are happy now to have the opportunity to review those programs and to see again how the people of Newfoundland and Labrador can be better served through that particular program.

Mr. Speaker, we have nothing to be ashamed of in that. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have all had opportunity to contribute to that, Mr. Speaker. In the end, we hope to have a better program. I do not see any reason to criticize what it is we are doing here when it is about finding efficiencies and doing a better job. You asked for the review; we complied. We saw the reason to do a review, Mr. Speaker, and we are going to –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

In his report on offshore helicopter safety in response to the loss of seventeen people on the Cougar helicopter 491, Judge Wells recommended the creation of an independent offshore safety authority. The Premier has on more than one occasion, and she did it again today, told us that she and her government are absolutely committed to it and that there is an impasse between the provincial government and the federal government.

If she is so committed to it, Mr. Speaker, I would like the Premier to tell us: What is her strategy and plan for breaking that impasse?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am not interested in playing political games around offshore safety, particularly in the face of this anniversary. We fully support the recommendations of Justice Wells and the Wells inquiry. We have stood by that report from the day that it has been released. We continue to advocate on behalf of the establishment of an independent operator, I suspect in the same way members of your party do in the federal Parliament. We will continue to do that until such an entity is established.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I think it is fitting on the anniversary of the tragedy, by the way, to show that we are trying to get actions in place to bring hope to people who work on these rigs.

Mr. Speaker, despite hundreds of offshore workers signing petitions stating they do not want night flying and Judge Robert Wells also saying no to night flights, it is astonishing that the C-NLOPB is still considering allowing them to resume.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: On the anniversary of the Cougar helicopter tragedy, will she and her government take a strong stand in favour of the workers and recommend to the C-NLOPB that there be no return to night flights?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the Leader of the Third Party that the C-NLOPB is an independent body that operates arm's length from this government. I also want to say that while we support the establishment of an independent safety regulator, we have confidence in the C-NLOPB.

All of us are affected by danger at sea. We have been profoundly affected in this Province by the loss of the Ocean Ranger and Cougar 491, Mr. Speaker – plus hundreds of lives that have been lost, particularly through the fishing industry.

This is not an issue that we take lightly, and it is not an issue that we are going to play politics with, particularly on this day, Mr. Speaker. We have confidence in the C-NLOPB and we will continue to press the federal government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Judge Wells recommended that no worker be forced to take a night flight as a term of his or her employment.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Will she and her government make it known to the industry, speak to them and to the C-NLOPB, and make their thoughts known that government considers night flights to be hazardous and employees have every right to refuse them without fearing for their jobs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me state again for the record, there is no higher priority for this government or for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador than personal health and safety, especially in the workplace.

We have confidence in the C-NLOPB that they will make recommendations that are in the best interests of the people who work in the offshore, Mr. Speaker, because what is in the best interests of the people in the offshore is in the best interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and of the businesses that operate here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the Premier once again said it is her intention to develop a ten-year plan to reduce the Province's per capita debt to the national average. Yet, researchers at the federal office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer tell us that a national average cannot be accurately calculated, as debt is calculated differently in different provinces.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why is her government developing a ten-year strategy based on a target number that experts say does not exist? What really is she aiming at?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, our Province has made significant progress in reducing debt and we have reduced the net debt from a high of $11.9 billion to a projected $8.9 billion in 2012-2013.

Net debt per capita is something that is used; we look at it across the country, and in 2004-2005 it was $22,976 per capita. In 2012-2013 it is down to $17,328. The Premier, last year in the Budget, announced a plan to get closer to the Canadian average, so I really do not know what the member opposite is talking about. It is a standard that we use, it is one that is acceptable, and it allows us to set a goal that brings us on track with the rest of the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, students with disabilities in this Province still face too many roadblocks in trying to access and complete school. As The Telegram newspaper has recently documented, the ordeal inflicted upon the Maytum family of Mount Pearl by the Department of Education is nothing short of shameful.

Will the Minister of Education stop forcing stressed parents to go public to get help and come clean on how many other children he has removed from schools this year by cutting their transportation funding?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I certainly make no apologies for any investments that we have made in education to this Province. Our record, I am willing to stand here and say, will compare to any other province in this country, and in fact, will exceed many other provinces.

Mr. Speaker, the case that has been referenced is an unfortunate situation. There is no doubt about it, Mr. Speaker. Efforts were made to accommodate this particular individual. Mr. Speaker, we do our best to accommodate students; it is as simple as that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, here we have another incident where a student is clearly being discriminated against because of a disability. To make matters worse, we have another already stressed family being forced to bring these matters to the media instead of a mediator.

I ask the minister: Why the secrecy? Why won't he create the transparent appeals process for parents that were recommended in the ISSP and Pathways Commission over five years ago?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, we have invested quite heavily in the ISSP process. That team approach is used in every instance where incidents arise, where challenges are faced. It is no different in this particular situation, Mr. Speaker. I am not and will not speak to specific examples.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, government is dropping rural from the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development with cuts to RED Boards, Employment Assistance Services, and no real plan for creating jobs from the ground up. Megaprojects create boom and bust economies, force migration, and tears away at the social fabric of our economy. Rural jobs warrant real attention from an economy looking for answers, but has been ignored.

Will the Minister of IBRD get serious about rural job creation and prevent further mass out-migration, which is decimating the rural landscape?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Mr. Speaker, there has never been a government in our history that invested in rural Newfoundland and Labrador like this government here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Mr. Speaker, there are record levels of investment. Investments in telecommunications, investments in small and medium-sized enterprises, investment in transportation, hospitals, schools, you name it across the board. Most of our infrastructure investments have gone to rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

We continue to invest in rural Newfoundland and Labrador small and medium enterprises. We work with them daily. The RSDF – $42 million we have invested in rural Newfoundland and Labrador working with our non-profit groups on the ground, building infrastructure that drives economic activities in rural communities. That has leveraged another $110 million. That is all in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, in the hon. member's district, in all of our districts around this Province that represent rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We are driving rural Newfoundland and Labrador –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, government has invested $23 million since 2003 into aquaculture, including six biosecure wharves. Without it, this investment, some 1,000 jobs and $400 million would be lost. The forest industry on the Great Northern Peninsula impacts more than 150 workers and can prove to provide significant returns.

When will the Minister of Natural Resources commit to provide a needed wharf to the Roddickton port to sustain an industry, jobs and rural communities, as well as put needed money back into the Provincial Treasury?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that our government, under the Forest Industry Diversification Program, has placed millions and millions of dollars into helping the woods industry, the sawmill industry, in rural Newfoundland. Up on the Great Northern Peninsula, I can think of $10 million invested there to try to help them kick-start that in the Town of Roddickton. The Mayor of Roddickton – I am meeting with him on Friday to discuss that further.

I know we invested in the Town of Hampden – in Burton's Cove in Hampden – to support their operation; Sexton Lumber in rural Newfoundland and Cottles Cove in rural Newfoundland. Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to economic development in all parts of the Province, especially rural Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for The Straits – White Bay North, a quick question without preamble please.

MR. MITCHELMORE: When will the Minister of Natural Resources act on promises to create a pellet industry in Newfoundland and Labrador that works like other provinces in Canada?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources, for a quick response.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, we work with the private sector, we work with investors, people who want to create opportunities. We invested heavily, millions and millions of dollars, into the Great Northern Peninsula to help them.

Mr. Speaker, the operation is idle right now; the operation is facing challenges. I have met with that company and we are prepared to certainly work with them and other members of the industry to try to see that industry go (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled; the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS there has been an agreement between the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and the Government of Canada to recognize the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band; and

WHEREAS persons submitted applications with required documents for registration in the Band up to the application deadline of November 30, 2012; and

WHEREAS the reported number of applications received by the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band are in excess of 100,000; and

WHEREAS the reported number of applications now registered as members is approximately 22,000; and

WHEREAS the agreement between the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and the Government of Canada for recognition of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band is scheduled to end on March 31, 2013; and

WHEREAS the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Chief has requested but has not received an extension to the agreement to process the remaining applications; and

WHEREAS to date there is no decision on how to deal with the remaining applications;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to work with the Newfoundland Federation of Indians and the Government of Canada to provide a fair and equal review of all applications.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this matter is not strictly a provincial matter, because the Indian Act is federal legislation; however, in this Province historically we have had a past dealing with native peoples that we have nothing to be proud of. We have not treated native peoples appropriately, so much so that most of the population literally went underground and went unrecognized for generations, even went unrecognized for more than 100 years.

Mr. Speaker, there are many, many people in this Province who have native ancestry and this is a step forward for people to be recognized. In addition to this, it is a federal program that has been offered by the Government of Canada and it behoves the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to take whatever steps are necessary to facilitate the Federation of Newfoundland Indians registering all people who are eligible to be registered under this federal program.

This is on behalf of people primarily from the Great Northern Peninsula; however, they are from all over Western Newfoundland generally. I submit this petition on their behalf.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the Western School District is considering a multi-year plan to close Bayview Regional Collegiate at St. Lunaire-Griquet in June 2013; and

WHEREAS it has been proven from students –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: – who have graduated from Bayview Regional Collegiate, they have excelled in their studies to prepare them to move ahead and achieve their career choices; and

WHEREAS teachers and staff at Bayview Regional Collegiate are qualified and continue to provide a strong academic program with a full curriculum to all students attending; and

WHEREAS Bayview Regional Collegiate has developed a playground, library, drama club, Kids Eat Smart lunch program, school council, and other activities with exceptional community support; and

WHEREAS Bayview Regional Collegiate housed a K-12 school in the past with 200-plus students who have had access to a science lab, cafeteria, art room, computer lab, gymnasium, and extracurricular activities; and

WHEREAS the parents, business operators, social groups, concerned citizens, and students of the municipality of St. Lunaire-Griquet request to rescind this proposal;

Since Bayview Regional Collegiate has met and exceeded all aspects set forth for a viable school, we the undersigned petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to ensure that the Western School District is provided with sufficient funding to keep Bayview Regional Collegiate at St. Lunaire-Griquet open.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this was a decision that was made back in 2008. It is evident, despite what the Minister of Education had said, that they will stand on the record of government spending in education. Well, not everyone is satisfied with the way things are being expended and how the school system is being operated.

To close down this school and bus students up to an hour and a half, forty kilometres to forty-eight kilometres each way, will have a significant impact on the quality of education and safety of these students when there is another school in the community, Truman Eddison Memorial, just a few minutes away, which could also house these students. It is not about keeping two buildings, Mr. Speaker. The common-sense solution when you are looking at consolidating would be to close down one and make a K-12 or a K-9 school, as has been done in the past.

Schools are pillars of a community and they need to be so. They can be drivers for sound economic policy, especially in rural areas. I put forward this petition on behalf of constituents in my district raising this concern; the minister and the Western School District have failed to even engage, listen, and respond to various concerns on this matter.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

I rise to enter a petition.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents Humbly Sheweth:

WHEREAS hundreds of residents of the South Coast of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, including residents of the communities of Burgeo, Ramea, Grey River, and Franηois use Route 480 on a regular basis for work, medical, educational and social reasons; and

WHEREAS there is no cellphone coverage on Route 480; and

WHEREAS residents and users of Route 480 require cellphone coverage to ensure their safety and communication abilities; and

WHEREAS the Department of IBRD recently announced significant funding to improve broadband services in rural Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS the residents and users of Route 480 feel that the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development should also invest in cellphone coverage for rural Newfoundland and Labrador;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to support the users of Route 480 in their request to obtain cellphone coverage along Route 480.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, we have been in the House three days and this is my third time entering a petition on cellphone coverage. I am only hitting my district right now. I have just done Route 470. Today I have done Route 480.

Route 480 is a 150 kilometre stretch of roadway. The residents of these communities that I named off, not just residents in my district, residents in the district of the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape la Hune have to use it on a daily basis to access health care, to access employment. To access anything they have to travel this highway.

Anybody who paid any attention to the news over the first two months with our weather conditions saw the bad road conditions on the Burgeo Highway. The road had to be closed on a number of occasions. In the winter months it is a constant issue when you are travelling along not knowing, having that uncertainty that if something happens you cannot call in. It was only last year we had an accident where an individual from this side of the Province was in a serious accident, no cellphone coverage. Thank God, there was somebody in the area who could call.

Now, the fact is I had to put this one in today because I have already done Route 470 with all of those communities. We talk about the nice apps that the government has put out to talk about affordable eating or healthy eating. Well, the fact is many places in this Province cannot use those apps. They cannot use their cellphones because there is no cell coverage and it is 2013.

I understand the Province is working as hard at they can but we need to do better. We need to force these providers to come to the table some way. I know we can have success because the minister has had success in broadband. It is time to make sure that we can get this done for cellphone coverage. I am sure we will cover off the rest of the Province as the days continue on and hopefully, I can enter one of these everyday when I get the opportunity.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 2.(a) Resolution and Bill 62, Respecting the Granting of Interim Supply to Her Majesty.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the resolution.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Littlejohn): Order, please!

We are considering the related resolution and Bill 62, 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, 2014, And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

We will resume debate.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Today, I am going to pick up on a couple of topics that I referred to yesterday. First, I am going to talk about debt reduction and debt management, Mr. Chair. I am going to outline the impact of debt on our Province, not only in relation to our bond rating agencies and our credit profile, but also the very practical cost of debt, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: Before I do that, I just want to distinguish the approach taken by our government and that of the NDP. I am going to refer specifically to an interview given by the Leader of the Third Party on December 14, 2012, when the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi was asked about debt reduction and our emphasis on that.

The member stated that in 2011 we had a $755 million surplus – actually, $756 million – and all of it went down to pay off the debt, when we already have a really good debt reduction plan in place. They did the same thing in 2007; $881 million surplus, and this went down towards paying the debt. I have never agreed with their paying down the debt by surpluses as they have been doing. This is the economic platform of the NDP. They do not agree with paying down debt.

Then the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi goes on to state: when you are in the situation we are in Newfoundland and Labrador, where no matter what our current moment is, we are still doing – we are making up for decades of not having money, which is what we have been saying for the last number of days; slow down paying off the debt. You still pay it. We have our plan, a plan that the creditors like.

Mr. Chair, she goes on to state: but this paying down the surplus every time they have a surplus, putting it on the debt, I think, has been a bad fiscal plan. This is the leader who wants to be Premier of this Province and who maintains that it is not important to pay down debt.

Let us look at what the bond rating agencies say about paying down debt and the importance of paying down debt. As I pointed out yesterday, Mr. Chair, debt costs us approximately – even though we have not borrowed in years, we are still paying down debt; debt costs us over $800 million each year. That is what we have to pay. That is the debt servicing charges on outstanding debts in this Province.

What the Leader of the NDP is saying: do not take that money and spend it on services. Do not take that money and spend it on health care and education. Just do not pay down the debt. That is basically what they are saying, Mr. Chair: debt is not important.

If you were to run your household or your business like that, what is going to happen to you? What is going to happen very quickly, Mr. Chair, is you are going to become bankrupt. That is what their plan for this Province is: to bankrupt the Province.

Let us look at what the bond rating agency said. Moody's, Mr. Chair, the first I will refer to of three, says that, "the reduction in debt" – now listen; it is important to listen to this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: "The reduction in debt…over the past several years has enhanced fiscal flexibility materially." At page 2 of the report it talks about strong expense growth in 2006 to 2011, but states that, "the requirement to boost services and public sector wages to remain competitive with…Canadian provinces and then…to help stimulate the economy," especially during the recession. At page 3 they state that the volatility in our resource sector "highlights the importance of maintaining fiscal prudence to ensure the continuation of sound fiscal outcomes."

Mr. Chair, that is what Moody's had to say. Let us look at what DBRS rating agency had to say, their report of August 20, 2012. Page 2: "The expected deficits are manageable, in light of the Province's credit profile." That the spending restraint required for program expenditure growth is averaging more than 8 per cent over the last five years; that Newfoundland and Labrador continues to post robust economic indicators; that we have low debt burden relative to our rating.

They talk about the challenges we face, Mr. Chair, such as declining oil fields and the unfunded pension liabilities, Mr. Chair, which make up close to 70 per cent of our debt. On page 5, it talks about our Province not having incurred any debt since 2007, and that is a notable accomplishment, especially in light of the 2009 recession.

Standard & Poor's deals with the issue of debt in some detail, Mr. Chair, and they state that their ratings on Newfoundland and Labrador reflect the view of our Province's strong economy, our positive financial management, our low-debt burden, and very positive liquidity.

They go on to talk about Newfoundland and Labrador's vibrant resource-based economy, that our positive financial management also supports the ratings, that we have the third-lowest debt burden among Canadian provinces, and that our dependence on federal transfers is less than all of our peers', being Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, PEI, and Quebec.

They go on to talk at length about the positive financial management which stems, to a great extent, from paying down debt, Mr. Chair. They talked about our allocating large budgetary windfalls to lower debt, stockpile reserves, and improve tax competitiveness, the object of lowering net debt per capita to an all-provincial average over ten years, one-third of any budget surplus being directed towards unfunded pension liabilities.

All of the bond rating agencies talk about our sound fiscal management and the importance of paying down debt, but what does the Leader of the NDP say? That is a poor strategy or it is not a strategy that she would adopt. That is $880 million a year that we are paying that she is simply saying: do not bother with it, and see what happens.

We know what happens if we do not pay down debt, Mr. Chair. In the pre-budget consultation document that was posted on-line, there is a chart that outlines our consolidated surplus deficit versus net debt. In 2003-2004, when we took over government, Mr. Chair, our net debt was around $12 billion. We have managed to reduce that approximately 25 per cent and we continue to put any surpluses – which, unfortunately, we are not going to have for the next couple of years – on debt. We will put down, I think it is, approximately another $200 million on debt this year.

So, if we do not deal with the deficits that we have, then net debt, the projected deficits which are in the pink in this document, if we do not deal with those projected deficits, then what will happen by 2015 we could be back to where we were in 2003. Again, debt costs money. We are paying on debt; the more debt, the higher the cost.

Let us just look at $800 million in servicing charges. If we had $800 million to divide in this House between all of the members for their districts, that is a lot of money. If we look at what we can do with $800 million, look at the schools. At $25 million, you could build more schools; recreational facilities at $20 million to $25 million, you could build a lot of recreational facilities. You could build health centres anywhere from $30 million to –

AN HON. MEMBER: Corner Brook.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, you could even build Corner Brook hospital with the money we save on debt. Mr. Chair, look at the pavements you could lay down. Look at the water and sewer that you can put in. That is why paying down debt is important. It is because it not only saves money but it influences the credit profile and all of the bond rating agencies are very positive today about what we have done here.

When the Leader of the NDP says do not pay down debt, she is essentially saying do not worry about deficits; it is all going to work out. Well, that is not a plan. A plan, Mr. Chair, is what we are trying to do. This is the amount of money we have, this is our expected revenues in the next number of years, and this is how we are going to get us back to a balanced Budget – a surplus would be great, but at least to a balanced Budget. You cannot do that if you simply continue to spend, spend, and spend, which seems to be the mantra of the NDP, especially.

I have to say, I am not only picking on them. As I said yesterday, if I were to say, well, what would you not have us build? Would you not have us finish the Trans-Labrador Highway? Would you not have us build hospitals and pave roads? That is not the way it works, Mr. Chair. What it is, is a situation where we have to pay down debt as best we can to ensure that we save money and use that money to pay for services.

In this particular interview, the member of the NDP said we do not have a plan. Then, she said: What would the NDP do? Well, that is the question I pose to the Leader of the Opposition, a businessman who understands the fiscal framework. What would you do? I say to the Leader of the NDP: What would you do? Help us out here. We are all in this together. Tell us what you would do here to reduce the debt, or is debt not important? I would be very surprised if the Leader of the Official Opposition were to say that paying down debt is not important. We already know the position of the NDP.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Chair, it gives me pleasure to get up and speak to Interim Supply, and to answer some of the questions from the Minister of Finance.

I know that he has a difficult job, as regards to dealing with the Province's debt. I do not think there is any question as regards to dealing with the debt that he has his hands full. Whether they caused that or not remains to be a matter of debate.

Some people in this Province, of course, they look at the numbers and they see $1.6 billion worth of debt in one year, followed in the next year by another $1.6 billion. I heard the Minister of Finance earlier – yesterday I think it was – talking about the possibility of four years that we were going to be in debt. I do not know if anybody else heard that.

Mr. Chair, the way I see it is that you do not necessarily have to take the money that you have to put down on your debt. There are other ways that government can be creative when it comes to handling a debt situation. They could have creative ways of investment in some programs so that they can generate savings.

Let me give you a good example of that – let me give you a really good example of that. Diabetic test strips, when the motion came across the floor here – what was it, about a year-and-a-half, two years ago, when it came to diabetes test strips. There is probably not a member in this House right now who is not affected by diabetes. There is probably not a member in this House whose family is not affected by that, and it is a drastic disease.

When the motion came forth in the House, and when we talked about it in the House – when other members talked about it in the House, because I was not in the House at the time – the whole idea behind the diabetes testing strip was to make these things free so that we would be able to prevent disease from happening, prevent a burden, an extra added burden to the healthcare system, for example. So, we could be talking about people controlling their diabetes and at the same time preventing other diseases from happening. I mean, look at what is related to severe cases of diabetes: kidney failure and heart disease – the list is almost endless.

Still, the reasoning at that particular time – and government came forth at that particular time, I think it was two years ago, and said that they will see in the next Budget whether the costs for diabetic test strips would happen, but they did not. So now, that is one way, potentially, for government to be saving money in the future. The government cannot literally turn its head and say, no, they have to have the money, and they have to generate the revenue in order to do that. There are other creative ways of doing it; that is just one.

I sat down the other day, sitting about this particular debate when it was coming up – let's talk about municipalities. Let's talk about municipalities, what they could be doing, for example, with municipalities – but the lost opportunity, in this case, for municipalities.

The minister would certainly be first and foremost to think that he would love to see a municipality, a city or a town, go ahead and generate its own revenue by having feed-in tariffs, for example, if they wanted to generate electricity. I am pretty sure that the minister would agree with me in seeing the opportunity for a municipality, for example, to expand on its own base, being able to expand its own revenues by having a feed-in tariff program or something like that, in order for municipalities to generate revenue.

It does not necessarily have to come from government, from the provincial government, to pass down to a municipality. It could be an opportunity for a municipality itself to generate revenue outside of government. It does not have to be like that.

For example, when we are talking about electricity feed-in tariffs, when they are talking about the ability to sell the electricity in the Newfoundland and Labrador market – an opportunity, by the way, that was taken away by this government in the Muskrat Falls deal when they locked it up and gave it all to Nalcor. We cannot compete in that market. Government moved in and took away that opportunity from municipalities, so that is just one.

We are still waiting, by the way, on the part of municipalities for that new funding formula. I get it from municipalities every day; they are still waiting for it. The potential right now in a deficit position is that we are probably not going to see it in this particular Budget, and that is disturbing to me.

At the same time, when municipalities are being forced to see a shortfall in revenue, potentially, this time around, the pressure now all of a sudden has fallen on the taxpayer. We recognize that an increase in property taxes can probably be a positive thing for some, but for some others it is an affordability issue. Here we are, talking about trying to keep people in their own homes, and at the same –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I would say to the minister, Mr. Chair, that we suggested, for example, part of the gasoline tax.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where does that come from?

MR. MURPHY: That comes right from the consumer. We all know that.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: It is just that government ends up calling the shots and they decided to divvy up the pie their own way, not give a solid commitment for funding to municipalities. We are still waiting for it.

At the same time, getting back to the taxpayer, it is the taxpayer in the end who gets dinged for it, because the provincial government fails to meet the needs, the financial needs of municipalities. Then we have the taxpayer coming back harassing their own councils and everything because they feel the pressure of it. Again, I say to the minister that it is an affordability option when it comes to that.

I want to come back to AES, because everybody thinks about AES and EAS as a strictly rural issue. Mr. Chair, it was kind of upsetting to me over the last little while that while the provincial government was instituting these cuts, I found out that twenty-one of these cuts to EAS are happening right in the District of St. John's East. Nobody would have thought of that, but it is happening in St. John's East. We have twenty-one positions that are going to be gone, we have twenty-one families that are going to be affected, and twenty-one potential homeowners who are going to be faced with an additional financial burden.

Mr. Chair, it is not for the simple fact only that they were out there doing their jobs as regards to finding employment for people; these people were also doing the work of social workers at the same time. They were taking people off the street, for example, who needed education, taking them out of a troublesome environment in some cases, giving them an education, and setting them up with employment. They were not just job counsellors; they were part-time social workers at the same time. I commend them for the job they were doing.

At the same time, what cost is that going to be potentially, I say to the Minister of Finance, to additional programs, for example, like in the Department of Justice? What is it going to do to their budgetary issues in the future, because the needs are not going to be met by AES workers? It is a question we need to sit down and we need to ask ourselves: Were these cuts right? I still say, no, they were not.

Let us talk about the growth in rural opportunities, for example, with the loss of some of these EAS workers. Let us look at Trinity Bay. Let us look at the Town of Hant's Harbour now that just lost its crab plant. Some of the workers there are faced with a bus ride now to go down the shore about an hour and half or so, down to the next crab plant down the road.

AN HON. MEMBER: If they are lucky.

MR. MURPHY: If they are lucky, there may be a job for them. Now we have a town in trouble, a town that at last count when I was there, I think, was somewhere in the area of about 800 people. Quote me if I am wrong. It is probably a little bit less now.

Hant's Harbour is a beautiful little town on the shores of Trinity Bay, now without a plant. It was the first town in this Province; it was the founder of the crab industry. There was not any opportunity offered when it came to, for example, a co-op operation. I will say that. At the same time, we lost AES and EAS workers down there, down along that coast. Now the employment opportunity was taken away.

We have a town that is failing, a town at the same time that is in trouble when it comes to municipal issues. How are they going to go back to their own taxpayers to fund the municipal needs of that particular town? We know that Hant's Harbour has municipal needs. It has a small fire hall, like other small communities. I am pretty sure they would appreciate a fire truck. That is, if there is going to be anybody left in that community in a few years' time.

We have troubles in this Province when it comes to AES workers. It is going to be coming at a much more substantial cost, Mr. Chair. So, Mr. Chair, what I say when it comes to debt and debt management, it does not all have to come as one lump sum of money from something like oil. We do not have to lose our natural environment because of the pressures of needing revenue in our treasuries. We can slow down and we can take a look; the oil is always going to be there in the ground. So, we need a cautious approach here, and it is not all the time that debt management has to come from your immediate bottom line. It can come from investments in the future.

I see that my time is almost up, here, Mr. Chair, so I will relent the floor and pass it to somebody else.

Thank you very much.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Today, in these ten minutes, I am going to talk about a couple of things. I want to talk about the have Province concept, Mr. Chair, where a number of years ago – I remember this clearly; it was the first stint I had as Minister of Finance. It was around 2009 – it could have been November or December 2009 – and I went to a federal-provincial-territorial Finance Ministers' meeting.

In the middle of the meeting, the Finance Minister for Canada, Jim Flaherty, announced that Newfoundland and Labrador would no longer be receiving equalization, that we were a have Province. We all, and the people of the Province, jumped for joy. From a pride perspective, it was great. Everyone said: Well, look, we are finally there. After fifty years of being seen as Canada's poor cousin, we are no longer dependent on equalization.

Being a have Province, Mr. Chair, means we can pay our own way. It means that we make our own decisions, as I stated yesterday. Also, as I stated yesterday, Mr. Chair, being a have Province can mean that we have less money, because right now – and I outlined this yesterday – if you look at where our revenues comes from, in 2011-2012, midyear, 35.8 per cent of our revenues came from offshore royalties. You go back to 2004-2005, 34 per cent of our revenues at that point came from federal transfers.

Now, the Canada Health Transfer and the Canada Social Transfer we get anyway, but what we have gone, over a period of seven or eight years, is from 34 per cent of federal transfers to 10.9 per cent. In 2012, the $536 million for the Atlantic Accord ended. We have reduced taxes by $500 million since 2007, and that is not just income tax –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: – that is seniors' benefits and that is the tax on energy. So, it is easy to see why we have gotten to the situation today where the deficit has arisen. We have spent wisely building infrastructure, building schools, but what has happened is that our federal revenues have decreased.

Being a have Province, while being a source of pride socially and while meaning a lot to us as a people from an economic perspective, it means we have less money. That is one of the arguments you can put forward, so what we have had to do is to adjust our revenues. We have a very volatile economy. It is dependent on oil.

As I indicated yesterday, Mr. Chair, if the price of oil goes up a dollar, we make $25 million. If the Canadian dollar goes down a cent, we make $25 million. If we get 10 million extra barrels of oil, that could be $500 million to $600 million in terms of production. The production numbers we rely upon comes from the C-NLOPB. It is very volatile. The price of oil can up and down, as we have all seen. It has been from $90 this year, I think, to $124. It is averaging right now for the year around $111 a barrel.

What we have is a situation where we are dependent on our commodities. Iron ore has gone up. It could be $150 down to $100, I think, in the last year. What happens in China again, as I have said so often, determines what is going to happen in our Province.

What we do, what we mean, by being a have Province is that we make our own decisions now. We generate our own revenues. I think there are only three provinces in Canada right now that meet that criterion. It is very important from a social perspective, but from an economic perspective, I am not sure that it means so much.

The second point I want to deal with – and there has been some confusion over this and it is a confusion that has been deliberately planted by critics of Muskrat Falls and the Opposition parties, is that Muskrat Falls somehow or other contributes to our deficit.

We have said on numerous occasions that Muskrat Falls is an equity investment. We will get our return on the money. It is a good investment, but we always keep coming back to those two basic questions – one, we need the power, and that Muskrat Falls is the cheapest alternative. That is why we built Muskrat Falls. We needed power and it was the lowest-cost option, as we went through in great detail before Christmas.

The money, it is an investment that will return great rewards for this Province. It is an example of diversifying our economy so that we are no longer as dependent on the volatility of the commodity markets. It leads, as it now stands, without new discoveries, Hibernia will take us out to 2040. Hebron will come on approximately 2016-2017 and go until 2037. White Rose is declining, but even Hibernia is declining.

Each year, we are dependent on such things as production. We are dependent on rigs going down, like we saw last year. We are dependent on the price. We are dependent on what goes on in the Middle East. We are dependent on what goes on in China.

So, we looked at Muskrat Falls; not only did we need the power but it is a good investment for our people and for our future. Once we got beyond the sanction argument, and every argument was thrown at us in that, now it is Muskrat Falls has caused the deficit.

Well, the Premier has stated, and I have stated, and the former Minister of Finance has stated, that there is none of the operating money gone to Muskrat Falls. Then, if you look at our revenues and our expenditures, you will see that we have spent on social programs. We have spent on hospitals. There was a $500 million raise for the public service in 2007. It adds $500 million annually to our budget. We have spent to reduce the debt.

What I referred the members opposite – and the Premier offered everyone today the opportunity but our House reporter for The Telegram, James has put out a blog on the issue of Muskrat Falls and going to the deficit. It appears to be fairly clear. He certainly outlines in great detail. I am not sure about the toilet paper analogy, but other than that. I think electricity is perhaps more of a necessity.

In any event, he outlines in great detail how he – when he sat down with senior officials at Finance it was explained to him. He outlines in his blog very clearly that the deficit is not related to Muskrat Falls in any way. Why do members opposite keep saying that? One, they want to fear monger as they have done with Muskrat Falls from day one; or two, they do not understand.

Now, I know the Leader of the Official Opposition knows better. Now, whether he will admit it or not, that is another point. As for the NDP, I do not expect them to know better, to be quite frank with you, Mr. Chair, because they do not believe in equity investments. They do not believe in debt management. They believe in spending, and that is why they continuously call for the spending on universal health care, universal home care, universal pharmacare, and universal child care.

What we have, Mr. Chair, is a situation where it is pretty clear in basic accounting principles, Muskrat Falls is an investment in our future and it has nothing to do with the deficit. Do you know something else, Mr. Chair? Even if we had a balanced budget, some of the steps and moves we are making we had to do.

This has actually been a good exercise, this budgetary process, this core management reviews. It has caused all of our departments to look really deep into what is going on to determine whether or not the programs that are being offered are the ones that are relevant today. What I am saying is that a program could have been developed ten years ago; it may not be as relevant today as it was then. There has to be a continuous review within government of the programs and services that are being offered.

We stated clearly, Mr. Chair, that we are trying as best we can to avoid reduction of front line services in health care and education. We are striving very hard to try to ensure there are no layoffs of teachers in the classroom, Mr. Chair. We are striving very hard to protect the services that we have worked so hard to provide to the people of this Province, that we have taken the money.

Again, I must emphasize that this Province – and all provinces have challenges, no question, but we live in such a large Province with so many small communities that are oftentimes separate. Do you know what the reality is? Is that people demand and have a right to services.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs may be able to put this out at some point, but the number of communities in this Province where taxpaying residents live as opposed to local service districts and unincorporated communities is quite significant. As I indicated yesterday, I think it is 15 per cent of our revenues come from personal income tax, and out of that 15 per cent most of the taxes are paid by 20 per cent. That means we have shielded those who are not as fortunate from the significant taxes.

We could tax. We are trying not to do it. We are trying not to raise people's taxes. We are trying to deal with this in a way, Mr. Chair, that allows for a bright, prosperous and sustainable future. That is why it is time to stop the foolishness about Muskrat Falls being related to the deficit.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is my first opportunity to speak to this Interim Supply bill. I have listened to quite a bit of it yesterday while working in the office of course. One of the things about that, I guess, I want to discuss – of course the basic principles of accounting can get very difficult. I am not a CA, but there was no question today that the Minister of Finance talked about debt, and how much debt is it fair for a province, on behalf of its residents – how much debt would a province carry?

I think everyone realizes that no matter what we do in our life we will always have – if you want to grow a business, for instance, you will be required to manage debt. You will require debt. Typically, you will go out and you will borrow money to – if it is financing your inventory, financing the fixed assets or even your buildings, whatever it is, typically you use that with debt. As a matter of fact, there is an old saying that people quite often use, that you really do not use your short-term money; you can actually get that into long-term debt whenever you can because it is a great way to manage cash.

One of the questions that has been raised – and we have been accused sometimes of talking about the deficit versus debt. There is one other term that I will raise today, which is where the area is that I should do a better job of explaining.

As you know, when we look at our deficits on an annual basis, typically you take your revenues. As the minister has mentioned, the revenues would come from a number of different sources. When you look back at the sources of our revenues, there is no question that the offshore royalties have had a huge impact on where we get money. This money, of course, this government in the past has used to pay for – like anybody would, any government would do this. It would not matter if it was a Liberal government or if it was a PC government. Whatever the government would be, they would use their access to revenue – for instance, from oil royalties – to pay for services for the people of the Province.

When you look at your deficit and you look at the revenue, you look at your expenses and therefore you generate your deficit at the end of the year. It is kind of like an income and expense statement that you would see in your normal day-to-day business. Then you look at your debt and your net debt. That is more complicated where you actually bring in other factors. You would bring in your pension liabilities, for instance. You would bring in the cash that you would have in your bank account. You typically would not see this in an income and an expense statement.

The one thing we have not discussed is where Muskrat Falls impacts the overall financing of the Province, of course. That can be dealt with in one of two ways. That is our change in cash value. We understand in last year's Budget there was an excess of $2 billion that was available that we would actually be using. Actually, I did look at the blog, but it was in last year's financial information that was put out at Budget time anyway. You would see that in your changing cash position, it would have been around $1 billion last year. Even though I have not asked the question yet, it is one that I thought of: where we would be, for instance, and what would we have in that typical cash reserve right now? I think last year it was around $2.3 billion at Budget time.

I would assume now, based on the changing cash value, it is money we will use to pay for, some of it, our operating, some of it to pay down debt, and some of it to transfer to projects like Muskrat Falls. The money that we would have available to us – we now have to make a decision; for instance, do you now go out and borrow this money to do the Muskrat Falls Project? Do you borrow to do infrastructure programs, for instance, around the Province?

This is where I am referring to, that we transfer money. It affects our cash balance. It has to, unless there are a number of bank accounts. I do not believe that is the case. That is not the case. The AG would have made us aware of that for sure.

What we have here is an account. Last year we had a surplus of cash, so from that cash account, that kind of operating fund – that is a very fluent fund, too, by the way; there would be a number of things that actually impact that and offshore royalties certainly would be one of them, or any revenue that we would generate.

The minister has already said, and he has made reference to less money coming from federal sources, but what does not get mentioned in all of this – that hopefully will clarify the three things that we talked about, your deficit versus net debt and the change in cash position. I hope that we can put that aside right now. It will affect our cash position.

The other thing that we talked about, of course, is the federal and the provincial transfers. One of the things that came up was the Atlantic Accord. No matter what you do in your business, you have to know that there will come a certain time, a point in time when that cash that you would expect is no longer available to you, or if there is a payment, for instance, that you have to – kind of like if your mortgage is due, everyone would be able to tell us: well, my mortgage is paid off in 2014-2015. These are key dates.

We knew for quite some time, with the Atlantic Accord, for instance, with that accord there would be a termination date. If you look at the original accord back in 1985, the termination date for the Atlantic Accord and the arrangement that was made was around 2017. As a result of the amendments that were made in 2005, for instance, what happened was the termination date on the Atlantic Accord changed. We want to stand here; I want to raise this point that this was not something that is new to us. This was part of the negotiation, the date was changed, and there were five years taken off the termination date of 2017 to 2012.

Anybody who is planning their business and you want to do it in a prudent way, you understand that this source of revenue is no longer available to you. We knew this. Regardless of what we say about the federal government, like them or not, there is a lot we can say and there are a lot of areas that we would have the opinion that we need to address with the federal government.

We already know about the EI changes they make this with. Obviously, it seems to me there was not much negotiation into that. This was a decision that they made. This affects, of course, the economy in the Province. There are the unemployment rates, as we saw even just recently, where we have now slipped to last again in the country, in the provinces, just slipped behind PEI. That was an announcement that came out just a few days ago.

The Atlantic Accord, we knew that the Atlantic Accord money would be over in 2012, so this was not something that we did not even negotiate. It was part of the negotiating team. We went from 2017 to 2012, and there are lots of documents out there to support that going back, I think, as far as 1985.

Mr. Chair, when you look at the situation, when you want to talk about your current deficit, they are all factors. One of the things about it is when you make your predictions and you do your forecasts, you do this with the best information that you would have.

One of the things I have publicly said on many occasions right now, when you look at the difficulty around forming a Budget for this Province, it is extremely difficult anyway. In the best of days you have to deal with currency, you have to deal with volume, and you have to deal with the global price of oil; three things that we really have no control over.

It is very difficult when you look at a royalty line – in particular with oil in this particular case, mining is another issue. When you look at the royalty line that is a direct hit to your budget, we should not wonder why we can never get the Budget right. When you look at our experience in the last ten years now, when you look at the experience that we have with our Budget, we very rarely make our Budget. I have a list of them that goes back right to 2003.

When you look at the variances in our Budget – which is extremely important because when people look at you as a Province they say: How are you doing with your budgeting? When you see big swings, either high or low, there are a lot of accountants, a lot of people into financing; they do not like to see those big swings. We have experienced that over the last ten years with our Budget process.

I can give you a few here. Back in 2004-2005, for instance, there was a difference of – we had budgeted on Budget Day $759 million and the revised Budget came in at $492 million. Even in the early days we saw a swing back then of $271 million.

I have a few seconds left on the clock. I look forward to getting back to discussing this in greater detail, the difficulties of predicting, of actually budgeting the way we budget in this Province right now with the liquidity and how fluid we have it when you look at the issues around predicting oil pricing.

Last year, I know for instance, at $124 a barrel it was very difficult because we never really did hit $124 a barrel. I think the minister said yesterday it was around the $110 range or $111 range. It is extremely difficult, but what you need to do is make sure that you can predict as accurately as possible.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is certainly a pleasure to have an opportunity to have a few words here this evening as we talk about Interim Supply and heading towards the Budget that everybody eagerly awaits.

I notice lots of commentary back and forth between members who are sitting in the House. Obviously, many different perspectives on how we arrive at a Budget. In particular, talking about revenues and the dollar amount we use or the dollar per barrel of oil that we use in projecting revenues.

Mr. Chair, it is not where I am going to focus my remarks, but simply to say that Newfoundland and Labrador, as a number of us have said through pre-Budget consultations is not unique in how we do that. We do not simply grab a number. We are not sitting in a spot where we use a number different than other provinces or other jurisdictions.

Mr. Chair, if you look at the economy across Canada, in particular, for example, the Province of Alberta just brought down a Budget. Contrary to what many people throughout Canada in particular would have perhaps anticipated, I believe they had somewhere in the area of a $2 billion deficit. That is because of the declining production of oil and the declining price per barrel of oil. I say that just to offer some commentary back to the previous speaker.

The Minister of Finance, indeed, does have a tough job. There is no question about it. That job gets complicated when the economies in the world and the economies in the country change. Governments are subject to that unfortunately.

We are living in a situation now in Newfoundland and Labrador where the economy of the Province is red hot. You look at what is happening and the number of people working. In spite of some of the challenges government faces, the economy is hot and there are good things happening. That same thing is not applying to government at this point in time because we are subjected to the volatility in the oil market, Mr. Chair. I thought I might just make that comment because I think it is an important point to make.

Mr. Chair, as we are going through this, the other point that sticks out to me, and I think I heard the Member for St. John's East talk about health care investments and health care initiatives. It is tough, Mr. Chair, when you are doing a Budget, when you have to make choices. We are in a situation now, as the Premier and the Minister of Finance have said on many occasions, and I have said myself as part of the pre-Budget consultation process, that we have a projected deficit and we have to make some choices. We are in the process of going through that.

I certainly understand and fully respect when other members in this House bring forward suggestions on new spending and things we can invest in. I have my own ideas, Mr. Chair, on that. I receive feedback, as I am sure you do, from my district and my constituents.

I also think, Mr. Chair, if we are going to be fiscally prudent and responsible in the process that we need to talk about what our options are. If you are saying to the Minister of Finance that you need to spend more money on home care, or on some other education or some other piece of the Provincial Treasury, knowing that we are in the state of facing a significant deficit, the responsible thing to do would be to provide the minister and government how you would tackle that if you were sitting here in government and sitting in the minister's chair.

In other words, we do not have revenues in this Province that we do not know what to do with. We do not have excess revenues. We have a deficit. So, we are trying to save money. When you are talking about finding opportunities to spend money on new initiatives, the prudent thing to do would be to suggest how you would do it differently if you were sitting here on this side of the House and if you were sitting in the Minister of Finance's chair.

If you want to spend $1 million new on item A, where are you going to find that? Tell the people of the Province. Because when the people of the Province are looking at governments, they look at Opposition parties and they listen to members speaking in this House, they hear all kind of different ideas, all kinds of great ideas from members on all sides of the House. Just as they want to hear the great ideas on where you think government should make investments on how they should spend the money – at least people in my district ask the question: Where are you going to find the money?

If an Opposition member or Opposition Party has an idea on where new spending ought to go, then I would ask them to lay out before the people of the Province how they would deal with the Budget and the deficit. Where would they find savings, or would they find savings? Or would they simply say no, fair enough, if we are projecting a large deficit this year, rather than find any savings, we will simply add to that deficit with further new spending.

Mr. Chair, that is not the approach that our government has taken. It is not the approach that the Minister of Finance or the Premier has taken, and it is not the approach you are going to see when we deliver the Budget because we are going to take a responsible approach.

We have been going through a process now of reigning in spending where we can, where it is responsible to do so. All departments – in my own particular case, the Department of Justice, for example, which encompasses correctional facilities in the Province. It deals with Crown prosecutors, legal aid, and civil lawyers within my department. It deals with policing services all across the Province, including the RCMP and the RNC. We have gone through an exercise, a very collaborative exercise, Mr. Chair, to try to look at ways that we can find some savings.

There are going to be some tough decisions. We recognize that. I recognize that as the Minister of Justice that there are some tough decisions that have to be made, but there also are some very positive and good decisions that we are making.

I think those who have been involved in the process in departments will tell you that when the process is finalized, we are going to be making some decisions that are going to be in the best interest of the people and are going to be in the best interest of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador for the long term.

It is indeed a good process and when we come on Budget day, the minister, as he has said on any number of occasions, will certainly lay out for the people of the Province our vision, where it is we see ourselves going, and where we see the financial future of the Province –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KING: – over the next number of years, Mr. Chair.

The minister has been very clear on any number of occasions that we are not approaching this as a one-year option where we are going to fix all the ills of the Budget in one year. The minister is going to talk about plans for the long term. He is going to talk about, obviously, any changes that we are contemplating as a government, any reductions in expenditures, and those sorts of things.

The minister will certainly lay all of that out, but he will also talk about how we see ourselves navigating through what I would call a rough period of budgeting for us, if you will, Mr. Chair, because that is where we are at this point in time. If you look at the history of our government since 2003, you see any number of years, year over year over year, of surplus budgeting where we have actually been able to pay down on the debt – and I am sure the minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think it is in the tune of $4 billion-plus that we have actually paid down on the provincial debt, from some $12 billion down to around $8 billion, which is about 30 per cent reduction.

So, we made some deliberate choices of how we want to invest in the people of the Province. A big portion of that, Mr. Chair, has been investing in paying down the debt for the future generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, to solidify their future and secure their future, and lay a solid foundation for those who follow us who sit in this particular House here today.

I am confident, Mr. Chair, that when we bring down the Budget next week, or the week after, or the week after that, whenever that date may arrive, that the minister is going to lay the same kind of foundation in his Budget to talk about not only 2013-2014 and what it means, but talk about the out years and what people can expect, both in terms of surplus or deficit, but also talk about where we intend to spend some money and where we intend to change some of the structures and some of the ways that government does business within government itself and also with the people of the Province.

I strongly encourage, as I said before, those who have continuously talked in the House about new spending and investing in more things beyond where we are today, to be clear as well to the people of the Province who are listening at home or tuned in on the radio or wherever you might pick up the gist of the debate in here.

If you are going to talk about ways to spend more money, for example, on health care or education or day care and those sorts of things – and all wonderful initiatives, Mr. Chair. I suspect there is no one on this side of the House who would disagree with many of the initiatives that have been brought forward by members of the Opposition. The question is, though: Are members opposite suggesting that we simply leave the deficit – whatever that might be – and add on to the deficit, to make no cuts? Because if that is their suggestion, it is obviously a very clear, strong, distinct difference in philosophy from what this government holds, and people of the Province need to know that as they form opinions about whether government is doing the right, prudent, and proper thing or whether government is not. They need to know where other parties stand on that.

It is clearly not the position of this government. We are going to take a position where we are going to try to bring the deficit in order, alter the way we spend money in government at this point in time, and at the same time continue to invest in the areas of the Province that we believe people expect us to invest in and that we believe are the right investments to make for the future of the Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is a pleasure to stand up in this House again and speak to Interim Supply. I had an opportunity yesterday and I am sure after this chance I will have many more opportunities as the days go by and we get a chance to talk about, basically, the Province, talk about all the issues facing the Province and talk about the financial situation of the Province. You have some of us who are hitting broad strokes and you have some of us who are talking about specific issues, and it is all good. Really, it is all meant to talk about the Province and its well-being. That is what we need to do.

I have a couple things I am probably going to hit on in my very short period of time right here. One of them would be EAS, which is still a very, very sensitive topic. A lot of people are out commenting on it. It is amazing the number of e-mails and calls I am getting. I know people are commenting on it publicly in newspapers. They are calling into Open Line. I am going to get to that in a second, but I just wanted to go to the side just very quickly to talk about the press release, the ministerial release, about Nutrition Month.

Again, I had an opportunity to speak about this in my response to the ministerial statement. The fact is I am not taking anything away from the endeavour of the Department of Health when it comes to the Affordable Healthy Eating Guide, but the problem we have right now in this Province is when it comes to the affordability. I know a lot of that is out of the control of the government per se, but the fact is it is an issue we are all aware of and we all need to recognize and deal with. When we talk about the disparity in prices that people are facing in places like Labrador – I know even in my own district the prices that people have to face compared to elsewhere.

I know the challenges we have when it comes to geography. My district is home to Marine Atlantic, and we had a very rough winter. When you have those boats that are not able to come in and then have the freight that is not able to get off and go across the Province, we hear about it and we know it. That has an impact on the Province.

The fact is, I appreciate the stuff that is being done here when it comes to the pamphlet. I appreciate the stuff when it comes to the app, but I think we have to recognize some of the other things we talk about here when we talk about poverty reduction in this Province and how it relates to healthy eating.

The fact is, right now we are getting a two-litre of pop for far less than it is costing us to get milk. When parents are going to the stores to make these choices, it is getting tough, because you only have that limited amount of money; you only have so much you can spend to get that food. The fact is you cannot get everything you want and you have to make those tough choices. Unfortunately, some of those choices are not the ones we want.

I mentioned the fact that we talk about the Canada Food Guide and how this pamphlet is based on that. The fact is if you are on Income Support, you cannot afford to eat based on what they tell you. You cannot afford to eat what is best for you. That is an issue.

Food bank usage in this Province is going up. That is no surprise when we talk about the level of poverty; it is getting too expensive. I want to bring that up.

There are some very good initiatives here. We have these Provincial Wellness Grants and I appreciate those. It is a great thing, but we have to do something more. I know we are facing a tough situation with these significant deficits, but the problem is, I do think we need to make some investment now in the preventative steps. Those investments will reap benefits down the road. It is just the need to have that political will to make that happen.

When we talk about diabetes in this Province, the Province has made great steps, but we need to do more. We need to increase the age when it comes to the pumps, when it comes to smoking cessation in this Province, which we could cover. The money that we will save down the road by trying to successfully implement smoking cessation programs in this Province, we are going to see the benefits down the road.

The fact is, when you talk to family physicians in this Province – who sometimes we take for granted, but the fact is, not enough people in Newfoundland and Labrador, and not enough people in Canada, have access to a family physician. That is driving our costs up. It is driving the costs for the health care system up. Our health care system itself is not built with any flexibility or give to it. We are not going to be able to sustain it for much longer if we continue at this pace.

We talk about: we have increased the spending, but the fact is we need to make sure we are getting the value for the dollar; we need to make sure we are getting the bang for the buck. There are a lot of moving parts to this.

I compliment the minister, I know she is trying and I know she hears me. I know she is trying, but we need to look – we just cannot quantify it in dollars spent. We have to quantify it in: what are the results? What are we getting? Are we improving? If we are, then use the word bravo if we are improving.

I come back to something I have been very outspoken on, and everybody knows that, and that is Job Creation Projects, JCPs. I talked about the fact that they were horribly mismanaged in this last year; people were waiting months and months to make them work. One of the reasons they were cut, or one of the things that happened when they were cut – they were cut in many schools, especially on the West Coast, I know down in Burgeo, I know in Corner Brook, Stephenville and Port aux Basques. They provided the healthy breakfasts for kids. These JCPs provided the worker to make sure this happened. They co-ordinated volunteers to make sure those things happened.

We need to make sure those steps are taken to make sure that the resources are there so that we can eat healthy. People have to be able to afford it. People have to be able to have access to it. Again, that is a big issue in this Province. It is a big issue in a lot of places, but I bring that up because I feel it is very important.

I do want to go back to something that is obviously very serious when you talk about what is really going to turn out to be a mass layoff in this Province, a mass cut when we talk about over 200 jobs, and that is in the EAS centres. Again, it has not let up. I am hearing from people everyday since that very cherry release came out saying this is where we have improved things.

The people providing the service is wondering how it is actually going to improve. They are wondering how that is going to be done, and I have to wonder as well. I am looking forward to seeing how this service is going to improve when you cut 200 people out of it.

I just heard that somebody called Open Line, they called from – I do not know whose district it would be – New-Wes-Valley. The EAS office in New-Wes-Valley had a 91 per cent success rate. Now, they are cut. Why do we cut something with a proven success rate, with a track record for attaching people to the labour force? We are cutting jobs in rural areas. I put that out there. That is just one place that is being cut. There are other places.

I will use the one in Port aux Basques, the Gateway Women's Centre. I attended a dinner just before we came back to the House. It was the Bread and Roses Dinner, an annual dinner, a huge crowd. They have been providing this service for years, providing for the women who are coming in, many at the lowest points in their life, coming from abusive relationships. They have no home to go to. In many cases, they have not had a job. They have been caring for children. They came here because they were safe. They had somebody there on staff who would work specifically with them to provide those services to help them get into the workforce. They have been cut. I have trouble understanding that.

I understand there may have been duplication. Nobody is saying that, but when you cut something across the board just wholesale without looking at – or whether there are specific pockets that we need to look at. That is why I think there should have been a better job done of working with these groups to make sure that the service is still provided.

A lot of these people I have gotten their e-mails, I have gotten their phone calls, their messages. They are saying they do not feel that the services they provided – they are not being provided at the AES offices. In many cases, there is no AES office around. They are going to have to access it by phone or by e-mail. In many cases these people do not have the ability to effectively do that: to attach themselves to the labour force.

They wonder about what I have done to help people with job searching, resume development, labour market research, career decision making, counselling, how to conduct interviews. All of these things that go into helping attach someone to the labour force. They were doing that with high success rates. People were coming in and they were helping put them out there in the workforce.

Again, going back to that Bread and Roses Dinner, one of the people who was actually doing some of this employment counselling was herself once a participant in that process. It shows that there is success there. To cut that across the board, to me, is short-sighted, Mr. Chair. I do not think it is the right move. I think there should have been better consultation done to make sure that this service will be provided. Again, like many things I have said, I hope it works out to how it has been planned, but I certainly do not feel it is going to go that way. I think it is not going to prove to be a positive decision in the end.

On that note, I am going to take my seat, Mr. Chair, but I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this very serious issue.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Chair, I am really happy to get up in my place in this House of Assembly again to speak to the Interim Supply bill. It is amazing to me when I stand in my place or I sit in my seat in this House, which I do each and every time this House of Assembly has sat for nine years now. I very rarely move out of this House and I think I can say that with all honesty. I think any member across the House can confirm that.

It is amazing to me when I listen to people in this House get up and talk about things that really they should give some consideration of doing a bit of research on before they get up and say the things they are going to say and logically look at it from the point of view of the Province. It is incumbent on them to not be up there spinning tales, spinning facts, or saying things in a way – which we have seen in past governments. I have always said that as a Member of the House of Assembly and the MHA for Gander, and I have said this many, many times, which can be confirmed by constituents who have gone to my office in Gander, I am going to tell you what you need to hear, not what you want to hear.

In regard to somebody saying what you want to hear, that creeps into politics a good many times in their quest for power. I am convinced after the hon. Member for St. John's East's little speech there in regard to some of the comments that he made, number one on health care, in regard to diabetes testing – I, being a pharmacist of thirty years, have a great knowledge in that area, and what you said was actually totally false when it comes to people's lives, absolutely.

There is a threshold in regard to how many times you should test per day. Because you are given three test strips does not change a person's life in regard to diabetes. I treated many of them, I say to the hon. member.

When you get up there and say things like that, and people out there do not really understand the disease, that is spinning the real facts. We see that a lot in regard to your quest for political power or whatever it may be, the polls or whatever it is.

That does not sit well with me; I will be honest with you. I came in here as an MHA to become a part of a government. I am lucky to be part of a government under Premier Dunderdale that is doing the right thing for the people of the Province in the long run. That is why we are here: we are running responsible government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: We are being fiscally responsible, not only for right now. We can come out with a Budget, we can have a deficit or whatever it means, and it can be caused by many things. Certainly the hon. member in my view does not understand exactly what constitutes that deficit in regard to your revenue sources.

The Minister of Finance just a few little minutes ago pointed out that only 15 per cent of our revenue comes from personal income tax, and only 20 per cent of the people actually pay that tax on 500,000 people. Then I heard the hon. member talking about supporting municipalities by enabling them to create their own revenue streams, but the only answer that he had was actually taxing people. There is only one taxpayer in Newfoundland and Labrador –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. O'BRIEN: That is exactly right. Gasoline tax is a tax that comes into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. O'BRIEN: That is what you talked about. If you share that – that tax is what he talked about – you can only do it in two ways only: you can either increase it at the pump and give them that, whatever that amount is, or he can share the amount that is in that tax today, which goes into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

That is what he said. He just said exactly that. If we did that, well, then our Consolidated Revenue Fund decreases. Then we have to consider closing down any support that we have for diabetes in regard to providing test strips to those people who deserve it, who are of low income, or we start cutting other services in Newfoundland and Labrador, because there is only one Consolidated Revenue Fund. There is only one fund that runs the Province, and when you start to share that, well, then, the provincial government, regardless if it is here in Newfoundland and Labrador, has to start to cut services.

When – when – in this House, when will the hon. members across the way grasp that? You have to grasp that, because you cannot go out there talking about such things as: we are against development. I heard the hon. Minister of Natural Resources today on his feet, in regards to oil exploration over on the West Coast, and we talked about the balance between regulation and development.

You know, I have been in this House now since the last election, which is a year and so many months, whatever it may be, and I have heard many, many times in regards to the NDP: they are against development. If you are against development, you are against jobs – you are absolutely against jobs. That is the way it works, and you cannot have it one way and not have it another way.

You have to support the government, which supports the Province, which supports the people. That is the way it works. So, if you do not – and all they want to do then when they get on their feet in the House of Assembly, they do not support development, thus they do not support jobs, so then they want to spend. So how and where do you get the money to spend? It is always back to the taxpayers' pockets.

Then he talked about feed-in tariffs on electricity. Well, guess who pays their bills? The consumer – the consumer pays that. The consumer pays it each and every month, as each one of us in this House of Assembly. So, if you attach a feed-in tariff to it, where does it come from?

I wish Mark Carney would come in here and tell us how in the hell you are going to do it, because I tell you, if he talked to you guys, if he talked to you guys and gave you a way of doing that, please, get out in the House of Assembly, get up in your place and tell us, because I have not figured it out: how the taxpayer is going to not pay when you are sharing and you are putting it on them. It is called taxation, my friend, and it is 15 per cent of our revenue stream. Fifteen per cent of our revenue stream comes from personal income tax. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador, what we have done for them and what this government has done for them since 2003 and certainly since 2011, is fought for them to have a better life in this Province. That is the reason why it is bright out there. That is the reason there are close to 4,000 people – 4,000 people – working out in Long Harbour. That is the reason why, when I look at the Member for Lab West, I have been up in his district to see all the economic activity up in Lab West. That is why, when I am up in Goose Bay, I see all the economic activity in Goose Bay. That is the reason, when I am in Gander, I see economic activity.

I will tell you one thing – and I am not a Twitter guy, but I did see it on Twitter. I see the Leader of the Opposition say that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador should examine, or did he use the word scrutinize the NDP policy. Do you know something? I very rarely agree with the Opposition, but I agree with that. I guarantee you that. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have to wake up; I will tell you that right now. I tell you, what we fought for since 2003 in regard to making this a better Province, a better place to live for not only ourselves but our children and their children, will be lost, I tell you, within a short period of time. I guarantee you that.

When you have tweets out there saying we know how to run the Province, well, then listen and take Hansard – I ask the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to examine Hansard. Examine Hansard in the last session of the House of Assembly when you had members from the opposite side of the House talking about running Holyrood on pellets and running Holyrood on shrimp shells and everything else. That is the kind of bull that goes on in this House of Assembly that they take off the Internet. Google people –

CHAIR: I remind the hon. the member of language.

MR. O'BRIEN: – Google members. That is what I call them. I think they are Google members, I say to the hon. members – Google members. I would ask the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to google them and see what they are saying. Hansard is on-line. Look at what they are saying there. Think back and logically look at it, I say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Do not lose the Province we have built.

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Do not lose the economy we have built for the Province.

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just stand now to have a few words on this debate on these important money issues for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Chair, we hear the government opposite say: What would you cut? What would you do? I have always been a member who always spoke the way I saw it. Do I think there were good things done in this Province? Yes, I honestly did say it. I have said it here publicly in the House of Assembly. I said it publicly out to events that I attended that there are funds that were spent and I thought they were spent wisely and I thought they were spent prudently.

In the other case, when you stand up in this House and say: What would you do differently? How would you do it differently? Mr. Chair, when you want to stand up and have a debate, you have to have all the facts on the table. You have to have the facts on the table so you can see all the facts out in front of you, so that you can have an informed debate.

When you see the big curtain on Nalcor, that there is no way you can get in and look at the books of Nalcor. There is no way you can get in to see how much money is spent. There is no way you can get in to see how much money is being diverted to whatever projects in this Province. How can the Opposition come out and have informed debate?

The surprising thing about it, Mr. Chair – and I do not mean to provoke anybody – but none of the government backbenchers can see it either. Mr. Chair, what do you think of that? Government backbenchers standing up talking about everything in government – anything that comes in Nalcor, which already admitted is 33 per cent of the revenue coming in, money going out for Muskrat Falls, for other projects – Hebron. You cannot even see the books; you cannot even see the contracts. If you can in some way streamline the contracts to save money for the Province.

What do you think of that, Mr. Chair? Backbenchers do not even see it either. You cannot ask us as an Opposition to stand up and have an informed debate when all the facts are not on the table. If all the facts are not on the table, what we would be saying to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador would not be an informed debate or an informed decision because we would not know.

Mr. Chair, if you open up the books – if you really want to have the people in this Province to have an informed debate you have to open up the books, put everything on the table. Because of the secrecy and the hidden agenda of the government – Mr. Chair, back I think it was 2010, I think there was an Order-in-Council that increased the funds that Nalcor can receive now 9 per cent. It was an Order-in-Council; it did not even go to public hearings. Am I correct on that? That is what was announced later by Nalcor. It did not even go to public hearings. Any other rate increase in this Province on the rate of return of your investment had to go to public hearings. Nalcor, through Orders-in-Council, I think it has gone up to 9.5 per cent and never even went through public hearings. Yet we have to stand here and they say: but what would you do? What would you do differently – without having all of the facts on the table?

Mr. Chair, when the people of the Province – and I am sure a lot of them realize it now; when you realize that there are things done in secret, when things are done that people are not informed of and things done without being explained, people ask questions. That is the role of the Opposition. At no time could you give an informed debate unless you have all of the facts.

We look at the Atlantic Accord. I heard the minister, I heard the former minister, and I heard the Premier say: well, the Atlantic Accord ran out in 2012, so look at the mess we are in; but, the question has to be asked, and I ask all the people in the Province to ask this question: who negotiated the end of Atlantic Accord to 2012 instead of 2017? It was not me. Who did it? The members opposite.

Mr. Chair, when you want to go out and look at all of the facts, let us look at the facts. You want to talk about mismanagement, if you want to talk about some of the issues that are faced in the Province – and the other question is, and I asked the people of the Province to ask this: when did you know that the Atlantic Accord – which you negotiated – was going to end? Why did you not make a plan five, six or seven years ago?

You cannot stand up here now and all of a sudden say: oh, the Atlantic Accord is gone; oh, look at the mess the federal government put us into, the bad federal government. When you knew five, six, seven, or eight years ago that it was going to happen, you plan for that. That is what a good government would do. You plan for that in a way so when it actually happens, there would be less hurt on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is bad enough negotiating and not telling people that you negotiated the end; it is even worse when you take it – because we are in such a financial mess because of the Atlantic Accord. You negotiated and you did not make plans for when it ended.

That is just two things. When people say, well, what would you do? – that is two things. You look at some of the other decisions that were made in this Province, Mr. Chair. I will just go back to Parson's Pond: $30 million. They drilled two holes, were supposed to drill three, but only drilled two. I think it was $12 million, ended up to $30 million. They are down there now burying the road; actually, the road that they built into the site that a lot of people wanted open, they even cut the road off that they built five kilometres in. They even shut that road off then. They did not want anybody in there to see the mismanagement of $30 million of taxpayers' money in this Province.

So, when you want to ask me: what would you do differently – that is just three things. I have many more; that is just three things that I would not have done if I was part of decision-making in this government, Mr. Chair.

If you want to look at another one, Mr. Chair, let us look at the office in Ottawa. Can you imagine the joke that was around Canada: having an office in Ottawa, and for about a year or year and a half, not having anyone at the office, but having an office for Newfoundland and Labrador open, paying rent, announcing that you have an office up there, and asking someone down in an office three doors down: can you go up and pick up the mail for us once a week so people do not know that there is no one in the office?

Can you imagine? People here, the members opposite, know people and are related to people that were in the same building; they used to have to go down once a week to ensure that they get the mail out so people would not think no one was at the office. Now, how much did that cost? We never, ever got the final amount on how much that cost, Mr. Chair. So that is just three things, when you talk about a waste and abuse of money all throughout.

Mr. Chair, let us go back to the pellet plant in Roddickton: $11 million. I ask any government member opposite, any government member, to stand up and tell us how much has been paid back from that $11 million since. Let anybody stand up and say it. Tell us how much has been paid back.

Stand up in this House. With $11 million of taxpayers' money – the Premier herself was the minister who started up a program in her own department to give this money to the pellet plant, and guess what? I will let the people of Newfoundland and Labrador go to the Auditor General's report; $11 million that was given was against the recommendations of all the bureaucrats in the department – $11 million. They said – what did they say? Do not give out the funds, Mr. Chair. Do you know why? One, they do not have the markets. What have we been raising here in the House – where were the markets? They identified that they never had the markets. The second reason why they said do not give out this $11 million is that there is no wharf facility in Roddickton to get the product to market. Guess what? There is no wharf facility.

The people, the bureaucrats in the department and the Premier – the Premier was the Minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Chair, who overruled her officials and officials of other departments to give $11 million against the recommendations. What has happened? It came through.

If you want to keep asking me what would you do, that is just four. I have about another 400 or 500 left to go, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR (Cross): The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is a pleasure to have an opportunity this afternoon to rise again, have further debate of Interim Supply, and have this opportunity to discuss very important financial matters that are affecting the Province and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Yesterday, when I had an opportunity to speak, I spent some of my time talking about investments in Labrador, and specifically a significant investment on the Trans-Labrador Highway and the very positive and important effects that will have on the people of Labrador, in particular the people of Southern Labrador with the upcoming $85 million investment that is being made jointly by the Government of Newfoundland and also jointly with the Government of Canada. It is a very important piece of work, Mr. Chair.

There are other roads and other work that is happening throughout our Province that is very important to the people of the Province. As I discuss this and I think about this, and as I prepared to rise this afternoon, I cannot help but wonder what the position is of the parties opposite. I hear the Member for The Straits – White Bay today again in Question Period as he –

MR. MITCHELMORE: White Bay North.

MR. DAVIS: White Bay North – thank you for the correction. The Member for The Straits – White Bay North commonly does – he gets up and asks for government to spend more. To spend more in his district, to spend more and do more in his district; he quite often focuses on his own district. He is very concerned about his own district. We are concerned about the entire Province, Mr. Chair. He asked for more.

Then this morning on the morning radio call-in show, Open Line, their leader was on talking about how she is going to enter the debate this afternoon, which is good to hear, and talk about the overspending of government. Mr. Chair, I am really not sure where they come from. They spend time in the House asking for more. They ask for universal daycare, they ask for full-day kindergarten, they ask for more roads, and they ask for more infrastructure. At the same time, their leader, the Leader of the Third Party, is on the public airwaves telling the Province that she is going to address overspending.

I welcome that this afternoon and I invite the hon. Leader of the Third Party, when she has the opportunity today to rise in the House and to speak to this Interim Supply, that she outline for the people of the Province what investments we have made, what investments we are making for the people, the investments we are making here in the Province, the programs, the infrastructure, the significant investments we have been making, and which ones it is she would not want us to make. Which investments is it that the Leader of the Third Party says we are overspending on?

Maybe it is the Team Gushue Highway, a very important piece of infrastructure right here in St. John's, a new highway that is under construction that will extend – there is a piece of it already open and operating between the Outer Ring Road and Kenmount Road. It is a new road then from Kenmount Road, to Blackmarsh Road, to Topsail Road, and right over to the Robert E. Howlett Memorial Highway and Brookfield Road area. It is a very important piece of road that is going to go a long ways to alleviate the traffic that is quite often encountered throughout the day right through the centre of the City of St. John's.

I wonder if that is a piece of investment, maybe, that we should not be making. Maybe we should not spend the money there. Maybe the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair would like us to spend more money on the Trans-Labrador Highway. Maybe it is that piece of infrastructure that the Leader of the Third Party does not want us to make.

Maybe it is the extension to the CBS Bypass Road, another very important and significant piece of infrastructure that we are investing in, Mr. Chair. I say that it is a very important piece of infrastructure that is going to be used by thousands and thousands of people and thousands of vehicles on a daily basis.

We see that quite often in our most heavily used roads. We quite often keep an eye in my department, in the Department of Transportation and Works; we monitor traffic use and traffic volumes. We quite often will do that so that we know where those volumes are, and where those traffic shifts and flows are taking place. Where are the increases? Where are the greatest impacts on our highways? Where are the highways being mostly used? Where are they, that we need to spend our most focus and our energies, and make those investments?

There are many good debates and speeches that happen in this House as we listen to Interim Supply. I mentioned yesterday that for a lot of the members opposite they have not focused on the Budget. I just heard the hon. member opposite and he was talking about not having access to the information, or not having access to knowing where the expenditures are.

I would just like to remind him that every year when we do our budget there are publications that go with this. This one here I have is Estimates. I do not mean to use it as a prop, Mr. Chair, because I know that is not appropriate, but each year we publish a very comprehensive document that has estimates in it. We go through a process with members opposite, Members of the House of Assembly, whereby we come in here to the House of Assembly under Estimates. Each department comes in one by one and sits in the House. We quite often come in and bring our officials. As we come in and do that, we go through the Estimates of the expenditures for each department line by line.

When the hon. member opposite says we do not know where the expenditures are, Mr. Chair, these reports, these publications, these pieces of information, these facts, these detailed pieces of information are made available to the people of the Province. They are made available to the member opposite, made available to the Opposition. So when we come into Estimates, they can ask us questions line by line on the Estimates and expenditures that we are proposing in the future budget.

Also, they can ask us about last year's spending and how there may be changes and variances within those spendings. We provide that. It is a very open and transparent process, Mr. Chair, very open. It is a process that works very well.

I can tell you, in my experience coming here to Estimates, in the time I have been here – I have only had one experience with that when I was the Minister of Service NL, Service Newfoundland and Labrador. I came into the House here and sat. The members opposite started line by line. We were here for several hours. I was quite pleased to have that discussion with them, to answer their questions, to accept their inquiries and respond to them.

The response I got from members opposite was that it was a useful and purposeful process they went through. That we provide information forthright was the response I received from members opposite. I was quite pleased to go through it, and that is the process we follow here.

I talked yesterday for a little bit of time about ferries. I want to talk about ferries some more because as the members opposite are talking about investments that were made, the Member for Bay of Islands talked about, he used the reference: what a joke.

Mr. Chair, recently I made the decision as the Minister of Transportation to decommission a vessel known as the Nonia. Let me give you a little bit of background on the Nonia. The Nonia was bought by the Liberal government in 1999. Mr. Chair, that was their Vessel Replacement Strategy. The purchase of the Nonia was their Vessel Replacement Strategy. They bought the vessel at $1.2 million. They brought it to Canada. They bought it overseas, brought it to Canada. They said we are going to spend $1 million on it and in eighteen months to two years we are going to have a vessel operational in the provincial ferry fleet.

That was 1999. Six years later, Mr. Chair – are you ready for this? Six years later they spent $9.8 million and that vessel still had not gone in the water. That was from their government. When we came into government we inherited that problem. It took $9.8 million to get that vessel and put it into operation in the fleet for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Last summer, Mr. Chair, that vessel came out of its annual refit, as all vessels do. Transport Canada requires that vessels undergo a refit. They have a very rigorous inspection process. They have to go through upgrades and repairs. They follow new requirements by Transport Canada because those requirements change regularly, and we bring them in for refits.

Last July, the Nonia came out. It went in dry dock for its refit and we started to do work on it. As we started to do work on it and you remove a wall, or you open up a partition or a bulkhead, and you have to replace parts of it. Then inspectors come and they look further and they see what else they have to do. We determined it was going to cost $9 million more in total to put that in. We made the decision to decommission that vessel.

We could not continue to sink money into that vessel at that rate to keep it in operation for a short term. It would have cost $2 million a year for the next five years was the estimate; $2 million a year in the next five years to keep that operational. That is $10 million for five years, $9 million to get it back in the water this year. That is $19 million.

Mr. Chair, when I made that decision, I say to the House, to decommission the Nonia, I was quite pleased when I had the chance to say, nice knowing you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

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

I am very happy to have the opportunity to stand in the House today. It is very important what we are doing here, talking about the resources of the Province. Not just the resources that are in the ground but the resources that we all share as a people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is an honour to be part of this discussion and it is an honour to be part of this debate.

I had the privilege of going to Labrador, to the Big Land last week. I was up there for the opening of the Labrador Winter Games. What a celebration that was. What a celebration, not only to be entertained and to see some of the games but to see the pride in the people of Labrador as they gathered from all over the Big Land and gathered in Happy Valley-Goose Bay to share their sporting events, to share their camaraderie, to tell stories to each other, to dream and to reminisce. It was a great opportunity and I was very, very, happy to be there.

When I was in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and in Lab City, I had the opportunity to meet with several community groups, with a number of government services, and to also meet with mayors in each of those communities. Mr. Chair, my intention in going to Labrador was to listen, to hear how people are faring and what is happening, particularly in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, because we know that construction has started with the Muskrat Falls Project and things are quite advanced. I think it has been going on for quite a while. In fact, it was not just after the sanction of Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: In fact, Mr. Chair, the construction started way before the sanctioning, and so people had some very interesting stories to tell. No matter where I went, Mr. Chair, everybody – without exception, whether it was hospital administrators, whether it was people who owned restaurants, whether it was people who worked in the justice system in the Labrador Correctional Centre –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I am sure that people would like to hear the stories of the people of Labrador, because what I am talking about here, now, they are not my stories; they are the stories of people who I met while I was in Labrador, people who were telling the stories of their lives or telling the stories of the lives of the people in their communities. They had some very interesting things to say.

Everywhere that I went, Mr. Chair, everybody talked about the housing crisis. Almost everywhere that I went, people in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, everybody used the word crisis.

I am sure, Mr. Chair, that the hon. members on the other side of the House – who are yelling so loud right now they cannot hear these stories. That is part of the problem. Mr. Chair, I have to tell you that is part of the problem, because the people in Happy Valley-Goose Bay are telling me that the government, the people who are occupying seats on the other side of this House, are not listening to them. They are not being heard – exactly what we see happening in this House right now, because they are so busy yelling, screaming, and ranting, rather than taking the time to listen to the stories of the people who are suffering a housing crisis in Labrador.

They are not being heard. They are not being heard in their home communities and, my goodness, they are not being heard in this House, because of the racket that is going on across the floor right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: So, Mr. Chair, what happened before the sanctioning of Muskrat Falls is that Nalcor assured the people of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, when they met with the mayors, when they met with people working in the Housing and Homelessness Network, they assured the people that there would be no negative impacts on their community.

Now, these community groups, the mayor and his council, spoke quite openly about what their concerns were about Muskrat Falls being built so close to their communities, the construction site and the housing site being so close to their communities, but they were assured time and time again that there would be no negative impacts.

Well, let me tell you something now – let me tell you. I want to tell you what some of these people were telling me. For instance, I was at the Labrador Correctional Centre; I must say, I commend the staff there and the assistant superintendent for doing a fantastic job at that centre. They have fantastic programs, programs that really respond to the needs of the inmates there. They have some very innovative, creative programming. It was very wonderful to see. I had the opportunity to tour the facility, to speak to staff, to see a few inmates, and that was a wonderful opportunity.

In that meeting alone – I was there for about an hour and a half; in that hour and a half alone, Mr. Chair, one of the senior employees at the Labrador Correctional Centre told me that three families on his block alone where he lived had received, in one week – three different families had received either a notice of eviction, or a notice of increase in their rent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: Now, the notice of eviction; as we know, within our Province, you can have an eviction, and as long as the landlord gives you three months, there does not have to be any real reason for this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS ROGERS: Mr. Chair, I am sure that there are some people across the floor who do want to hear these stories. These are the stories of people who are in crisis right now because they are losing their housing. These are very real stories. It is not funny. It is not a political ploy. These are not political points; these are the stories of people's lives in Happy Valley-Goose Bay right now. Three families in one week on one street got eviction notices or notices of their increases in rent, and their increases were either doubled or tripled, which in effect means they will have to leave because they cannot afford the rent. As they all know, there is nowhere else to go.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the member.

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Here is another story. The cook at the Labrador Correctional Centre, the day that we were there, got her eviction notice. She is in her sixties. Her husband is sixty-seven years old. He is retired because of a medical condition. He has poor health. She and her husband have been evicted, and she is the cook at the centre. She said her husband is going to have to go back to work to try to earn enough money so that they can at least have a roof over their head. They have three months to find that roof over their head.

Then, that afternoon, I went to the Mokami Status of Women Council and I met with some of their workers there. They told us the story of two women who are not the people I told you about earlier, but two women who have just been given their three-month eviction notices as well. Why? Their rents were tripled.

Then, Mr. Chair, a housing support worker –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: The person who is a housing support worker for the Mokami Status of Women got her eviction notice the same day as well. That is seven people. That is seven households that have been given eviction notices or notices of increase in their rents that in effect become eviction notices. These are people's lives. People are so precariously housed, and everybody knows this. Everybody is talking about the housing crisis situation. People are afraid; people are so afraid right now.

The interesting thing is that a lot of ads now, whether you see them on Kijiji, whether you see them on the TV, or whether you see them in the flea market section of Labrador ads, say contractors only apply. Why is that? Why is that, Mr. Chair? That is because the rents have skyrocketed. The people who have worked so hard to build prosperity in this Province – we all know, Mr. Chair, that prosperity does not just happen. It is not like a lottery, that we have won the money. The prosperity that we experience here in our Province is because of the hard sweat by the hard work of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

What is happening is that our citizens who have lived in Labrador, perhaps all their lives or for an extended period of time, are losing their places to live. We know how much housing is a social determinant of health and of a healthy community. This is a crisis, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: I remind the member to clue up, her time has expired.

MS ROGERS: Thank you very much. I look forward to getting up and continuing this conversation because I know that people want to hear these stories.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is good, Mr. Chair, to have a chance to get up and talk to Interim Supply in terms of our Province and things that are happening in my Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development, some of the good work we are doing in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and continue to do as a government in the past number of years.

When in the House we talked about discussions about telecommunications. Our government has made a significant commitment to upgrading telecommunications over the past number of years. We recognize the importance of that, Mr. Chair, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, from an educational point of view, for driving business, driving opportunity and tourism as well.

We recognize that the investment in telecommunications is so important. We have done that over the past number of years in terms of doing that. A number of years ago, the broadband initiative, a partnership between the federal government, the Province, other regions – that started it to a great degree. Then we had the Centre for Distance Learning and Innovation, CDLI, looking at schools (inaudible) with those.

We move forward then again with us in 2007 with the trans-Gulf fibre. We partnered with four other private enterprises, a $53 million investment in total. That provided redundancy with the rest of North America, but also brought competition and other service providers to the Province and levelled the playing field in terms of the competitive nature of the industry. I know specifically in terms of post-secondary institutions here in the Province, it is certainly more competitive, getting cheaper rates. So it is very important in terms of the telecommunications field.

As we know as well the last couple of years through Innovation, Business and Rural Development, we made a commitment through the Rural Broadband Initiative to look at where in Newfoundland and Labrador we do not have that connectivity. In our Blue Book in 2011 we went to the polls, we talked about renewing that commitment in terms of high speed and broadband in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as cellular coverage. We have a number of members here on both sides who talk about the importance of telecommunications and improving it.

It is very important to understand, Mr. Chair, in terms of telecommunications, it is governed by CRTC. They regulate those service providers. Whatever service they provide the telecommunications sector, they licence them and they regulate them. Those are the entities that have the ability to build infrastructure, to deliver service where they deliver it; those are the ones that drive that, and they are controlled by CRTC.

As a government, we look at it and say: how can we build, how can we partner, and what can we do as a government in terms of assisting that and driving that industry, improving telecommunications for all of Newfoundland and Labrador?

What we have done is work with the private sector to give them the incentive to engage with us in terms of building out in areas where they would say to us that they do not have the business case. If they were to go in and invest in the infrastructure, they would say to us: well, we cannot go in and do that; we do not have the business case and we will not get the return.

As a government, and certainly relating to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, we have said: we are going to look at it now and we are going to partner with you. What we will do – in RBI one, what we said is that we would call for RFPs and we would look at paying for 75 per cent of their infrastructure in particular areas. They would come to us and we would look at those proposals and look at those areas that are not served, or underserved, and how we can facilitate better connectivity. That is what we did, certainly, in the Rural Broadband Initiative's first call. Through that call, we invested almost $7 million, partnered with the private sector, and saw a significant increase in a number of areas of Newfoundland and Labrador that could get that connectivity.

On March 31 of this year, we will see the conclusion of those projects. It is very good. We partnered with the private sector and also partnered with Ramea Communications and Burgeo Broadcasting, which is a non-profit group – a very nice project, working with a non-profit group in terms of bringing that service; very well put together, happy to work with them, and certainly being innovative in terms of what we can do, how we work with various groups to make sure that we can extend the service and reach as many communities as we can.

Further to that, again, last year we made a call for the second component of the Rural Broadband Initiative. Again, we allocated $2 million in last year's Budget and made a call. This time we looked at communities that were not served at all. We made a call, allowed that call to look at cellular coverage, new technologies, innovative ways that we can work with the private companies, and those types of things.

Through that, again, we had five proposals; four we identified and two were wireless – a great company on the West Coast, Northern Wireless, a new Newfoundland and Labrador company, very good technology, innovative in terms of what they are doing, as well as other companies we have partnered with. So, in that context, we will be reaching approximately 500 communities in terms of that second call, and successful applicants who we chose to go with. That is up from about 114 communities in 2003.

So we have seen extensive improvement in terms of high-speed Internet, in terms of our communities and regions. It has gone quite well working with the private sector, but again, we are left to work with the private sector and incentivize them to get involved and to engage in it. We continue to do that.

I had the opportunity to be in St. Joseph's with my colleague from Placentia, announcing that to three communities down there that we will assist, and recognizing talking to communities, how important it is. That is why we have committed to it and certainly continue to be committed to it. As I said, right now we are up to almost $30 million that we have invested as a government in the telecommunications, leveraging almost $116 million and working with all kinds of companies: the larger entities, the smaller ones, non-profit groups, making sure that the commitment we made, we continue to meet that commitment, as I said, and continue to improve the service. So that is all about rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Telecommunications is so important. We are going to continue to do that.

In terms of other initiatives, in terms of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, I mentioned today in Question Period the Regional/Sectoral Diversification Fund, a very successful fund. Since 2005 to 2011, roughly, the Province has invested $43 million, over 700 projects; it is a total investment of $211 million when you look at investments from other government agencies like ACOA, like the proponents themselves on the ground.

All of us in this House – especially, obviously, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador – have seen these projects and are working with the economic development groups and the non-profit groups on the ground. It certainly builds that local infrastructure. I see it down my way in the Ferryland District. We look at the Colony of Avalon and Portugal Cove South Heritage.

There are a lot of volunteers on the ground. There are chambers of commerce, there are councils, all of these non-profit groups – huge capacity on the ground in terms of volunteers, economic and social development. We are continuing to work with them. Through our Community Capacity Building Fund, through IBRD, we help support these groups to come together. That support has been there and certainly continues to be there to bring those groups together to talk about and to organize, in terms of economic development. We have a number of our staff throughout the Island –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HUTCHINGS: – in our regional offices that are working on the ground with SMEs and others as well to drive the local economy. RSDF has been very successful in building capacity on the ground in all sectors, tourism, the fishery, and a broad range of areas, and it has been quite successful in doing it.

Another program, Mr. Chair, that has been very successful in terms of driving assistance with small and medium enterprises is the Workplace Skills Enhancement Program. That is a program that we have invested almost $7 million, (inaudible) close to 4.5. What that does is it up skills small and medium enterprises in terms of the employees in their business in any kind of training. It has been very successful and always fully utilized. It is a very good program.

I travel the Province and speak to industry associations and small and medium enterprises. They speak of this program and how effective it is, especially in all regions of the Province, whether it is urban or rural. It is very successful and has great success because it allows those employees, whether they are transitioning into new positions or whether they are adopting new technology or new innovation. It allows them to access that and builds that small employer and a lot of those in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I will get an opportunity again, Mr. Chair, to get up and speak to our suite of programs in IBRD that is driving activity in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We are committed to it. We certainly look forward to doing a whole lot more of it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chair, I am pleased to follow the Minister of Innovation, Business and what used to be Rural Development. We do not do rural development any more. Of course, we never did do it very well. If we had, we would have a much better economy today.

Nine years ago we had 500,000 people; today we have 500,000. If we had increased by 1 per cent per year, we would have 545,000 people. One per cent a year, is that much, one extra person for every hundred? We are just not there.

Mr. Chair, I hear regularly people talking about small communities and isolated communities. They say, well, why do we not just resettle them all? Well, okay, let's follow that to its logical conclusion. If we resettle all the people in small communities to bigger communities and then we resettle all people from the medium-sized communities to the much larger communities, and let's say we resettle them to St. John's. Well, we do not need to stop at St. John's. We can resettle them to Halifax. Why bother to stop in Halifax? So, we resettle them all to Ontario. Let's say we resettle 500,000 people to Ontario.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BENNETT: The Minister of Education asked, if that is what I want? They have an educational system that he could learn a lot from. Maybe then he would not have to be worried as a failure as the Minister of Education. He could take lessons as the Minister of Education.

Anyway, if we resettle 500,000, that would be –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: – the fifth biggest city in Ontario. What we would do then is we would save $16,000 per man, woman and child in this Province. We could just cut a cheque. Instead of the $8 billion Budget that this government wastes most of, we could give $16,000 for every man, woman and child. Then if it is a family of four they would have $64,000 and they would not need to work.

Then what we could do is we could lease the Province to the Chinese. They are giving away our resources to the Chinese anyway. We could lease the Province to the Chinese and then they could write us a royalty cheque every year. We would only need someone to come and collect the royalty cheque and we would not have to worry about this stuff.

That is not what we do, but that is where this government is headed. This government is headed to hollowing out the economy of this Province on a non-stop basis. I do not think it is because they want to do that, I think it is because they do not know any better. I do not think they have any idea how to generate wealth. I do not think they have any idea how to do anything except collect and spend, collect and spend, collect and spend.

If you consider the record of the last nine years and if you look at where wealth is really created; wealth is not created until somebody grows some livestock, grows some vegetables, catches a fish, cuts a tree, or mines some minerals. None of which is done in growth centres, none of which is done in cities. Cities clearly add to wealth and cities are useful, but if you do not have a rural economy, you do not have a primary production economy. Without a primary production economy you do not have any economy after a while.

This government has recently retreated from rural development because for some reason – maybe it is because they cannot manage it well, maybe it is because they cannot manage it at all. I was struck by a document that was brought back to me today from Innovation, Business and Rural Development. It is a document that deals with co-operatives.

When I looked at the document, the document was actually produced by some department called INTRD. Is that what it is called, INTRD? I think what that is, Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. Well, Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, we do not have such a department. Does that mean that after they did the Cabinet shuffle and got rid of the trade part, they did not even bother to create any new literature for IBRD? They appointed a new minister and they could not –

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are they giving that out?

MR. BENNETT: They are giving this out at IBRD, old INTRD documents. I am trying to figure out how old it is and there is not even a date on it. We will do an access to information request to find out when it was printed. Of course, what will happen is they will charge us a bundle to find out when this thing was printed. They did not even bother to get any new documents, any new promotional literature when they shuffled the minister. They folded up the Business department. So, when you look at the Business department, what did they do with business over the last nine years? Well, you would think business would have been great under this government. They should have been a great business department.

In 2003-2004, they had a budget for business attraction of $1 million, and they managed to get $44,000 out the door. Mr. Chair, this is a government that cannot even give away money to people who want to start a business. Why? Is it because they have no faith in our own people?

In 2004-2005, they budgeted $225,000 and managed to unload $119,000. In 2005-2005, they budgeted $498,000, and they managed to give away $332,000. Then they came up with the great idea, because the money really started to roll in around then. They had around $1.4 billion – that is billion with a b – in 2007-2008. So, in 2007-2008, out of $1.4 billion, they decided to set up a Business Attraction Fund. The Business Attraction Fund was for $34,511,000, and they managed to give away $1 million.

Mr. Chair, this is a government that cannot even give away money. Now, they can waste it, but they cannot give it away. In 2008-2009, they budgeted $32 million, and they managed to give away $10 million. In 2009-2010, they budgeted $35 million, and they still only gave away $10 million. So, they keep increasing the budget of what they say they are going to do, and their performance actually declines. It declined in 2010-2011. They budgeted $34.5 million and managed to give out $3.5 million. So, they gave out ten cents on the dollar for what they had for business attraction in 2010-2011.

In 2011-2012, they budgeted $41 million. They gave away $3 million and could not give away $34 million, and increased the budget by another $7 million. In 2011-2012, they managed to get $8 million out the door.

So, Mr. Chair, in this Province, through all of these communities, in every small town you have one or two or three or four small businesspeople – men and women who are very energetic, they are very aggressive, they have business ideas –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR (Littlejohn): Order, please!

It is difficult to hear the speaker. I ask all hon. members to keep it down a little bit.

Thank you.

MR. BENNETT: In every small community, you have at least a handful of people who are small business leaders. They are not necessarily people that everybody likes. They are hardworking, they are aggressive, and they go out on a limb and they make investments and they do well. This government has not even been able to identify our own entrepreneurs in our own Province that they could actually invest money in, that they could lend money in.

To give you examples of successful businesses, throughout my district, and even in my own community, you have people in a community of 250 people who have cleared 1,000 acres for dairy in the last twenty years – thanks to farm credit, mostly federal – 1,000 acres for dairy, 500 head of cattle and 6,000 litres of milk every single day; one dozen people working non-stop.

You have 30-odd people fishing in small boats. This government has totally abandoned the fishery. They do not want a small boat fishery. If you lose a small boat fishery – these guys do not loaf around all fall. These guys, in the fall of the year, they go work for the outfitters; they are the outfitters' guides. If we lose the small boat fishermen, we also lose the guides for the outfitters. When that part of the season is over, they go off to Fort McMurray for another three or four months of the year and then they come back and do the cycle all over again.

This government has no insight into have rural Newfoundland and Labrador works and the advantages and the benefits that can be derived from rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We should not be facing a $1.6 billion deficit by now with a stagnant population. What we should be facing is a balanced budget because we should have grown the economy.

The money that we have had given to us, no credit to any of us – we happen to live here and we have been pumping money out of the ocean, out of the ground. We have been pumping black gold into this Province's Treasury from 2007 to 2012 at $1.4 billion in one year and $2.5 billion the next year. That is 31 per cent found money of our total budget: $1.8 billion in 2009-2010; $2.4 billion all over again in 2010-2011; $2.8 billion in 2011-2012, and $2.24 billion budgeted for 2012-2013.

Mr. Chair, the problem is that the government has no imagination, they have no creativity, and they do not take a chance on people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador who are highly energetic people, who are highly aggressive people, who are very creative and have business ideas.

The Department of Business that was wound up in IBRD does absolutely nothing for innovation, does nothing for business, and now they have backtracked rural developing by closing down all of the RED Boards. The only thing they are doing in the RED Boards is helping them close shop. To pick up a document which says Rural Economic Development Boards, you pick it up and it is INTRD; they are all closed down. Why are they flogging something that they had no faith in in the first place and now they are letting go?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Chair, there is only one way I can start my response to that: I have been in this House since 2003 and I have heard a variety of speeches. Mr. Chair, I do not even know how to describe what I just heard for the last ten minutes.

After his comments in the media the other week, I wrote down something like babble, babble, babble, because – let me take people back, just for a second, to what this man has said. To suggest that we will pay people to move to Ontario then to somehow bring China into it, to lease the Province to China, and then we live happily ever after.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Now, Mr. Chair, that is a summary of someone who put their name forward for the leadership of this Province. Imagine: wanted to lead this Province. Mr. Chair, maybe he has an ulterior motive. Maybe he has a little bit of an attachment to Ontario. Maybe he wants us to pay him to move there, and after hearing that I am about ready to pay him to move there, Mr. Chair. After hearing that I think everybody on every side would offer up a bit of money to move him to Ontario, but I am not sure Ontario would want him after hearing that.

Mr. Chair, I am making some light of it, but let us be serious. What I heard in this last ten minutes is absolutely ludicrous to me: to say that there is no future in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. You tell me and ask those members in his party who represent rural Newfoundland and Labrador to stand and say there is no future in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Member for Cartwright –L'Anse au Clair; we opened up a new school in Port Hope Simpson and we have a new one in Charlottetown. Ask her to stand up and tell us that rural Newfoundland and Labrador has no future. You go and see when those schools are announced to see if they believe in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Ask the people from his district, from Port Saunders; ask them about the school that was built there and if there is no future in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Chair, if the members of his district get this message, I would suggest they stick him on a plane and send him away somewhere.

AN HON. MEMBER: To Ontario.

MR. JACKMAN: No, I would say further than Ontario, because he may not have a relationship after this, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, everyone on this side, we as a government since 2003 recognize the challenges that we face in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, but do not ever anyone think that we as a government are going to give up on rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: You can count on that.

I would think and I would hope that all the members opposite would feel the same way. I am not so sure about one member, Mr. Chair, but I can assure you I would think that everybody in this House who represents a rural district, even those who live in urban centres and have that rural attachment would say that we are going to do our darnedest to make sure not only that it survives, but that it becomes stronger.

There are challenges in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. There is absolutely no doubt about it. All we have to do is look at globalization and we will see that the challenges are there. Never think that there will not be a rural Newfoundland and Labrador. There will be, Mr. Chair. I will tell you one thing: I have served in this government for nine years and I am as proud of rural Newfoundland and Labrador as is anyone in this Province and in this House, Mr. Chair.

Now, let me speak to some of the commitments that we have in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I am going to point out to the Member for St. Barbe: here is what we have done, I will say this to the member. I have mentioned some of them; just look at our investments in infrastructure in education. Why do we do it: because we want to have the best possible places for these students to attend.

I have to say this, Mr. Chair; I have to tell you another thing. I am sick and tired of this member condemning our education system. If he thinks so highly of Ontario and everywhere else, why does he not go there? Every time he gets up he speaks ill of our results, which we are showing improvements in, and any time he speaks ill of our results he speaks ill of our students, our teachers, and our school system. Mr. Chair, I would put our students up against any in the world. Tell me who else would not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Member for St. Barbe would at some point recognize that as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we have not only left our mark in this Province, we have left our mark nationally and internationally. All you have to do is look at the people in this Province who have made high profiles around the world. We cannot count them on one hand or two hands, Mr. Chair. They are renowned around the world. Any time we make our presence known, we do it with strength and we do it with determination because we are a strong stock.

Mr. Chair, every time he comes on to speak ill about our students and our school system, it just turns that little wedge in me. I will tell you, Mr. Chair, it turns that little wedge in everybody else. It is time that he gets up at some point and recognizes the good work that has been done.

I have to hand it to the Member for St. John's North, he has come a long way, Mr. Chair. It took a lot of massaging but he has come a long way. Do you know what, Mr. Chair? I expect, Mr. Chair, that he is going to be the next speaker to rise after me. He is going to get up and he is going to criticize some of the things the Member for St. Barbe have said and say about the wonderful things that are happening in our educational system. He is out there. He goes and he knows it, Mr. Chair, not like the Member for St. Barbe.

Mr. Chair, just listen to the list, nine schools: Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Torbay, Placentia, Port Saunders, L'Anse au Loup, Port Hope Simpson, Bay Verte, and two schools in Paradise. That is ten – just listen – that is ten new schools. Listen to this. Listen to the next part. Ten more new schools under construction: St. Anthony, Carbonear, St. John's, Portugal Cove-St. Phillips.

Mr. Chair, not all of these schools are in the urban areas. Where are they? In rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Not only that, listen to this one, twelve major extensions. Do you know where the first one is? Flowers Cove. Whose district might I say is that in? Not in urban, Mr. Chair, not in urban, Wesleyville, Witless Bay, Upper Gullies, New World Island, Riverside Elementary, Clarenville.

Mr. Chair, nine new schools, ten in the various stages – nineteen – and twelve major extensions. Thirty-one investments and I am not talking about $1 million. These are everything that range from $7 million up to $25 million and $30 million, Mr. Chair. That is investment in our education system. That is an investment in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Chair, it is an insult to the people of this Province, to the students, to the teachers, the parents in this Province who are in these educational systems, it is an insult when it comes from members, such as the Member for St. Barbe and what he just delivered ten minutes ago.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am very glad to have my first opportunity to speak during the Interim Supply discussion. It has been very –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It has been very interesting over the last two days to listen to my colleagues here in the House, some of it very enlightening and some of it quite interesting, sometimes quite funny, from very different perspectives – all kinds of perspectives, Mr. Chair.

The thing I want to talk about this afternoon is the way in which the government side of the House has been using the fiscal crisis that they have created, the fiscal crisis that is happening because they do not do long-term planning, and using that as a way in which to make people in this Province feel guilty because they cannot solve their problem. The thing is, Mr. Chair, the government, the governing body, the party that is in government has the resources.

They are the ones who have the resources to run the Province, but they talk about consultation when all of a sudden we are in a crisis. They like to say they are a government who consults. When we have the budget, for example, they have their pre-budget consultations, but, Mr. Chair, the pre-budget consultations are at a point that people in this Province are tired of them because they are not consultations.

I have had, this year in particular, many people say to me – people representing organizations, and I am not going to name any of them, even their constituencies, because I do not want any retaliation on people for saying what they are saying to me. People from all over the Province, people from different constituencies are saying to me: I do not even know if I want to go to this year's pre-budget consultation, because what difference does it make?

This year we are probably going to take the same presentation we made last year, because nothing that we have ever said to the government, when we go to the consultations, gets acted upon. Here you go; you have consultations, so-called consultations where people feel: what is the sense of going to them? Then this same government – who does not listen to people in the pre-Budget consultations or other consultations – is now turning around and saying to people: we have a crisis. Help us solve the crisis. Help us solve the crisis that we created.

What they should have been doing, Mr. Chair, is they should have been really consulting for the last ten years they were in this House. They should have been consulting in a meaningful way so that maybe we would not be in the mess that we are in if they had really consulted. Maybe if we had a Legislature, Mr. Chair, where we all worked together in all-party committees on legislation, where we get a chance to put ideas on the table and talk about them, maybe we would get somewhere.

Mr. Chair, I am hearing comments coming from the other side of the House, hearing the same old thing; it is not an old thing, it is something they do not do. Maybe if they listened when it is said, it might help them, but they do not listen. They talk about babble from this side. Well, all I am hearing from over there is babble, also. That is all I am getting from that side: babble.

We have been accused of spin, spin, spin. Well, we are learning; if we are doing it – and I do not think we are doing it – we are learning it from experts, because that is all the government side of the House does. When the Minister of Education gets up and talks about schools being built and talks about, for example, the school in St. Anthony, but does not talk about the schools that are being closed and the children who are going to have to be bussed to St. Anthony for that school in St. Anthony, then that is spin, because that is not telling the whole truth. That is spin. Talking about the school that they are building and not talking about the schools that they are closing: that is spin. Let us lay it all out. Who is doing the real spin in this House?

Let us come back to the consultation. If we had real consultation, if they really were open to listening to different concepts and different ideas of what development is, maybe we would not be where we are. I have heard them say, for example, Mr. Chair, that the NDP does not believe in development. That is not true. That is not true at all. We do believe in development and we support development.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sustainable development.

MS MICHAEL: We believe in sustainable development, and sustainable development, Mr. Chair, is development that is well thought out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: It has large projects, it has community-based projects, and it has a variety of pieces that make up the economy. There are places both within our country and in other countries where they have done a wonderful job of diversifying economy.

Here in Newfoundland and Labrador we seem to think – we are on this road, we have been on it for years, and this government is no different than others that we have had; all we can think about is large projects as development. That is the only thing that development is: large projects.

We have the oil and gas industry, huge megaprojects. We have the mineral industry, most of which the successful ones are huge projects. We now have the huge project of Muskrat Falls that they are determined to go ahead with; they have taken the first steps.

All we know is huge developments, while we have so many areas that could have been developed and should be developed in this Province, Mr. Chair. Why are we not looking at the whole issue of food security? Why are we not looking at how we can build our agricultural industry so that it is meeting the needs of the people in this Province while also having an export dimension to it?

We should be able to be exporting more while at the same time feeding ourselves. We have such capacity here in Newfoundland and Labrador and we have individual people in the agricultural industry really showing what can be done. We need government in there with them making that happen.

Let us look at the whole thing of the green industries, Mr. Chair – green energy production, for example, and ways in which we use green methodology with regard to agriculture. We could be doing research into green projects that support the different industries here in Newfoundland and Labrador. In doing that we would be creating new jobs, we would be creating new skills, and we would be creating new technologies, all of which bring money. We would be able to export some of those skills; we would be able to export the research that we are coming up with here.

We do not have creative thinking here in this government. They cannot seem to think that way because they put all the eggs in the basket of this huge megaproject called Muskrat Falls. They have closed down even the potential for looking at green energy and getting research into green energy in this Province. We will not even be able to use it.

They have shut down the possibilities that we had in this Province around wind energy. They have shut down the possibilities, Mr. Chair, that we have with regard to alternative ways of producing energy in this Province. Wind is only one; yet, there is so much that we could be doing.

What is happening here is we have a government that has gotten itself into a corner. It does not know how to get itself out. They themselves in the document they have presented in their pre-Budget consultations show us, and this is the spin they are not talking about here today, that as of this moment the debt is going up and when we get to 2014-2015 the debt will be up to $12 billion. It is just $8 billion-plus something right now; it will be up to $12 billion.

It is their own document; it is their graph. At the same time the debt is going up to $12 billion, or over $12 billion, we have three years of deficit Budgets. The two deficit Budgets for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 are bigger than the one for the year we are in. This is the mess they have created and they are saying to us: Solve it. The thing is, the only way to solve it is the way they are doing it right now, if they are trying to get rid of this graph. That is the thing they have created and people know they have created it.

It is disingenuous of them to be asking people of this Province to come up with ideas. We should not be where we are. They should have listened to ideas up to now and then we may not have been where we are. Mr. Chair, I invite them at this moment at least to learn from what has happened here because we cannot have it happen again in this Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is indeed a pleasure to be able to stand again in the House today and have a few words, in particular following the previous speaker. I have to say there are a number of comments that have been brought forth that I believe bear a response and an opportunity to address. Since the hon. member has taken an opportunity to talk about the situation of the Province, I would like to pick up on that and I would like to talk about the situation of the Province.

This government, under the current Premier and the previous Premier, since 2003 has brought this Province further developmental-wise in the history of our Province than ever before. We inherited a situation with a $12 billion debt in this Province and significant gaps in infrastructure. I remind all members to think back ten years ago to the kinds of schools our kids were attending, the kinds of health care facilities we had, and the state of the roads throughout the Province, Mr. Chair. I remind everybody to think back to what the situation was like because if we want to talk about the state of the Province, let us talk about the entire state of the Province.

This government came to power, Mr. Chair, with a vision. The vision of this Province was to investment, first of all, in programs. That meant social programs like health care and education, things like new hospitals and new treatments, things like dialysis for the Burin Peninsula, for St. Anthony and for the Port aux Basques region. It meant eliminating school fees and providing free textbooks. It meant investing in post-secondary education so that we now have the best student aid package in all of Canada, Mr. Chair, including up-front free money, grants for students. Those are investments that this government have made in this Province, if you want to talk about the state of the Province.

We also, besides social programs, recognize the need to invest in our communities. So, we work with community organizations through the investment of recreation infrastructure, recreation development grants, both large grants and small grants. We work with the arts community in our communities. We work with municipalities, Mr. Chair, municipalities to invest in municipal operating grants, to invest in municipal capital infrastructure. The projects that we have invested in I could go on and on for days, to strengthen the fabric of communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have better roads. We have better drinking water conditions, water and sewer improvements. We have pavement investments. We have invested in recreation facilities. Mr. Chair, all of that makes up the state of this particular Province.

If we are going to talk about the kind of condition the Province is in, we need to talk about what this government has done to bring this Province along and to put it in a far better situation today than we were ten years ago.

Mr. Chair, I listened intently to the member opposite who is advocating that consultations are needless, that we ought not to be doing consultations with the public in the Province, and I fundamentally disagree with that. I want to say that for the record and for people who are listening to this debate. It is not the position of the Progressive Conservative Government of Newfoundland and Labrador that we do not listen to people. It is our position that we go out and we consult.

So, when you talk about the pre-Budget consultations it is very unfortunate if, as the member suggested, someone has said to her they do not feel they have been listened to. I can assure you, Mr. Chair – and I know that the former Finance Minister is just a couple of chairs over listening to me – that we have heard a lot of good suggestions in pre-Budget consultations and we have acted on a good many of them over Budgets brought into this Legislature over the past seven, eight, nine or ten years.

I can also assure you that there are going to be other things happening in future Budgets, in out years, where people will be able to say: Do you know what? I went to the pre-Budget consultations, I heard what people suggested, and the government took those suggestions and acted upon them.

Mr. Chair, it would be – to use the term quoted across the way – disingenuous; it is absolutely very disingenuous if anybody were to lead people to believe that consultation means asking what you think and we are going to do everything you tell us. Everybody in this House knows that consultations do not work that way. Consultations provide an opportunity for people from the public to come in, to have the opportunity to speak to a minister or a member of government, and to express their views. Sometimes it is to express views about new items, new programs, and new initiatives that they believe government should follow. Other times, as I have experienced myself, Mr. Chair, it is an opportunity for people to talk about what is important to them, core programs that they believe need to be maintained and need to be strengthened. I have heard members opposite talk about some of those and I thank them for that, because I hear those things as well.

The consultation process from our perspective is very valuable. I am very, very disappointed to hear the Leader of the NDP say that she does not support the consultation process, because that is not how we operate.

This government will take responsibility for every decision they have made. We will take responsibility for making decisions that have to be made in the current Budget that we are about to deliver, and in future Budgets, because we recognize it is our responsibility as a government to acknowledge: when we are in good times and we make good decisions, fair enough, and when we are in tough times, like this particular year, fiscally we know we have to make some tough decisions. We are quite prepared to do that and we accept responsibility for that. That is all a part of being a good government and it is all a part of providing leadership and vision for the future of this Province. It is what is called good leadership.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Our Premier is not governing based on a popularity contest. We are providing leadership that we believe is in the best interests of the Province.

Mr. Chair, I heard the term disingenuous used a number of times in the previous speaker's comments. I have to say, you know, it reminds me – and people of the Province need to be aware of the exchange that happened in this House today and yesterday, where the member opposite stood and challenged the Premier of this Province on an issue that was not the responsibility of this particular government.

Without going into detail, it was inappropriate to be asked in this House. The member opposite knew that and the member opposite knew the answer to the question even before the question was raised in this House. Today on a point of order the Premier stood to challenge that, in this House, and raised a very valid point of order. The Speaker ruled on that point of order and the member continued to protest.

Now, Mr. Chair, I submit to you and the people of the Province: if there is anything disingenuous, it is when a member comes into this House knowing full well the answer to a question and knowing full well that it is not an item to be debated on the floor of this particular Legislature, and knowing full well that it does discredit to this House and to the Management Commission in particular and continues to proceed and persist that the item be debated in this House. If there is anything that is disingenuous, it is that.

We can stand here and we can debate issues as we do. Members do it back and forth all the time, Mr. Chair, and that is fair game. We put our own perspectives out there and our points of views. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we disagree. If we are going to throw the term disingenuous across the House, then the member opposite has to be prepared to have it thrown back.

We are talking about leadership and vision for the future of this Province. I assure you that kind of perspective and that kind of approach in this House of Assembly is not providing solid leadership, and is not providing good vision for the future of this Province.

When we move forward, Mr. Chair, over the next couple of weeks as we prepare to lay out a Budget –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KING: When we move forward, Mr. Chair, to lay out a Budget over the next couple of weeks, you will hear the minister and the Premier and others talk about the challenges that we face and the decisions that we make. We will talk about how things are going to look into the future.

For the member opposite who talks about development, and not being in favour of large development and wanting to do smaller development, there is nobody on this side of the House, not one single member here – and I suspect, with all due respect, that for the Opposition there is nobody there either – who would be against any kind of development in this Province if it is going to benefit the Province.

Let us not forget that the schools that the Minister of Education talked about, ten or fifteen or twenty minutes ago and the many positive initiatives that I talked about over the last eight or nine minutes or so, many of these things are happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. They are also happening because of the many developments happening in this Province.

Whether you like it or not – and the Leader of the NDP has expressed she does not like it. The fact of the matter is that oil brings revenue to this Province and it brings wealth that we are able to distribute throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. That includes all across the Province. It is where we get the money to make the investments in those important initiatives, important programs, and important infrastructure and facilities that are needed throughout the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Point of order, Mr. Chair.

I did not want to interrupt the Government House Leader. I just rise on a point of order; when I heard the Government House Leader say that the Budget consultations are meaningful and we listen, just on the point of order is that when they had the Budget consultations in Corner Brook, four groups who helped people find employment with disabilities presented. The Minister of Finance said: we will let you know on Budget Day; we will keep you in mind.

Four days later, they were notified that they were cut. The Budget consultations, you cannot say that we listen and we take it all, when I know personally – and the Minister of Natural Resources was at the meetings when they told the people they will let them know Budget Day – so please speak the way it is.

CHAIR: Thank you, there is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the last ten-minute segment, I spoke on rural development. I think I would like to speak on education now.

Mr. Chair, how can it be that at a time when we have more resources than ever before, our education system is in decline? Why are we failing our children? Why are we failing our citizens of tomorrow? Why are we failing ourselves?

I believe this decline can be attributed to three reasons. First of all, we have no tangible, measurable goals for our students – none. When can this minister stand up and say that we want to be number five in the country, number four in the country, number three in the country, number two, number one – why do we not go for the best? Because this minister fails to challenge us. He fails to challenge us, he does not set a goal, and people have nothing to aim for.

Second, this government places less importance on education than the last government did. The last government, with a $4 billion Budget, strained and scrimped, and put almost 15 per cent of that Budget into education. True, this government has increased the expenditures into education. They have increased the expenditures into education, and they have put it into buildings. They put it into buildings; they have not put it into people. They put it into fixing up old buildings, consolidating schools, and they put it into amalgamating boards that at this point, the eastern board, simply does not work at all.

The reason this government does this – and that is the third reason that we are failing our students – is that this government treats education as an expense. Correct? Do the members opposite agree that education is an expense? Because I say, Mr. Chair, that education is not an expense. Education is an investment. You pay for your education whether you get your education today, or whether you never get your education. Our society pays for education whether we educate people or whether we do not educate people.

The thing is that if we educate people today and we educate them as well as we can possibly educate them, then we reap the benefit for their lifetime. We reap the benefit for fifty years, sixty years, seventy years, as long as that person lives, because that person will generally be better employed, will better be able to access government benefits, will be a more highly productive member of society, and will require fewer supports, but this government is short-sighted. They do not believe in educating people. They believe in cutting corners. They believe in cutbacks, cutbacks, cutbacks.

The problem now is that due to waste and mismanagement, we are broke, and our students are doing worse than they did ten years ago. There is no prioritizing, they do not strategize, and they do not measure. So, Mr. Chair, why –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: I ask the question of the members opposite: Aren't we worthy of a world-class education system? Aren't we? Aren't we worthy of a world-class education system? We do not have it. I am not saying we do not have a good education system, but we do not have a world-class education system. Don't we have it among us the potential to be able to turn out the best scientists, the best doctors, the best engineers, and the best entrepreneurs? We are settling for too little.

This education system, the boys are being failed worse than the girls. This government is content to pump out scoop tram operators for Fort McMurray. That is not building our economy. The minister's view: If you can get a good job, go to another province, and bring your cheque back, then look at how highly paid we are. We are highly paid. We are not working here. We are not fully contributing to this economy.

The clear proof of our decline is the falling PISA scores. The minster says we are doing better and he will put our students up against other students, but he does not need to put our students up against other students because they are already up against students. They are up against other students when they are tested by the Programme for International Student Assessment from Paris. The minister can stick his head in the sand. He can act like the hillbilly Minister of Education from Newfoundland and Labrador, but when the results are analyzed worldwide, we are sliding. We are sliding in relation to the other provinces.

In 2009, this Province's fifteen-year-old students ranked sixth in science, sixth in literature or literacy, and eighth in math, and that is just not good enough. Why aren't we, as a have Province, at least in the top three? Why do we not look at other jurisdictions who are more successful than we are, rather than being afraid of success, rather just putting up more schools, and rather than just spending more money? Why don't we do this?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: Why don't we celebrate outstanding teachers? Many of us benefitted from outstanding teachers. Many of us have benefitted from the best teachers. They were teachers who were committed to teaching and teaching was treated as a higher profession when most of us were in school than teachers are treated today. Why don't we recognize at the level of the Premier teachers for high achievement? Wouldn't teachers appreciate that?

I think that when teachers or when anybody reaches a level of accomplishment, that they are making enough money for a comfortable living, they look for other types of recognition. They look for other opportunities to perform. Clearly, high-performing teachers should be recognized in our schools.

Then, Mr. Chair, what would be wrong with representing high performing administrators? Schools do not just run themselves. Teachers teach and administrators administer. We have schools in this Province where we have people who are performing multiple functions, multiple tasks in some of the smaller schools. At the time they are performing the task of being the principal, and also the math teacher or the physics teacher and also practically running the school.

I have seen some of these small schools with fewer than 100 students and these teachers are literally knocking themselves out day after day after day. Government can only look at them as being an overhead item, an expense item, when really they should be celebrated for what they bring to the table. They punch enough years in university, they get multiple degrees, then they perform in the education field for many, many years and they should be recognized.

If we had a plan for performing in education in this Province, as we should have a plan. I challenge the Minister of Education, the OECD – and I remind the minister that means the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development – has identified and profiled the top performing countries and the top performing provinces. We do not need to reinvent the wheel. We do not have to go out and try to do it all over again for ourselves. We do not build cars, we buy them. We do not build computers, we buy them.

We do not need to reinvent education but we certainly need to move education upscale in this Province. We simply need to apply what works. We need to go to other jurisdictions that perform better than we do; other jurisdictions who have been lower and have now gone higher. By comparing what those jurisdictions do we will be able to improve ourselves.

The single biggest determinant of how well a school system or an education system performs for students is not money. You cannot just throw money at the problem, stick your head in the sand and hope it is going to fix the problem because it will not. The biggest single determinant for how well an education system performs is the commitment in the culture, the commitment in the government, the commitment in the parents to have the best educational system.

Many nations who have far less income, far less resources than Canada, far less than this Province are outperforming us, and they are outperforming us because they have a plan. They respect education and they work at it.

Mr. Chair, once we have a plan, what do we do after we have a plan? If we have a plan to perform then clearly we must closely monitor performance. It is not good enough, for example, for the minister to have a school climate study and it is 260 or 270 pages long. The school climate study says that students –

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MR. BENNETT: The Member for Bay of Islands is entertaining enough that he even makes me stop, and he is on my side, I think, most days.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: In any event, we need to monitor performance when people perform better. Not just the people at the top, but the people who are working harder, who are further down the scale in performance and in grade performance.

We need to reward people, and not monetary rewards. We need to reward people with recognition and awards academically. We do it in sports, why don't we do it in education? If we do it in education we will have a better education system. We will turn out more leaders and better qualified citizens. That will help move our Province forward.

When we are trying to recruit somebody to come here from Calgary with an oil company or doctors to come here, they will look at our education system and say – they will not say, well I would like to go there but I really do not want to subject the kids to that education system because ours is better. We want them to come here because we have the best education system.

CHAIR: I would like to inform the hon. member his time is up.

MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Chair, I have about two minutes.

Mr. Chair, what I have heard from this member in his last two ten-minute addresses, I think has been one of the most insulting speeches I have seen delivered to – in commentary on our education system that I have ever, ever seen. If he were to deliver that speech in Ontario somewhere, and I would not doubt that he probably has, Mr. Chair. In some social settings, Mr. Chair, I can see this member standing up with his Ontario friends and saying what we have in Newfoundland and Labrador is a second-class education system.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hillbillies.

MR. JACKMAN: Hillbillies. Mr. Chair, I say this by no political means, I am deeply, deeply offended, deeply offended.

MR. BENNETT: A point of order.

CHAIR: A point of order.

MR. BENNETT: I did not refer to people as hillbillies; I referred to the Minister of Education as a hillbilly.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Chair, I invite him to come to Baine Harbour and meet some of my hillbilly friends.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Chair, I will end with this note. Today we had an address in this House of Assembly that is an insult to our education system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On that note, I would ask that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have asked leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the report be received?

MR. KING: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the Committee sit again?

MR. KING: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

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

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development, that the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, being Wednesday, Private Members' Day. We will convene at 2:00 o'clock.

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