The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings the Chair would like to welcome to the gallery today forty Grade 6 students from St. Patrick's School in Bay Bulls in the District of Ferryland. They are accompanied by their teachers, Tracy Smallwood and Greg Woolgar, and chaperones, Rosearrie O'Dea, Debbie Joyce, Maureen Walsh and Austin Hann, and bus driver, Christina Carey.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, as we all are aware, there was major flooding on the west coast, Corner Brook and the Bay of Islands area last week.

There were provincial workers, town council workers, and volunteers who went well beyond the call of duty to help with this tragedy.

One of the hardest hit areas in this flood was Cox's Cove, which is on the North Shore of the Bay of Islands.

Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the Cox's Cove Volunteer Fire Department for their contribution to the residents of Cox's Cove during this major flooding. As the severity of the flood progressed, the commitment and resolve of the fire department became evident.

They rescued seniors from their homes, controlled the traffic, pumped water out of people's basements, kept water levels lowered at crucial areas, moved personal belongings for residents and helped the town residents in any way possible.

Mr. Speaker, every firefighter who was available was on the scene. There were cases where some firefighters did not go to work in order to remain on the scene and had people fill in for them at work.

Mr. Speaker, every necessary piece of equipment, pumps, hoses, et cetera, were in use belonging to the fire department, the town council, residents and there were several who rented pumps. Many of those volunteers were on the scene up to twenty hours without any break or sleep to help their neighbors and families.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join me in congratulating this outstanding group of volunteers who once again proved that they are volunteers in name only, but their professionalism was very evident this past week.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I would like to offer congratulations to the Grade 6-1 and Grade 6-2 students at Cowan Heights Elementary School who graduated from the Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program. They are the first from the entire Northeast Avalon to graduate from this program. I had the pleasure this morning to attend the graduation, along with my colleague, the hon. Minister of Justice and Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, and I am sure he will agree with what I have to say today.

This program is offered by the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and by the RCMP in their respective jurisdictions as part of community policing.

Drug Abuse Resistance Education is a seventeen-week course offered to students in Grade 6. It is designed as an early intervention awareness of drug/substance abuse and bullying, both of which we know are at the centre of many societal problems. This program raises the self-esteem of students and gives them coping skills to help them stand firm against peer pressure. It involves a uniformed police officer who is the presenter, teachers who carry out a supportive role implementing and reinforcing, and of course, the families.

Congratulations to Marilyn Flower, Principal of Cowan Heights Elementary School, for being instrumental in bringing the program to the school; to Officer Brad Butler of the RNC, who offered the program and who, as Principal Flower said today, he went above and beyond; to the Grade 6 teachers at Cowan Heights Elementary, Mrs. Shute and Ms Norberg; and to the Role Model, Jonathan Penney. He was the young man from junior high who offered himself to answer any questions from these Grade 6 students on drug abuse and on the problems that they run into.

The DARE program had corporate sponsors: the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, Investors Group Inc., St. John's Maple Leafs Foundation, and VOCM Cares Foundation, all of whom should receive a vote of thanks.

The value of this program cannot be emphasized enough. It is far better to use resources for early intervention than to have to use them in a punitive or rehabilitative manner later.

Once again, congratulations to the graduates of the DARE program and to all who were involved in making it happen for them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, this is Members' Statements of private members. If we could get through all of those and then we will consider giving leave to the minister following when we conclude everyone else's, if that would be okay.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in this hon. House to congratulate a student from Marystown who participated in the Fifth Annual Adventis Biotech Challenge at Memorial University over the weekend.

Marystown's student, Jennifer Graham, placed second in the competition, hosted by Bio-East, the Newfoundland and Labrador Biotechnology Network. She submitted an exhibit which is part of a national campaign to promote science education and job opportunities in the field of biotechnology to junior high and high school students.

Mr. Speaker, her experiment looked at the problems to human health and equipment posed by fungi and other microorganisms on long-term space flight. Jennifer constructed a rotating platform on which fungus would be grown, a common black bread mould, and then took measurements to determine whether the reduced gravity would cause a difference in the growth rate.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Jennifer on doing extremely well at this prestigious competition, and the high quality of her work is a true testament to the future of biotechnology in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in this hon. House to ask members to join with me in congratulating Ms Christa Borden of Conception Bay South on her winning Popstars: The One.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: This was a national competition that began some six months ago with approximately 7,000 singers auditioning from across the country. Ms Borden eventually became part of a group of twelve semi-finalists who were eventually reduced to seven finalists, and they performed last night on national TV. Her performance of You Keep Me Hanging On, originally performed by the Supremes, was simply remarkable.

The judges evaluated the contestants based on musical talent, appearance, dancing ability and their drive for success.

Ms Borden is a shining example and an ambassador to the people of our Province that we can indeed compete at a national and international level.

The former Miss Teen Newfoundland and Labrador declared her victory a triumph for anyone from a small town with a dream.

Congratulations and good luck, Christa. I am sure we will be hearing your name for years to come.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday afternoon, April 4, I attended the funeral service in Happy Valley-Goose Bay for the late Dale Goudie. The service was truly a celebration of Ms Goudie's life, with many stories being shared about her humour, her forthrightness, her commitment to the community, and her love of the land she called home.

Messages from family and friends spoke of her strong family values, and the tremendous crowd that filled Bethel Pentecostal Church spoke to the love and respect that Dale held in the community.

Mr. Speaker, the singing of Harry Martin's Song, This is My Home, was a fitting tribute to a lady who had an obvious love of nature, a love of animals, and one who was very much in touch with the people and the land around her.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pass on our condolences to Dale's partner, Mayor John Hickey of Happy Valley, Goose Bay, Dale's children Anna, Janice and Charlene, her grandchildren Allison, Sydney, Paul and Nolan, her parents Gerald and Hilda Dyson, and all those family and friends who were touched by Dale throughout her life.

Thank you.

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

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: By leave?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to recognize the special achievements of Christa Borden, Canada's newest Popstar!

Last night in Toronto, in front of a live studio audience, Christa was judged the winner of the television show Popstars: The One. This victory comes at the end of a six month process involving some 7,000 stars from across the country. Her winning performance was a rendition of Marvin Gaye's, You Keep Me Hanging On.

For this achievement, Christa receives a recording contract and assistance to produce her first album from the best talent that the Canadian music industry has to offer. No doubt we will be hearing from her again in the future.

Christa is only twenty-two years old and comes from Chamberlains in my District of Topsail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: She is a graduate of Queen Elizabeth High School and is currently studying classical music at the Memorial University Music School. This is not her first time in the limelight. In 1998 she was named Miss Teen Newfoundland and Labrador and was one of the three talent finalists in that competition.

I know that her family is very proud of her: her mother Norma, her father Fred, and her brother Craig, along with the rest of her family, her community, and all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Her success shows all of us that the people of this Province can hold our own with the best from anywhere in any field of endeavour.

Mr. Speaker, Christa herself is quoted as saying, "The one thing I've learned from all of this is, it doesn't matter where you come from. If you believe, you will achieve."

This is a great motto for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the House to join with me in sending congratulations to Christa Borden for a fabulous performance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would like to take this opportunity to welcome to the House of Assembly today Mayor Paul Bolt of Grand Le Pierre. As well, I would like to welcome Mayor Rose of Bishop's Falls and Councillors Mills and Saunders.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last week I joined MHA's Bob Mercer and Eddie Joyce in visiting Corner Brook and other communities on the West Coast to witness the infrastructure and property loss caused by severe flooding one week ago. Premier Grimes visited the region on Friday. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, my colleague, Mr. Walsh, was in the area on the weekend.

Heavy rains caused shoulder washouts and flooded many roads in the areas, from the Codroy Valley to the Gros Morne Park and the north and south sides of the Bay of Islands. Some roads were closed, and others were reduced to a single lane of traffic.

Hundreds of homes in the region, businesses and infrastructure have been significantly damaged, with repair and replacement costs expected to reach millions of dollars, but it is too early to speculate on a total dollar figure.

Mr. Speaker, this Province is certainly not a stranger to flooding disasters. Less than two months ago, water and ice that gushed into the Town of Badger resulted in the evacuation of that community and extensive property and infrastructure damage. As the last of our unexpected visitors left the Province after the events of September 11, 2001, Tropical Storm Gabrielle damaged more than 1,200 homes in the Avalon area.

Once again, we have been fortunate that there were no fatalities. This is largely due to the response effort of firefighters, community volunteers and government officials who were quick in their response.

On Monday, March 31, there was a landslide on the Trans-Canada Highway in the Gallant's-George's Lake area. The following day a bridge partially collapsed in the same area. As a result, the Trans-Canada was closed for a portion of that day, with it opening to light vehicles on Tuesday evening.

On Tuesday, Route 450, on the south side of the Bay of Islands, was closed after a landslide in the John's Beach area.

Crews worked around the clock to open roads. On Wednesday evening, the Department of Works, Services and Transportation was able to open the road in John's Beach and Thursday night the installation of a temporary bailey bride on the Trans Canada Highway was completed to allow heavy traffic through. I have been advised by the minister that a new bridge will be constructed in this location.

Other repairs may have to be carried out to roadways and bridges over the next month or so. This will be determined after water levels recede and departmental engineers are able to do detailed assessments.

The Province will once again be approaching the federal government for participation and compensation under the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements. As office to handle claims for submission to the Emergency Measures Organization has been set up at the Fire Commissioners Office in Deer Lake, which was open throughout the weekend. Claims packages are also available at most municipal council offices in the region.

Financial assistance will be provided to homeowners to repair homes to pre-flood conditions and replace essential appliances, furniture and other items.

Provincial Adjusting Services Ltd., which has an office in Corner Brook, has been appointed to co-ordinate claims adjustors. They will subcontract to other provincial adjusting firms as necessary.

I was certainly very pleased with the response from the Fire Commissioners Office, the Emergency Measures Organization and engineering officials from my department. These individuals continue to meet the challenges that face them.

On behalf of the Minister Walsh, Works, Services and Transportation, I would like to recognize the response effort of the staff of that department for their efficient response and hard work.

Many communities were affected by last week's flood, where volunteer councils and community leaders have been tasked with dealing with the damage to community infrastructure and concerns of residents.

We recognize the greatness of this responsibility and will work with councils and community representatives in returning communities to normal.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the day before the minister and the members for the district arrived, myself and Mr. Michael Monaghan from the district actually visited the community. I apologize to this hon. House for being out of the House on those particular days, but I felt that, because of the seriousness of the matter, I should visit the district immediately. As soon as I arrived in town, I met with the Mayor and city officials and got a briefing. I had a chance to view the significant damage, of course, in the City of Corner Brook, basically from the volume and the velocity of the water that moved in such a very short period of time. I was satisfied on arriving there, though, that the city had the matter very well under control, that city workers were out on the job and certainly had secured the sites, and felt that they were safe and had been restored.

As well, that afternoon I also went down to Curling where there was some significant damage as well. It is startling, actually, when you look at it. There was a major, major scour came right down through the side of the hill. A car was precariously hanging over a ledge there. I went with the fire chief. Actually, I got rear-ended while I was down there, by the way, by a reporter. An unfortunate circumstance. I have been ambushed by the press but it is the first time I have ever been rear-ended. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I went down there with the fire chief and the deputy fire chief and viewed the damage that was there, and, actually, discovered there were some concerns of safety, particularly with the provision of water in the area. Of course, the fire department was very concerned that if, in fact, a fire broke out that hydrants were secure.

MR. MERCER: (Inaudible).

MR. WILLIAMS: The Member for Humber East, this is a serous matter, if you do not mind. If you would just allow me to finish, please.

So, anyway, we went there. Then we left that evening because I was informed there was some significant damage in Bay of Islands District. Myself and Mr. Monaghan then left and went down to Bay of Islands and went down to Cox's Cove to view the damage there. It was a much different situation. Instead of sort of scouring from, again, the volume and the velocity of water, there was more of a pooling effect that occurred down there. There was some twenty-five to twenty-six homes that had suffered some very serious damage. Two homes, in particular, that I noticed, were actually down in the basements underneath them. They had structural damage where, in fact, the basement walls had imploded.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WILLIAMS: By leave.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. WILLIAMS: So, we had an opportunity to have a look at that. Of course, I was really impressed, as the minister said, with the work of the volunteer fire department down there, and, of course, as the member acknowledged as well, a dozen people had gotten out and worked through the night, and worked in such a manner that they alleviated a very serious problem. It was sad, of course, to see that. One woman, in particular, was in tears in her home because her groceries had, in fact, been flooded and were soaking wet.

The following day I went down with Kathy Goudie and we went to look at the damage in the Jackson's Arm area. We were satisfied there and stopped and spoke with the crews. I compliment the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation on the work that was done by his crews in that particular area.

Again, as well, I need to point out, in the shortness of time that I have here, because I notice here the minister has indicated that the Province will be approaching the federal government. Well, that was a particular concern of mine because of the relationship that the Province has with the federal government. We know what happened in Stephenville. We know what happened in Gander. So I took it upon myself to make a direct contact with the minister, Mr. Gerry Byrne, the federal minister who is responsible for this particular Province and the area, and had his assurance, his solid assurance, that he was on top of the issue. He was all over it and he gave me his commitment that he would provide that funding. So I was very, very pleased to get that assurance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Finally, on the third day that I was there, I went down to the other side of the Bay of Islands District. We went down and viewed the repairs that were done in the Frenchman's Cove and John's Beach area, a significant washout there that had been restored as quickly as possible. We stopped again, and spoke to the crews there, and was satisfied that they were working around the clock and working diligently.

So I compliment our workers, I compliment our councils, and I compliment the EMO officials who were there, and as well, the volunteer fire department who seem to be getting by with sparse funds from the minister who does not see fit to give them proper funding.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was not there when the rains came down so I cannot participate in the play-by-play description and I want to confirm -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: - and I want to confirm -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will say that I have a lot of respect for the volunteers who came forward immediately and worked so hard day and night to ensure that their communities did not suffer any more than they would have from this disaster. It is something that is very significant and important, that we keep having these incidents related somehow to extreme weather situations. We have to have emergency responses ready to operate, and I will note there has been a quick reaction by the government in setting up the office. I think this is noteworthy in this particular case, and I do hope that the federal government will participate quickly and fully on this issue, where we have seen problems and a lack of response in such issues as the Gander Weather Office and the Stephenville-Port Harmon situation. I do hope that they will response positively here and that our own crews and workers can put this damage back together again as quickly as possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister for Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to announce that a new Labrador Benefits Agreement has been signed with five unions, representing public sector employees in Labrador.

This agreement benefits approximately 1,600 workers, including those with the provincial government departments, the Labrador School Board, and Health Labrador. It is effective from April 1, 2002 and expires on March 31, 2005, and includes provisions for increased travel allowance and places a focus on enhancing benefits for employees who work in isolated communities. The annual cost of this agreement is approximately $8.65 million.

Mr. Speaker, the Labrador Benefits Agreement was first established in 1990. This latest agreement will help address recruitment and retention concerns in Labrador brought about by the higher cost of living and isolation in the region.

Mr. Speaker, I must commend my colleague, the President of Treasury Board, and her staff for their hard work in negotiating this agreement. In the last twenty-two months, our government has successfully negotiated thirty-two contracts with unions representing more than 37,000 public sector workers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, we have provided our unionized workers with their greatest salary increase in over a decade. Our government is committed to maintaining a strong public service through recognition of their hard work and by respecting the collective bargaining process.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for a copy of his statement in advance. As the minister has said, this is a continuation of a program that was first established in 1990 and it will continue for another two years, which is very good news. It is much needed to take care of the special needs of the public sector employees in Labrador and put to rest any concerns they have. This will rightfully see the continuation of a strong public service in Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

This benefits agreement, Mr. Speaker, goes a long way to restoring confidence in the public sector workers in Labrador and, as stated in the statement, will address recruitment and retention. It will also provide an opportunity to bring the public sector workers in line with that of benefits received by most of the private sector workers in Labrador. I would also like to commend the union negotiators and their members -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: - commend the union negotiators and their members for the hard work that they put into reaching this agreement and for their patience in getting an agreement that took quite a while to reach.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House to advise members that the Province's Small Business Advisory Council held its first meeting in St. John's on Friday past.

One of the priorities for action outlined in government's Renewal Strategy for Jobs and Growth released in March 2001 was the commitment to establish a Small Business Advisory Council. Appointments to the council were made in October 2002. Mr. Speaker, given how busy these people are, the first time all council members were available to meet was last week.

The council is a sounding board for new small business development initiatives being contemplated by government and will advise me, in my capacity as Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, on appropriate measures government should consider to help stimulate and grow the small business sector in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, the members of the council represent a broad range of small business enterprises from across the Province and include the following representatives: Harvey Short of Paradise, who is serving as the Chair; Darrell Bennett of Happy Valley-Goose Bay; Karen Matthews of Corner Brook; Des Dillon of Gander; Graham Wood of Grand Bank, Gordon Hopkins of Bay Roberts; Cathy Ivany of St. John's, Nena Abundo of St. John's; Marilyn Thompson, who is representing the Newfoundland and Labrador Chamber of Commerce; George Yates of Springdale, representing Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters; and Brad George, representing the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

At the first meeting, we discussed a wide range of important topics related to growing the small business sector in Newfoundland and Labrador, including government programs and services available to small businesses, recent budget initiatives including the establishment of a Red Tape Reduction Committee, workers' compensation issues and access to capital for small businesses.

This initiative reflects government's ongoing commitment to growing the Province's small business community and builds on the aggressive pro-business measures we have implemented over the past several years, including the new measures announced in Budget 2003.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the members of the Small Business Advisory Council for sharing their time and expertise with government to ensure that the small business sector is provided every opportunity to be successful.

I was pleased to participate in this successful first meeting and look forward to working closely with the council as we work together in the best interests of small business in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, let me first join with the minister in complimenting and congratulating the individuals mentioned in her release for taking their time to donate to the people of the Province and to share their, I guess, invaluable experience as small business men and women in terms of what direction a government should be moving.

Mr. Speaker, to the real issue, there is nothing like the eve of an election to stimulate a government. Fourteen years into a mandate and now they are talking about a Red Tape Reduction Committee. Fourteen years into a mandate and they are starting to talk about what we can do to the sector to our economy that employs 85 per cent of the people in the Province. Well, I would say to the government, it is about time they woke up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Frankly, Mr. Speaker, what we have heard in the last several years, in particular in the last two, in speaking to small business, here is what they want: They want a government to stop taxing jobs. Eliminate the payroll tax, is what people have said to us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: They want to have access to incentives from government based upon what they know, not based upon who they know, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to join in recognizing the importance of the role of small business in our Province, but I do have to question, when the government says it was one of its priorities in March, 2001 -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: I do have to question, Mr. Speaker, when the government says it was one of its priorities in March, 2001, that they did not appoint the council until October, 2002, and the first meeting did not take place for two years later. I really wonder how high it is on the government's agenda.

Also, Mr. Speaker, in terms of representation , I do not see anyone here from the West Coast, other than one person -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - and no representation from the Northern Peninsula.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier.

If I may, Mr. Speaker, before I start, I would like to acknowledge the staff and the students from St. Patrick's in Bay Bulls. That is where my family came from, and that is where my roots are all from, so it is certainly nice to see you here and hopefully some day we will see some of the students actually sitting here in the House. Myself and Mr. Sullivan will be ready in about fifteen or twenty years to step down, so there will be some seats available.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when the government brought down its election budget just two weeks ago, they justified quadrupling the deficit and increasing the Province's debt to well over $11 billion by saying they were only listening to the will of the people. In that same breath, the Minister of Finance said she plans to privatize the provision of long-term care in Corner Brook.

Mr. Speaker, the Romanow Commission into Canada's health care system recently reported that the overwhelming majority of Canadians do not want a private health care system. My question for the Premier is this: Why is it that his government is prepared to listen to the people in order to justify its election budget, but is not prepared to listen to the people when it comes to privatizing health care? Could it be that government is only interested in listening to the people when it suits their political agenda?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition is asking questions about long term care in Corner Brook, because all through the last year or so the public record, which is stated here in the local papers, The Western Star and The HUMBER LOG, indicates that he has changed his position with respect to whether or not long term care is a priority in Corner Brook on five occasions so far.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting today that the Leader of the Opposition would want to completely and totally misrepresent what we are trying to accomplish in Corner Brook. What we are trying to accomplish in Corner Brook, Mr. Speaker, is publicly funded health care available for people who badly need long term care in the area, also in Avalon North and here in St. John's; publicly funded health care done in a manner that involves the private sector so that we can afford to do it today rather than have people wait another five, six, eight, ten, twelve or fifteen years.

Mr. Speaker, if he now wants to explain to the people of Corner Brook and the people of the Province what his position is on the provision of long term care and how important it is and whether or not it is a priority, I would gladly hear it, as would, I am sure, the people of the Province.

Our position is clear. We understand there is a great need, we understand the need is immediate and we understand that there is an opportunity to provide for that need through publicly funded health care, Mr. Speaker, properly provided so that there would be the same level or an improved level of care managed and run so we can start doing it now, instead of waiting for ten or fifteen years, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is a very big difference between publicly funded and publicly controlled health care and publicly funded and privately controlled health care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: For the record, Mr. Speaker, our government will build that long term health care facility in Corner Brook, but it won't be built by buddies of the Liberal Government of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, on March 18 of this year, the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour issued a policy statement on public and private partnerships, which specific references to the consequences of privatizing health care. In that report, John Loxley, the Author of The Other Side of the Ledger, said that such arrangements are an expensive way of cooking the books, by converting capital costs to lease costs, increasing -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to his question.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

- increasing long term expenditures and leaving the real financial burden for taxpayers and future governments.

Mr. Speaker, would the Premier not agree that the private sector is in business to make a profit and by privatizing long-term health care facilities, it is the citizens and government that pays the premiums to these private developers?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do appreciate when the Leader of the Opposition speaks because every time he speaks we do learn something a bit new about the type of person he is and the kinds of views of the world that he does share.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, what we have heard him describe today is that he feels when a government provides for something as important as long-term care, that they are spending their own money - talk about his Liberal money. There is no such thing as the government's money or Liberal money or PC money. It is the people's money, Mr. Speaker, that we are trying to spend on what the people have decided to be a priority for them.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure now -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: I am sure now -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I must say, if members continue to interrupt the Chair will have no other choice but to name them.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure now that the people of Corner Brook, the committee that I met with when I was there on Thursday evening, all the council I met with on Friday who are trying to find a way to work with the government so that we can provide for the long-term care needs in Corner Brook, I am sure they are delighted now to know that the official position today - because it will change again I am sure three or four more times in the next little while - from the Leader of the Opposition, is that he is opposed to what the government of the day is trying to do to meet the needs immediately.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer, quickly.

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, maybe we are getting an insight into some of the platform. We have heard about a department of small business, that will answer directly to the Leader of the Opposition, if he ever becomes the Premier -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer, quickly.

PREMIER GRIMES: - and we have heard that they are going to build a long-term care facility in Corner Brook. So maybe he would lay out the rest of the platform as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, officials from Western Memorial Health Care Corporation told me that their estimates show that it will cost government $50 million to $55 million to construct a new long-term health care facility in Corner Brook. Yet, on Friday, the Premier told a committee or a group of stakeholders that it could cost taxpayers $70 million to construct the facility using a public-private partnership.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if it is cheaper to use the private sector to build long-term care facilities, why is this proposal costing taxpayers an extra $15 million or $20 million? Is it that the profit margin he expects to give a private company is $15 million to $20 million of taxpayers' money?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In answering the question, let me point out again the desperate nature of the Leader of the Opposition. The headline in the Western Star, "Long-term care facility for city is not a high priority: Williams."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER GRIMES: Let me read it again, Mr. Speaker, because we just heard him say: If we are elected, we will build it. That is what we heard here today. However, in the Western Star, Friday, October 18, 2002, not that long ago, just before Christmas, "Long-term care facility for city is not a high priority: Williams." It goes on to say - and this needs to be read into the record, Mr. Speaker, "However, Williams has said that the problems in health care should be looked at in a priority sequence and it may become evident that a long-term care facility in the City of Corner Brook is not the most pressing need at the moment."

Now, Mr. Speaker, he was brave enough to say that in October. Today, because he wants to be opposed to the government, he is saying: If we are elected, never mind anything else, never mind looking at the books - which is the answer he gives for everything else -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer, quickly.

PREMIER GRIMES: - we must look at the books. We cannot make commitments because we do not know the state of the affairs, the financial affairs of the Province. Today he is willing to stand up and say: We will build (inaudible) in Corner Brook.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier refused to answer a $20 million question as to where the taxpayers' money is going.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, people should not be surprised that this government is once again attempting to privatize health care. We had seen it before when this government contracted Trans City Holdings to construct a number of hospitals across this Province. The courts later found that this government contravened the Public Tender Act in order to award the contract to a company with strong Liberal ties. It ended up costing taxpayers millions of dollars in subsequent lawsuits.

Mr. Speaker, would the Premier not agree that the people have very good reason to be concerned about this government's efforts to once again privatize health care, given their deplorable record of achievement in taking care of friends with strong Liberal connections?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can report to the House of Assembly, to everyone gathered, and to the people of the Province through our televised Legislature - an initiative of the Liberal government - that what the Leader of the Opposition indicated was never said in the meetings, Mr. Speaker. The meetings were held on Thursday evening. The committee was delighted with the open and frank approach taken. Their questions were asked and answered. This is what they understand. They understand that we will not privatize health care. We will absolutely not privatize health care, Mr. Speaker. This government will not do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, they do understand that nobody under any circumstances, whether the government builds it through a public tender process or whether we find a way for someone else to build it through a call for proposals, or an expression of interest, that the value and cost of it cannot be determined until we get the first bids. There are some estimates that range anywhere from $50 million to $70 million today. We are hopeful it might even be less than that, Mr. Speaker, and that is what we would find out when we go through a process of having an Expression of Interest and going out for actual proposals.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer, quickly.

PREMIER GRIMES: Again, it is instructive though to see the Leader of the Opposition being consistently inconsistent, which is the one thing we can count on in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. It is done and shown here again today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the record, I spoke with the member of that committee last night who was very, very concerned about the privatization of health care services in Corner Brook, and, as well, mentioned a figure of $70 million, which came from the Premier, which he was staggered by. That is for the record, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the experience in the United States and Britain from privatization of health care has been an erosion of services. In Britain there has been a dramatic decline in health care services, and in the United States numerous deaths have been attributed to substandard privatized auxiliary services caused by malnutrition and infections. Would the Premier not agree that as a result of the lack of public control, dietary services, cleaning services, maintenance services and standard of care, may all suffer in order to achieve the profit for the private sector operator?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have heard some pretty good attempts at fearmongering before, but when we are talking about long-term care and our elderly people, Mr. Speaker, who need the care and are looking forward to having it provided in quality modern facilities, I think it is absolutely disgraceful what is being presented here today in the manner of fearmongering.

Mr. Speaker, what the people of the Province do know is this, we have a constant position. We have indicated that we treat this as a priority. It will be publicly funded health care. We are not interested in private health care. We are not interested in anything other than national standards for health care anywhere in the Province, guaranteed by the government, whatever arrangement is there. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition who, when he was asked by the same paper whether it was a priority or not, wrote a letter to the editor in which he gave two different positions in the same letter. One saying: I cannot give a commitment to this because I do not know how much money we will have to work with if I form the government; and in the same letter, the next paragraph saying: however, I want to assure the residents in Corner Brook that a new long-term facility is a priority for me.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I know he wants to be everything to everybody everyday. But, Mr. Speaker, he has to make (inaudible) he stands.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, government say that privatizing health care services will result in a more efficient and a less expensive delivery of services. Based on this government's record of achievement in privatizing health care, the Trans City experience shows that privatizing is not cheaper. In fact, the cost of those lawsuits advertised was nearly $20 million.

Mr. Speaker, can the Premier confirm that costs will, in fact, be managed by hiring people with low levels of training to provide patient care? Is that how the Premier plans to cut costs?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do understand why the members opposite are getting somewhat embarrassed by the line of questioning. Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition now wants to insult the people who are providing long-term care to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in our facilities today. The staff mixes consist of nurses, licensed practical nurses and personal care attendants. The commitment that we have given to the people in Corner Brook is that national standards for staffing will be guaranteed. That is what will be in the proposal that goes out for an Expression of Interest, that they absolutely have to provide a standard of service that is there, that meets the national standards.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, in every single area, the people of the Province would be delighted, would be absolutely delighted, if the government could stand up and say that in this area of service we are meeting the national standard, in this area of service we are meeting the national standard, in this area of service we are meeting the national standard.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: The national standard will be guaranteed, and that puts nobody at risk, not here, not in Nova Scotia, not in Ontario, not in Alberta, not in British Columbia, nowhere, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier to take his seat.

PREMIER GRIMES: It is a national standard that is guaranteed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just have a couple of brief questions for the Minister of Education.

Minister, it has been brought to our attention that there is a serious problem with respect to a school in your district, namely the school on New World Island. It has been brought to our attention that the problem I am speaking of is one of mould. This school, as I understand it, is 60 per cent to 70 per cent complete and this issue of mould is one that is of great concern to the residents in the area. I would ask the minister, firstly, could he confirm if, in fact, this is the case, and, secondly, explain the seriousness and the extent to which this particular problem exists?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member is correct; there is a problem with mould and it occurred during the construction phase of the building. We know what the problem is. We have had experts in there examining it, and we have a program set in place to remediate that problem and it should start as early as next Monday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand that the brick, or certainly some of the interior brick, has to be removed, siding has to be removed, much of the structural features have to be remediated, which leads to the question, I guess, of: Who is really responsible?

My next question, I guess, is really to either the Minister of Education or perhaps to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. How is it, on a multi-million dollar project, a capital works project, an $8 million project, that we see a situation where mould exists? Where is the monitoring? Where is the inspection regime? Where is the management and maintenance of such a project? How can this happen, and what assurances will the people of this Province be given that major projects like this will not experience what has taken place in New World Island at potentially the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps leading to $1 million, of Newfoundlanders' and Labradorians' money?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: I will let my colleague, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, address the issue of who is to blame for this; but, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you when you are talking about bricks having to be removed and siding having to be removed, I would like to assure the people of New World Island that we will remove the whole building if that is what is required to make that building a safe place for the kids of New World Island to go to school.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Each Member of the House of Assembly has the opportunity to hire a political assistant. Some members who are a part of Cabinet have the opportunity to hire more than one. The Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the NDP, all have the right to hire their political staff as they wish. Civil service positions on the other hand, Mr. Speaker, should fall under rules and regulations of the Public Service Commission. To do otherwise is an affront to the union movement and an insult to career civil servants.

Contrary to remarks made by the Premier in a March edition of The Telegram, that the Liberals have not used contractual positions as a way of stacking the public service with Liberal supporters, I have to admit that just the opposite of this statement is true.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier today why his government continues to ignore the Public Service Commission and continues to find jobs for loyal Liberal supporters in the public service without going through a competition process?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think we dealt with that issue appropriately last week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, with the list I have, we could be here all next week dealing with this issue.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the Premier's statement in The Telegram, I would like to ask the Premier: How does he explain the appointment of a former executive assistant to the present Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods to the position of policy advisor to that same minister? This position, which pays an annual salary in excess of $50,000, was not advertised or competed for. Can the Premier please tell us who held this position before the recent appointment was put in place?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say again, I believe we dealt with that appropriately last week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, can the Premier confirm for this House that even though several Cabinet ministers have recently vacated their portfolios, that all - I repeat, all - except two persons that were hired as political appointments, such as executive assistants, public relations people and personal assistants, have been "taken care of" through the public service?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I indicate again the exact line of questioning last week, and we do know that the member himself was taken care of when he was defeated in the last election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

Ten years ago, when the Liberal government tried to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, we took the position that, instead, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro should be taking over Newfoundland Power. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Consumer Advocate appointed by this government has stated that tens of millions of dollars per year could be saved by a merger of the two entities, Mr. Speaker, and the Consumers Group for Fair Gas Prices has also agreed with that position. Can the Premier indicate that this is a policy that should be pursued by this government? Do they not recognize that a fully integrated public energy corporation could be more efficient and also a vehicle for conservation, for economic growth in this Province, and also enable us to have greater control over our own energy policy in Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question. I do understand the comments were made by the Consumer Advocate, I believe, on Friday. Certainly, the Minister of Mines and Energy will look into the matter. My understanding of it is that everyone who was in this Legislature at that time - that there was no vote and no action taken to privatize. The debate was held. The people who were here at the time were certainly opposed to it, in terms of Opposition members. However, the Leader of the Opposition at that time, out in the public sector, the private sector, was supporting the government of the day, and Premier Wells, and encouraging him to continue on with the privatization of Hydro. So we will certainly investigate the relative merits of what the Consumer Advocate has put forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Why can the people of Newfoundland and Labrador not look forward to their own energy corporation, just as the people of Quebec have Hydro-Quebec to be an important engine of economic growth for their province, to control energy policy, to be big enough and strong enough to be able to market Labrador power and to also try and get some control over the Upper Churchill contract? Why can't we have that kind of vision, as a corporation that we own for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that includes Newfoundland and Labrador Power and doesn't just feed the needs of Fortis to have worldwide ambitions and fill the pockets of their shareholders? Why can't we do that, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, we have a review of the electricity policy for the Province undergoing for some time now. I am in the process of reviewing what has been done and will be making recommendations to government in a short time.

The hon. member should know that our commitments are to make sure that we use Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to the best advantage of the citizens of our Province and that we organize it in a fashion so that it delivers power to rate payers in our Province at the cheapest possible price.

We are prepared to look at whatever options may be appropriate to determine how that may be done. We issued a consultation paper about a year ago. In that, we raised a number of options including the option of combining the two electricity firms operating in the Province. That is something that is now being addressed by hearings before the Public Utilities Board. It is something that is being addressed in the advice that I will be giving to government in the near future, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago a representative of Newfoundland Power speculated on whether or not Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro was for sale. Will the minister, or will the Premier, confirm that there have been no indications given by this government to Newfoundland Power or Fortis as to whether Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is for sale? Will he ensure to the people of this Province that they are not contemplating the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Yes, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is not for sale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: If there is to be a combination -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. NOEL: If there is to be a combination of these two organizations, Mr. Speaker, it will not be done under the watch of the member of this House who stood up and fought against the privatization of Hydro when it was being -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister now to conclude his answer quickly.

MR. NOEL: Apparently, Mr. Speaker, what the Premier is saying is right, contrary to the position of the Leader of the Opposition at that time who apparently was in favour of privatizing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to do whatever makes the most sense for our Province, and whatever enables us to use Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to accomplish as much as possible for the Province, and whatever is necessary to make sure that electricity rates in the Province are as low as possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

In March of 1999, a special warrant was issued to provide seed money for the Newfoundland and Labrador Legacy Nature Trust. Of course, these warrants were issued contrary to the Financial Administration Act, as there was no emergency. In fact, the Legacy was not formally established until some time later and money was locked away for safe keeping in the executive offices.

Each year, since 2000, the Legacy Nature Trust has accessed $200,000 a year from the public Treasury for a total of $800,000. Article 12 of the incorporation documents requires the directors of the Legacy Nature Trust to submit an annual report to the government together with its audited financial statements. In the interest of openness and transparency, will the minister confirm that government has received an annual report with audited statements for the past four years; and, since this Trust has received $800,000 of taxpayers' money, will the minister table these documents in the House of Assembly?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of ensuring that the public have a clear understanding of the Legacy Nature Trust, I think the first issue I should address is the fact that the Trust was given $1 million just in that vein, in trust, and they were asked to use this trust to raise money for the purposes of increasing conservation work and bringing money into the Province, particularly to work for stewardship to develop it throughout the Province. They were permitted, under the terms of the agreement that structured this, to spend up to $200,000 a year on administration, as the member has referred to. Mr. Speaker, what I will confirm is that, because of a slow start-up with the Legacy Nature Trust, in fact, they have not spent $800,000, as the member opposite is suggesting. They have been prudent with the use of the money, and they have nurtured it in order to use it for just the purpose that we have asked them to do, which is to bring in new dollars for conservation, for natural heritage. In fact, Mr. Speaker, at this point they have spent approximately $200,000 in total.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to Ministerial Statements today, while I was up speaking, the Premier shouted out: Why don't you sit down and shut up out of it, boy. Mr. Speaker, it truly is an unparliamentary comment and I ask you to ask the Premier to withdraw it.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, let me say this to the Premier, that if he starts issuing advice like that, maybe it is he, himself, when he is out gallivanting around or talking to different groups, who should take his own advice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair did not hear any such comments, and therefore there is no point of order.

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I understand you have ruled there is no point of order and, of course, we fully concur with the ruling and appreciate it, because no such commentary was made. So, Mr. Speaker -

MR. E. BYRNE: That was so said, and everyone over there (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we are aware of and what we are witnessing is a standard diversionary tactic by the Opposition when they are having a bad day, to try to suggest something happened that did not happen in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, and I take offense to it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I could have -

MR. E. BYRNE: You know you said it (inaudible).

PREMIER GRIMES: Oh, you saw something, did you? You saw something!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: He is lip-reading now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: That is not easy to do.

MR. NOEL: Oh, that is not easy to do. He is no Andy Wells.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order related to Question Period. As is my normal inclination, I stand after the Question Period, which the rules of the House advocate.

I could have risen many times on this particular point of order, several times during this session. It is a matter that I thought I should have risen on, because hon. members may not be familiar with it. A lot of hon. members may not be familiar, that welcoming people to the Galleries, welcoming people to the House of Assembly, is the prerogative of Mr. Speaker. That is why we have developed, over the years, the procedure of writing notes to Mr. Speaker to tell him and inform him that somebody is in the Galleries and would he please welcome them.

As with all parliamentary rules, that is done for a very, very particular reason. It is to prevent members, Mr. Speaker, from playing to the Galleries, as members might do, and cause all kinds of disorder. So, a tradition in this House of welcoming members to he Gallery is the prerogative of Mr. Speaker, and to do otherwise is an offence to the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition today - and though that might be done from time to time, the place that it must be prevented, the place that it cannot be allowed, is in Question Period, when we are to ask questions without any preambles and not to take up unnecessary time of the House by welcoming visitors which is against the rules.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in the ten years that I have been here, anyway, while that is a rule and a parliamentary rule, I have witnessed, Mr. Speaker, lenience being provided by the Chair. For example, on many occasions I have seen ministers opposite, and even former ministers, not only make Ministerial Statements but bring people into the gallery, refer to their presence, say what a great job they are doing to support government programs.

The point that I am making is this: If we going to get so picky to the point where we cannot even welcome people to the gallery, as private members, and we want to enforce the rules in Beauchesne and under our own Standing Orders, well, Mr. Speaker, we certainly can do that. I am not sure that the people of the Province ultimately will win if we want to become so narrow- minded in our thinking that, in referencing someone in the gallery, or a visitor, that any member, whether it be the Leader of the Opposition or any member of this House, irrespective of what side they sit on, cannot make a passing reference to say it is nice to see so-and-so in the gallery, if it comes to that, I am not convinced that sort of narrow- mindedness is really going to work for the people of the Province or for members in this Legislature.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: I am as reasonable as any person is this House, and understand when we can make those passing references, Mr. Speaker, and probably it is because we did not nip it in the bud that we had it today in Question Period.

I say, Mr. Speaker, Question Period is not a place to allow it, above all other places in the House, because of the reasons that I have articulated earlier. Because of the reasons why we leave that responsibility to Mr. Speaker, it ought not be permitted in Question Period.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the Chair has noticed on a number of occasions particularly in this last session that members on both sides of the House have taken it on themselves, even after the Chair has introduced people and welcomed them to the Assembly, to do that again for a second time, and even on a third time it has occurred.

As the hon. Government House Leader has said, this is not an acceptable practice in most jurisdictions although there are some jurisdictions that do have a part of their Standing Orders and their Routine Proceedings where members can introduce distinguished people from their own constituencies. That is not a general practice in this House and it has not been a general practice in most of the jurisdictions across Canada. As a matter of fact, in some jurisdictions, in any reference to the gallery, members would be immediately reprimanded for doing that. So, I ask hon. members to refrain from referencing people in the gallery and leave that to the Chair.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to table the 2001-2002 Annual Report for the Department of Justice. I am also pleased to table for hon. members, five reports from agencies which report to the Department of Justice, namely: the Sheriff's Office, Legal Aid, Human Rights Commission, Provincial Court, and the Public Utilities Board.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to table for your information today the 2001-2002 Annual Report for the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, the Municipal Assessment Agency, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation. Copies have been forwarded for distribution to the members through Mr. John Noel, Clerk of the Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to table the 2001-2002 Annual Report for the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

I am also pleased to table for hon. members, six reports from agencies reporting to my department: the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council; the Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage Corporation; the Newfoundland and Labrador Film Development Corporation; the Marble Mountain Development Corporation; the Special Celebrations Corporation, and the Heritage Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Many of my department's activities require close co-operation and partnership with public bodies and with other levels of government, and I want to acknowledge the dedication and hard work of these public bodies and volunteers in all areas during the mandate on the review.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition. The petition reads: To the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, in legislative session convened;

The petition of the undersigned residents of Lethbridge, Bonavista Bay, in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

WHEREAS the stretch of gravel road situated in Lethbridge between the Discovery Trail and Route 234 is in deplorable condition and in desperate need of paving;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to pave the approximately point seven kilometres of road located between the Discovery Trail and Route 234.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is the second petition that I have presented here. I think I presented one in the last session. This is the first one this session, as it relates to this 700 metres of gravel road situated in Lethbridge. What it is, is a road where in excess of forty people live, 700 metres of road that travels beside Route 230. It is a gravel road. There have been many new homes built on this section of road, and the people are asking that their road be paved. They are not asking that the road be upgraded. The road is in fairly good condition now, for a gravel road, as far as the width and the surface of the road. What they are asking is that they be afforded the privilege of being able to go and open their windows in the summertime. They are asking that they be afforded the privilege of being able to go and have clothes hung on the line in the summertime.

When the weather dries and when we get into June and July, the Department of Works, Services and Transportation will go and put calcium chloride on this section of roadway. While, yes, it will keep the dust under control, Mr. Speaker, then the residents who live on this particular road are faced with another problem where all of this calcium chloride, and the mud that is produced from it, is then tracked in over the homes where people live in that area.

Mr. Speaker, people are asking for the government to look at this section of road in this year's capital works budget. It is 700 metres, point seven of a kilometre, and ask that they be afforded not the luxury but the necessity of having some pavement put on this section of road where there is in excess of twenty houses and over forty people live. Mr. Speaker, they are not asking for water and sewer. They are not asking for sidewalks. They are not asking for streetlights. All they are asking for is that their road be brought up to a standard to compare with road conditions that should exist in the year 2003.

Mr. Speaker, those people have asked and met with me about this section of road. They have met with the former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. They have written letters. They asked for this road to be included last year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Just a minute to clue up, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: They asked to be included last year, but the government of the day saw fit not to include that section of roadway. So they are pleased, through their member, through me, to ask the government and ask the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to include this section of roadway, point seven of a kilometre, to be paved this year under the government's Capital Works project.

Thank you.

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

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition today from some 1,471 residents of Western Newfoundland, from the Corner Brook-Humber Valley-Bay of Islands region, down through Stephenville, Port aux Basques, up the coast as far as St. Anthony.

It is a petition that I have presented several times in this House before calling upon the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to begin immediate construction of a long-term health care facility. It was my intent simply to table this today because, in my view, the events of the Budget past has overtaken this petition because the government of this Province has made a commitment that we will, in fact, initiate the construction, or the call for proposals, expressions of interest, for the building of a long-term health care facility in Western Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, the events of time has somewhat overtaken the petition, but I was rather disturbed, disappointed and, frankly, most upset, by the comments that I have been hearing today in this House of Assembly regarding the long-term health care facility in Corner Brook.

The whole notion of the P3 approach to building a facility in Corner Brook is the option that is available to us. It is about the only option, Mr. Speaker. If we were to wait until we get the dollars available in our budget to build that facility, we might build it in five, ten or fifteen years from now. Too late, Mr. Speaker, much, much too late. We need to get on with it now.

The facility which is being proposed is not privatized health care. It is a building being built for the seniors of Western Newfoundland who are in desperate need of such a facility. It will be publicly funded, Mr. Speaker. The people who can go into the O'Connell Centre today, the people can go into the Interfaith today, will be the same people who can go into this facility. There will be no difference in the way in which they go in. They will write the same means test as they would today. There is nothing that will change. I cannot express the words, and I cannot control myself to the extend to express my disgust with what I was hearing here today. I will not go that far.

Mr. Speaker, quality health care is what we need for our citizens in Western Newfoundland and that is what the P3 proposal will deliver: Long-term health care, quality service for our citizens. It will not be provided at low standards, because the inference was made that the people of this facility will somehow receive substandard care. Nonsense! Absolute nonsense!

MR. J. BYRNE: Not true.

MR. MERCER: Read Hansard, the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MERCER: Just a moment to clue up, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to present this petition. I strongly support it behalf of -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of our Province who suffer from MS, Alzheimer's and other diseases. I have presented this petition many times in the past four years in the House of Assembly, and I will continue to do so on their behalf as long as the inequity that exists today between people of our Province and the rest of this country exist.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say on behalf of all these people who signed these petitions, I have to express on their behalf my disappointment and their disillusionment with the government of this Province in failing to respond to their needs. We hear the Minister of Finance talk everyday in this House, and the Premier, about how this Budget responded to the will of the people. Well, I can say on behalf of all the people who suffer from MS and Alzheimer's in this Province, that the Budget did not reflect their concerns very well. They did make an effort to get out and meet with the minister when she was doing the pre-budget consultations. They were looking forward to at least this government making a start that will put the citizens of this Province on par with every other jurisdiction in this country.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious situation that exists in our Province today because people find themselves having to make some very hard and difficult choices on whether to provide for their family or take a prescription drug they need for their illness - a position that nobody in this day and age should find themselves in. This has caused undue stress on families in this Province. It has led to breakups of families because of the pressures and stresses involved from a financial perspective where they have to make the choice between providing for their families or purchasing a drug that they require.

Mr. Speaker, this government could have made a start down the road to expanding the drug prescription plan coverage in this area. It is no longer acceptable for people who get up each day and go to work to try to earn a living and provide for their families to have to reduce themselves to income support levels before this government will step in and offer any assistance whatsoever. It is not acceptable. It is time that this government realized and recognized the hardships that working people of this Province have and at least make an effort to address some of these hardships by way of expanding the prescription drug coverage in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, no other province in this country inflicts that hardship on their citizens. Every single jurisdiction has coverage for these drugs. It is to the point where people in this Province, with good paying jobs, are looking at the possibility of resigning from these jobs -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave. Just a minutes to clue up.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: It is to the point, Mr. Speaker, sadly, that people with good paying jobs in this Province are looking at the possibility of having to quit these jobs and move to another province to get employment at a lower rate of pay, at a lesser salary than they are earning here, simply to have a better quality of life. They will have the ability to provide the things that their family needs. They will have the ability to probably provide something for their children's education, to put away some money for retirement, not having to spend it all on the purchase of a drug that they do in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I say to this government, that is a shame. It is shame on them and it is time that they recognize the needs of the people of this Province and did things so that people who require these drugs would be able to get some help in the purchase of them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to present a petition on behalf of the communities of North Boat Harbour and Wild Bight. Of course, it is a petition related to the road conditions in the area. I will just read it briefly. It is very short.

The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador;

WHEREAS the roads in the communities of Wild Bight and North Boat Harbour are in a deplorable condition; and

WHEREAS the residents of the communities are concerned about the safety of their children, who have to take the bus to the attend school every day; and

WHEREAS the residents of these communities were promised in 2000, by the government, that the surveying, upgrading and paving of these roads would begin within two years;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and in particular the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, to make these roads a top priority and begin the upgrading and paving immediately.

And as in duty bound your petitions will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is approximately a ten kilometre road from Cook's Harbour through Wild Bight and into North Boat Harbour. It is a very, very, very old road. I suspect it is probably close on forty years old, and in that forty-year period, except for the fuel that has been burned travelling graders and snowploughs and those sorts of equipment over it, there as been very little, if any, work done on the road.

Mr. Speaker, the people here, as they reference in their petition, are very concerned about the condition of the roads from the perspective of their school buses travelling over it. I am sure that if the Minister of Transportation looked at the cost of maintaining this road, the cost of providing a grader, the cost of snow clearing - and this is an area where snow clearing is extremely costly. The road is so low that it is actually below the ditch, practically, in a lot of cases, and any amount of snowdrift and so on, the roadblocks, really the only way to keep this road open beyond one lane at most times of the year, from early February until late April, it is only able to be maintained by a snow blower.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to impress upon the government, and impress upon the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the need for the upgrading of this road. Certainly, as the people said, they had been promised this in the fall of 2000 when the road out to Cook's Harbour was upgraded and finally paved. At that time, a commitment was made to them then to have work done on that road. Surveying was certainly done on that road and there are indications from various sources that the cost of upgrading this road would be very small compared to some other areas of the Province. There is no bog that has to be taken out, there is very little in the way of blasting that has to be done, and it would be a very inexpensive road to upgrade, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is my petition.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to present a petition to the House today, following on some petitions that I presented here last week. The prayer of the petition reads as follows:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador ask for the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer:

We, the undersigned citizens of St. Mary's Bay Centre area, hereby draw your attention to the unsatisfactory and unsafe conditions as they now exist on Route 90, St. Mary's Bay.

WHEREAS it is the duty of government through the enactment and enforcement of the Highway Safety Act to protect its citizens, not only from commuters but also from unsafe highways; and

WHEREAS the safety of the travelling public must be the number one priority of any government;

THEREFORE, your petitioners ask that government provide the necessary funding to carry out the much needed repairs to Route 90.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is another of several petitions that have been brought to me over the past number of weeks by people from the St. Mary's Bay Centre area in relation to the conditions of the roads that now exist in that particular part of my district.

Mr. Speaker, the main concern that people have put forward, and doing so here again today in this petition, is a safety issue. We have many people who travel back and forth. As with most parts of rural Newfoundland now, we have many seniors living in that part of the district, Mr. Speaker, who travel back and forth to St. John's and other parts of the Province for medical treatment. We have many people, Mr. Speaker, who travel on buses each day to Dunne Academy in St. Mary's from this particular section of the district that is addressed in this petition, and a lot of people are very concerned about the safety of those vehicles on the highways and the safety of their own when they are driving along in their own vehicles. The road conditions, to say the least, are deplorable right up through St. Mary's Bay. As a matter of fact, I was down that way this weekend, Mr. Speaker, and found that with the spring thaw it is getting worse and worse each passing day.

I ask the minister, when he puts into place this year's provincial roads program, to take into consideration the concerns of the people of St. Mary's Bay Centre and indeed throughout the district, especially the people who put forward this petition today, and to ask him to look at providing funding to address the concerns that people have in that area, to put funding in place to address the safety issues that people have in that area. I think it makes complete sense to say, Mr. Speaker, that all members of the House wish that the people of the Province travel over safe highways. It is not the case, Mr. Speaker, in St. Mary's Bay. In most cases here people are swerving away from the potholes in the road and this in itself could cause some major accidents.

We have, Mr. Speaker, especially as I said, people who travel by ambulance or through their own vehicles or through the buses and it is certainly very, very difficult to navigate your way around -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: Just a moment to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MANNING: - trying to navigate their way around, Mr. Speaker, the conditions of the roads. Certainly, it is a major concern for the people in that area. They have asked me to present this petition here today and I do so, Mr. Speaker, willingly and to assure the minister that there is a major concern here in this part of my district and I hope that he addresses it, Mr. Speaker.

I take the opportunity today to invite the minister down into St. Mary's Bay and throughout the District of Placentia & St. Mary's to have a look first-hand, to see for himself the condition of the road and to know full well that this is not some apparition that people have. This is a reality, this is what they are dealing with every day, and they would certainly like for the government to address it. Hopefully, through raising the concerns of the people through the petition here today in the House, the minister will take it into consideration and provide funding to address the needs of the people who travel Route 90 in St. Mary's Bay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, rise today to present a petition. This petition is mostly, I guess, from the residents of a community in my district, the community of Marysvale, but in particular these would be customers of a business in that community; customers of the Hill Top Video and Variety.

This is an extension of a petition which I had originally presented in this House some days ago. Whereas the residents and the customers of this particular business are still addressing it by signing the petition, I just want to present this part of the petition that has recently come to me.

Mr. Speaker, the prayer of the petition basically is for government to look at the state of the road that leads to this particular business. The state of the road is such: it is a gravel road, it is on an incline, and throughout the year, whether it is summer, spring, autumn or winter, there are problems that arise. What the undersigned want are improvements to the conditions and physical state of Ryan's Road in Marysvale. They have to use this road on a daily basis to gain access to the only variety store in the area. If possible, of course, they were hoping that it could be paved. At best, the drainage problems need to be properly done. The bottom of the road should be paved, regardless, to prevent future problems; and, of course, they are thanking the minister.

The minister is aware of this petition. He has a copy of it himself. It has been addressed to him, and he has responded by indicating that he made a commitment to have it placed on the Capital Works for the local depot. It is my hope, and the hope of the residents of Marysvale, that this indeed will be actioned this coming season. Actioned in the sense, Mr. Speaker, just to maintain that road to a level whereby the people who are using this business - and also, I might add, there are residences on this particular stretch of road and they, too, need access back and forth to their homes. By presenting this petition in the House there is a hope that the reminder will encourage some action to have this addressed.

With the drainage problems, especially in the springtime, the road washes out. The people using the road, their vehicles have incurred damage as a result of the state of the road. More importantly, Mr. Speaker, this is a small business. It is small enterprise in a small community. It is the only one of its type in that community. People have to use the business; it is a convenient store. The other point, too, is that is does create employment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: Just one minute to clue up.

In cluing up, Mr. Speaker, again, the need is real. The amount of attention to it is not necessarily major, and it can be covered in the budget of the local depot. It is my hope, and hope of the residents, that this will be actioned this coming summer so that the business can survive; that the residents and customers using this business will not have their vehicles damaged; that the road will be safe, and that the business can continue.

With that, I present this petition to the House in the hope that the petition of the people will be addressed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Motion 1, to move that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government. I think the Member for Ferryland adjourned the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will get an opportunity today to say a few words on: this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr. Speaker, we do not approve the budgetary policy of this government. There are many things we do not agree with. They said a commitment made is a commitment kept. That is not the case. There are many instances of that. I recall back two years ago, the very first commitment the Premier of this Province made to the people of this Province - the very first commitment upon his leadership back in 2001 - was that he would reduce the size of Cabinet. That was the first commitment. He was announcing his Cabinet - the very first announcement as Premier was announced through Cabinet. Before he went on to announce their policies and commitments, he announced a larger Cabinet. The first promise made is a promise not kept. Now that is what - I might add. That is a promise that was not kept.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) a promise made and a promise broken.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right, a promise made and a promise broken.

Today I am going to take some time to go through and look at aspects of this Budget Speech 2003, and to comment on most of these areas as I go through it. As the minister laid out the government's twist on things and their spin on many of the items there, I certainly would like to put out our version and our interpretation, basically, of many of the things mentioned here.

To start off with, the very first sentence, "Mr. Speaker, this budget will demonstrate once again that any commitment made by this government to the people of this Province will be a commitment kept." I just commented on the very first commitment. Far before this Budget there have been many commitments that have not been kept.

What about the commitment they made a few years ago that they would reduce income tax? The Premier sat in that Cabinet. They announced that they would reduce personal income tax from 69 per cent - as it was at the time of the federal rate - down to 62 per cent; then 55 per cent of the federal rate and 49 per cent of the federal rate. But what happened? Well, when he found out that the federal government were reducing theirs down, they figured a percent of a lower rate would be less revenue in our Province. What they did then, they separated the provincial tax or divorced it from the federal tax system as a percent. Now, there is nothing wrong with doing that. I do not have a problem with separating it from the federal tax. We should have control over our own tax revenues, what we take in. The federal government dropped - it is good to have it separated and I never opposed that.

Right now, today, we are not getting what they said we are getting. In fact, not only is it not down to 49 per cent of the federal tax, government says it is down to 55 per cent. You ask the people today who fill out their income tax forms - the calls I get from seniors, the calls I am getting on their tax forms here, that I look at on a regular basis. I have had some experience in the past being fairly familiar to assist or give advice to hundreds of people, as to what they should do in the completing of forms, historically, before I became a Member of the House of Assembly. That is not what has happened. Today, seniors are telling me - there is one, in particular, who pays 500 per cent more provincial tax than they pay federal tax. It is supposed to be down to 49 per cent, or even 55 per cent as government says, but not 500 per cent. One gentleman, I looked at his individual case, a gentleman I met with last year - I spoke with another gentleman, just in this past few days, again telling me they are paying 74 per cent, 76 per cent and 78 per cent of the federal tax. They have done numerous things.

In the Budget here - I will get into more detail when I get to it - what have they done? The federal government has increased the disability. This Province never did it last year or the year before. They made an announcement today, or in this Budget that was announced, that they are going to rise the exemption for disability. I called for that last year. I spoke on it last year. I do believe I asked questions in the House on this last year, the same issue, and on income tax.

What happens to student exemptions and others? Federally, you could claim for every student who is at university. Here is what they are doing: They are telling us they are reducing tuition, but here is what they are doing instead. As they are saying a reduction in tuition, education deductions you can get for each month you attend university. Each month you are attending as a full-time student, it is now at $400, I believe, $400 per month as a full-time student you get. In addition, you will be able to claim your tuition. This government is only allowing $200. If you took even 55 per cent of that $400 it would be $220. You are only allowed to deduct $200. What they have done is reduced it in tuition but they have not moved the scales for education deductions for tuition and other education costs. They have not moved that accordingly, so when a student gets in the workforce or has income and fills it out they are not getting the benefits. When they finish and graduate, they are not getting the benefits because they are not being allowed, or their parents who may be paying for their education are not getting the benefits under this because they have a different scale - much lower than federal - on education deductions.

It not only applies to that. It is not only on education deductions. This per cent can be much more significant, I can tell you, more significant than the tuition drop in terms of income in their pockets at present or in the future when they will have some taxable income that they carry forward. They can carry it forward. If they cannot use them this year, they can carry forward to future tax years.

For instance, the maximum now you can carry forward, I think, is - or the maximum amount that someone could use as a deduction for them - is $4,900 or $5,000 maximum. Anything beyond that, they carry forward to when they go to work and they have income.

We are not getting the benefits on it. You are giving it on one hand in the tuition cut; you are taking it back in the other hand by not allowing that deduction on income tax purposes. That, to me, is not being fair. It is talking out of both sides of your mouth. A commitment made, they said, will be a commitment kept. Give on one hand and take on the other hand. That is what I am seeing with this government here. They are trying to distort the truth, trying to camouflage it and put it out there.

The same way with disability, and seniors and other people, low income people who would be affected by this, all of these areas are areas in which this government has not been up front.

The very first page of the Budget says, "As a government, we have worked too hard to strengthen social programs to begin dismantling them now, in our view unnecessarily." What other government in the history of our Province has done more to dismantle the social programs in our Province? This government. What do we see? We see the longest lineups we have ever seen in our history on health care. We see increasing lineups. We have more people waiting for diagnostic tests, longer lineups for diagnostic tests, longer lineups to get into hospitals. I know that emergency, even emergency mammograms, are two to three weeks, I have been told. Two to three weeks. I have been told that urgent cases, under scans and so on, take weeks. Emergencies, in some cases, can get done, but certain others - if you are under fifty, there was one who was under fifty, who could not get a mammogram. They had to wait, I think it was, over a year or a year-and-a-half for an appointment. It was a constituent in my district, by they way. What did she do? She went to her in-laws in Ontario, in a small rural community with several thousand people, and got a mammogram in a few days. Here she was told, because you are under fifty, it was almost a year-and-a-half. That, to me, is not improving standards of health care. It is increasing waiting lists and subjecting the people to longer waits, worse than it has ever been before, I might add; longer waits than ever before.

Government's attitude seems to be: You do not need an MRI. We cannot overuse equipment. Look, if you can get the best possible diagnosis, why not? If you can get it, why not? I heard they used it on a weekend. They used it here on a weekend for other purposes, that somebody paid for it. I have heard of dogs having been done in there. One in the media just recently, I think it made reference to one there, and I read the comments there. So, we are finding out that equipment is not being used.

I have called for some time, and I have said here in this House, why do you spend over a million dollars, in the millions of dollars, for a machine that you only use for eight or ten hours a day? I mean, if you bought a piece of equipment, if you were in business, and you could not get longer utilization out of it than that? The hospital system works around the clock. There are people sick twenty-four hours a day. You cannot tell people not to get sick in the summertime when you reduce staff. You cannot tell them when to get sick. You do not know those situations. Emergencies arise.

We have one now on a international scale, the SARS, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome. That is one. Who knows? Hopefully it does not hit here, but all of these are areas that we have seen here in our Province where we have been subject to longer waiting lists. We have seen a weakening, not a strengthening, in our social programs here in our Province.

We have more people today who are concerned about health care and access to it. I have not heard many people, to be honest with you, at all question the quality, and a lot of them have said many complimentary things about our health care workers when they come out of the hospital. The biggest problem they have is trying to get in, trying to get the scheduled surgery, doctors having surgeries cancelled, no operating time available, having to tell their patients: Look - and I have spoken to some - if you can get to another doctor and try to get that done, I just cannot get the operating time. It takes too long.

Those types of things are not happening in other jurisdictions. If we are spending more on health care than everybody else and we are not getting it, there is something wrong within the system. There is something that needs to be fixed in the system. That is something that needs to be done.

It is not what you spend; it is how you spend it. You can spend a million on nothing or you can spend a million on a useful purpose. It is not just the quantity of money you throw at the problem. If there is something not working efficiently, the more money you throw at it, the more it guzzles up. You correct the problem. You do not throw money at it. You correct it and deal with it efficiently. Yes, throwing money at things will improve things, but why throw millions of dollars in areas before you fix the problem? Let's get to the root of the problem. Let's correct it.

It reminds me, every year out in a park, you notice that there was always a spot where all the grass was burnt every year in a park area. They looked at and they realized that, look, something must be done. They went out and they had to resod it and grow it all back again. The next year, again, the same problem there, but they fixed it and they resodded it and the whole area looked beautiful again by the time the summer was over again. But what happened? They did not look at the cause of it. Burning Christmas trees, throwing them and burning them in that area destroyed it. So, when you stop it, you prohibit it, the burning of trees in that area, you did not need to be reseeding it or resodding it and putting the area back. Simple, basic common sense. You deal with the cause of the problem. You do not just deal with the problem itself. That is important.

That is why, Madam Speaker, we need to be looking at fixing the problems so we have less problems to deal with, which means we have more money to direct toward useful purposes. More productive use of our money; more productive use of our time; less pressure on people working in the system; less stresses; lower numbers; higher levels of acuity in people in hospitals. What is that causing? It is causing more stress; longer work, more burnout. It is causing higher sick levels. People who are off get paid, someone has to come in their place. You have to staff at certain levels. It is compounding and increasing. Sick leave in the system went - sometimes it has gone extreme. Why has it gone extreme? Because people today who go to work in a hospital setting and health care are finding they are so stressed out, the demands that are put on them, that they need the break. Physically, if they do not get a day off they probably might end up being off for a week, or who knows, a month.

You have to deal with the underlying cause of the problem. We have not seen - if anyone really thinks in this Province today the minister read out in her speech: we have worked hard to strengthen social programs to begin dismantling them now in our view unnecessarily. No government in the history of our Province has contributed more to longer waiting lists, to more difficulty getting into hospitals. Why is it difficult to get into hospital? Well, they tell us that we are moving people through quicker, but there were 3,100 hospital beds in this Province in 1989 and today we have in the vicinity of about 1,700 hospital beds. There was more before last summer. They never opened some. They said: we are closing some for the summer. I said the same thing happens every summer, they all do not get opened. They will close more, and they will shrink it and shrink it. You have closed one hospital here in the city. Now you have two and you have empty beds in all of these. It is great to see empty beds if there are no people on a waiting list. It is great to see empty beds. I would like to see all of them empty, to be honest with you, in hospitals if there are no waiting lists. But, when there are waiting lists and people cannot get in.

We need to put increased emphasis on areas. Some initiatives have started, some have occurred but we need to put increased initiatives on education, on the preventative aspect and the promotional aspects in health care.

We were told when they restructured the hospital setting here in St. John's, the hospital situation, that we would be able to afford to put more money into the community health problem when we get these structures all organized and we get the savings out of this system. We would be able to use those savings to give us better health care in the long term. We could use this money. Well, from day one I was skeptical. They told us it was going to cost $70 million to reconfigure the health care system here in the City of St. John's, for example. Then the $70 million, Madam Speaker, became $100 million. The $100 million grew to $120 million and $125 million. Now, it is my understanding, that the Health Care Corporation had permission to borrow on the books of the Health Care Corporation, permission to borrow and they had to spend - they owe financial institutions $130 million in long-term capital debt that they were going to pay.

We were told at the beginning - and here is what we were told at the Holiday Inn when I attended there as health critic, I think I was at the time, or Leader of the Party, I am not sure which. At the time I was told it was $100 million that we were going to borrow, and we were going to pay that money off over a twenty-year period, I think is what they used. Over twenty years it comes to $100 million. Pay $10 million a year for twenty years. That is $200 million. That covered interest and all; but we are going to save $10 million. By doing this we are going to save $20 million in operation; $10 million will go toward our debt and the other $10 million we will have saved to put back into the system to give us a better quality of care. That is what was said to us in a public forum. It was in the media; it was carried.

As the cost went from $100 million, $130 million, they did not have the savings because by the time it got there, there were no savings in the system. Here we have spent money now. We have to pay our $10 million or more a year. Maybe it is more than $10 million now, if it is twenty years. It is probably $12 million or $14 million. I do not know the exact amount they are paying, but it is higher a year. We have to pay more money now to finance that and where is it going to come from? Out of the grant they get from the taxpayers of the Province, through the Budget, through the government. That is where they get it.

The more money you pay on debt and interest, the less money you will have to provide the ongoing services that we need on a daily basis. You are siphoning money from operations and channeling it out, and it is going to pay for debt. It is going to pay for bricks and mortar. The time comes when bricks and mortar are important. We need structures to deliver health care, but have we invested wisely? Have we made the wisest decisions?

Back in the beginning - I said at the time when the new PACS system, that is the imaging system, when they were changing from the old Janeway. I raised the issue and said: Why aren't they going modernized where you could look on a computer and see the diagnostic test, the x-rays that people had? If they go to surgery, wherever, you can access it through Picture Archiving Communications System, I think is what it is stands for, PACS. No, they would not invest the money. By tying everybody in - you could be in a hospital in St. John's and someone comes in, you could access their records, their pictures and so on, their x-rays, through a computerized system. That was important. In fact, they could tie in the whole Province under this system. No, not at day one. They realized after that there is a certain percentage of x-rays always lost. We are dealing with chemicals on these. It has been reported that some of the chemicals that are used are harmful to the health. We have staff, people running back and forth with x-rays to people. All of this is time and money, and more efficient.

A capital investment upfront saves money in the long term. By investing today in something modern, you can save operational costs for the next ten, fifteen or twenty years. But, we did not do that. I have seen some allocation here for it, and I am pleased to see that, to be honest with you, Madam Speaker. I am pleased to see that we are trying to move more into the modern forum in picture archiving and communication, and moving this area to another. That can be done electronically through the system rather than sending couriers back and forth. Lost x-rays; redo it; higher exposure to radiation. There are a whole host of other things, the pros and cons, that I am not going to get into; but they are all part of that.

Then we are talking about here in the Budget how we are going to strengthen them rather than dismantle it. This government has presided over the greatest dismantling of social programs that I have seen in some time in this Province. We had a growing increase of people. We had health care people say: Give us the system we had years ago. Give it back to us. Today it is a revolving door. You are in one door and through an operating room and out the other door. Revolving doors. You are probably still turning around by the time you come back to be discharged. Very short periods. I am not opposed to having short periods in the hospital if people have the support systems in their communities to do it. We are gradually building that. I had an opportunity to participate in a primary health care project, the nursing model, and had an opportunity to see some of the things there and some of the aspects in that program. It was not just dealing with curative aspects of it, dealing with rehabilitative. An important part of that is preventive, the educational aspects of that, so that people are aware that taking responsibility for your own health care can reap dividends down the road. Certainly, in the long term it can be beneficial not only to yourself, from a health perspective, but also on the bottom line of our Province so we can use that money to direct to other areas and so on.

As we have an aging population in our Province, there is going to be an increased need for more long-term care beds. I asked the Minister of Finance, when she was the Minister of Health and Community Services, I said, we do not have enough long-term care beds in our Province. That minister said, yes, we do. We have sufficient numbers of long-term care beds.

If there is a sufficient number of long-term care beds in our Province, why do we have to put thirty people in Chancellor Park? Why are they crying out for more long-term care beds in the Clarenville area and in the West Coast of this Province a new facility? I know the old one is outdated and it has probably outlived its usefulness.

There is a need today for more long-term care beds in this Province, because we have an aging population. Many people today are getting sick, some at younger ages. Overall, when you visit those institutions, one of the main reasons why we need them is because people are living longer. If you go through these homes, there are not many younger people in the homes any more like they were at one time. There are a lot of elderly people - people in their nineties and even in their hundreds in those homes. A higher per cent of the population is getting older, an increasing number, less getting in the middle category, and that is why we need it. That is why we need more long-term care beds in the Province.

We have talked about the minister in her Budget Speech. She went on to say that the Province led the country in economic growth in 2002 for the third time in five years and for the fourth time now in six years. We have had good GDP growth in our Province. We have had pretty good GDP growth, but GDP is not the only measure of the success of an economy. When Gross Domestic Product, when a lot of the dividends, the economic rents on our Gross Domestic Product go to the Eastern Seaboard and the rest of the country, we are not the beneficiaries of those particular resources that are going out of here. We are getting minimal return. People say: Well, we are going go get so many jobs up front.

We just do not want only a certain number of jobs up front. We are told we should get 60 per cent or 80 per cent, and we seem to be satisfied that is all we should get. We should fight for every single job. We should fight to see that there is other spinoff benefits that happen from our resources in the Province. We do not want to see the main employers hiring people in the United States on our resource. We want to see employers here in this Province hiring people because of our resource. We have been too long being not only charitable to others, which is good to be, but when it comes to giving away resources we do not want to be charitable. We want to be greedy when it comes to our own resources, we want to fight for these, because the more we can maximize the returns the better it is for everybody here in our Province, and that is important. With an economy that grew by 8.2 per cent last year, beyond expectations, we still had a significant amount of deficit in our Province. We are projecting with the top growth in the country. We are projecting this year that our deficit will be $666 million. If you take out other basic accruals and things, when you look at capital construction and our current account base, we are looking at about $286 million. An economy that is growing, we are told, in leaps and bounds! The economy is outpacing everything in Canada! We are also outpacing everything in Canada in debt.

If it is so great, why is that happening? I heard the Premier say that we can better afford to pay our mortgage today than we could several years ago. Well, if you look at the Budget figure there, in the table that is shown - I think it shows Public Sector Debt over here in Exhibit V - it shows $7.8 million. Well, that figure, total Public Sector Debt, $7.8 million, $7.9 million, was only $4.8 million back in 1989. When you look at the total debt of our Province, from our Public Accounts up to the most recent one, our debt is pegged at almost $9 million. When you look at all our costs there, associated with paying that debt, it is very expensive, I might add.

We can better afford to pay our mortgage, we can better afford to pay $3 billion or $4 billion more than we did ten years ago? Our debt is going up, our interest payments are going up and the cost of servicing that debt is going up. We are paying on a higher debt. I wouldn't be so concerned, Madam Speaker, if the benefits from that debt were equating into other revenues here and our economy was growing, not only GDP but we were being the beneficiaries of that GDP growth. We haven't been proportionate beneficiaries of the growth in GDP. We have seen numerous concerns and numerous problems that haven't come back here to reflect in jobs from the export of our resources. That is a major concern.

If the best we can manage is a growing deficit in the best economic times, we are told, this Province has ever had in growth, if we can manage to increase our deficit four times in that period of time, how, in the name of God, I say, Madam Speaker, can we better afford to pay our mortgage in this Province? How can we better afford to pay it?

They take terms and they twist them for political advantage. There is a percent of GDP - I read this, it was almost laughable when you look at it. What a twist you can put on an increasing situation in our Province. It is not the real picture, Madam Speaker, it is not the real picture at all. The picture is not the most prosperous. It tells us one thing, Madam Speaker. If we have the greatest growth, 8.2 per cent - we never even thought it would be near that, almost double what we thought it would be - and we see our deficit now going even higher with increased growth for this year, that tells us we have fiscal mismanagement, not properly allocating the revenues in this Province to the appropriate intended purpose. We do not have departments that have goals and objectives, that lay them out. We do not have plans by departments to lay out goals and objectives, and goals and methods to achieve those objectives. We do not have a reporting system. Every department had to report to this House of Assembly up until 1989, and that was eliminated by the Liberal government in 1989.

Now we talk about, on the eve of the dying days of the government of this Province, we are going to bring back some fiscal accountability. You expect the people of the Province to believe it, when you have had fourteen years to do it. You stripped it out of there, and you had fourteen years to put it back and did not do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: What hogwash! That is utter nonsense, I say, Madam Speaker, utter nonsense!

How many believe it? We are going to do everything after the next election.

AN HON. MEMBER: What tripe!

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, the very first promise he made, the very first promise. I said it earlier, at the beginning today, in 2001, the first commitment he made as Premier of this Province, when he got elected, was to decrease the size of his Cabinet. Before he even started to do business, he had to swear in a Cabinet. It was larger. Oh, I did not keep my first promise. Then they tell us here in this Budget, a commitment made by this government is a commitment kept. My, oh my, oh my. We have to sit here and listen to that in this House. Utter, complete nonsense, I would say.

Commitment! Granted, we are seeing great things. We are going to do a lot of things after the next election. We are going to seal all of our promises after the next election. We are sick and tired of promises. We want to see action on commitments, basically. That is important.

They committed to do away with the income tax, to cut it down to 49 per cent or the equivalent. That was a commitment made by this government. They said, if the fiscal health of this Province gets better, we are going to drop it and keep it down in three years. In year one they dropped it from 69 per cent to 62 per cent of federal and then to 55 per cent. Where are we now? They are telling us it is 55 per cent now and we are going to drop it. We had the greatest growth four of the six years leading this country. If that is not good fiscal performance in revenue - it is only a promise. It is only a commitment out there that you never intended to keep.

MR. J. BYRNE: What did they say about the income tax during the last election? It was our policy to cut it and they said: No, no, we cannot do it.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, yes. They have indicated - look, every single policy. No wonder they are going crazy over there. They are going out like vultures to get their hands on our policies. I would not give them any policies. The people will see our policies in the next election. I would not think about giving them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I would not think about it.

If they want to see the policy, if the media or the people of the Province or this government wants to see it, tell them to call an election and you will find out what our policies are in this Province. You will see it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Here we are, going into the fifth year of a mandate. I said back in 2001, I have said it and anyone here can acknowledge that, we are not seeing an election in 2003. They will milk the cow for as long as they can. I said a year ago, you will not see it in the spring of 2003; you will see it in the fall. You might even see it in the winter of 2004. I kept saying it. That is when you will try, because they will bleed it as dry as they can get. Then, they will run away. They have a little bit of fattening of the cow to do yet before they finish. The cow has to be fattened for market. That has to be done yet. They are not finished that job. They are only in the process. That is it. There is a lot more that has to be taken care of.

We asked questions today, the leader in the House of Assembly today: Are you looking at more private-public partnerships for your friends? Trans City cost us over $19 million. I will get to that a little later now. Maybe I will get to it right now. Why not? Why not get to it now?

We had three health care facilities built in this Province under public-private partnerships: in Burgeo, Port Saunders and St. Lawrence. Up until the time I was Health critic - I am not sure if it has changed since; I have not followed occupancy as closely since that, but - out of those forty beds they put in St. Lawrence, thirty beds only opened. There were ten not even opened up to two years ago. They never even opened them, and it was built in the early 1990s, not used.

I walked through the one in Burgeo that is deserted, one section of it is not even used, and millions of dollars spent. Not only that, we would like to utilize it. We would like to build for the future, but also what we want to do, we want ensure taxpayers' dollars are used as wisely as possible.

All three bids - I have the prices here in front of me - every single one of the three bids were given to friends of the Liberal government, that were way higher, that were $637,000 higher than the other bids, and they gave them to their friends. That is not the galling part of it, just the $637,000. What did they do over the period of that lease? Because they gave it to a higher bidder, friends of the Liberal governments who have been contributing into the coffers of this government, there is a cost of $19,109,100 extra. Over $19 million more taxpayers will pay because of giving it to a higher bidder, and they said they were right.

MR. J. BYRNE: And they want to do it again?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, they want to do it again. They said they were right.

Well, the courts here in this Province said they were wrong. The lower courts and the higher courts and every court out there said it, that you broke the law. You broke the law of the Province. Not only that; they had to pay damages in the vicinity of $3 million on top of that. When they were taken to court by one particular bidder and won the case, even the judge allowed, made references there and so on, for the possibility if they were sued - now I do not know what words he used - that there was an opening for someone else to benefit on that, which I think was settled after the fact.

MR. J. BYRNE: You would fix some potholes with $3 million.

MR. SULLIVAN: You would fix a lot of potholes with $3 million plus $19 million, with $22 million. It is almost equal to the roads program for the entire year. That is what they are for this year. We could have a roads program of $45 million, double, if you did not pass out $20-some million -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: - to people in this Province. That is the type of government we have been getting here. Then they tell us we are a fiscally accountable government. It is a farce. They are fiscally accountable only when they are lining the pockets of friends of the government. They are fiscally accountable to them then. That is what they are doing, I would say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: What we need to do, we need to look at the best use of taxpayers' money. The same thing happened with Tors Cove Excavating. They were taken to the lower courts and lost. Then they went to the next level. They went to the Supreme Court. They ran the company into hundreds of thousands of dollars and they lost every step of the way. Then they had to settle, years and years after the fact, when companies are out there trying to survive and they are leveraged to the hilt on money, the taxpayers' money they are using. Let them see you do it with your own money. If it was their own money, they would go to a lawyer and get advice. They would say: Give it up, you are wrong. Cut your losses and get out.

That is what they would do, but because they are spending public money they do not care. We will run the company into bankruptcy; that is what we will do. Atlantic Leasing, they did the same thing. Because it happened to be of a blue stripe, a Tory stripe, they said, we will run and we will drive them bankrupt. We are not going to renew this.

They did it and they lost, and they paid because there is a court. There is justice at some point, we hope, and it has happened in case after case after case.

MR. WILLIAMS: Cabot 500.

MR. SULLIVAN: We have had Cabot 500 employees - even one in my district. At least one in my district worked down at Cabot 500, a very good conscientious worker, one that my colleague said even conducted a tour, a guide at the Colony of Avalon, who was kicked out of the job, as well as several others, because - the Premier was the person who went to court on it. The Premier of the Province, the Member for Exploits. They did not like their political colour. That went through the courts and the courts said you are wrong, you have to pay. Look, thank God, there is a court system in this Province. Thank God there are, but the unfortunate thing about it is that not everybody can afford to get to the court system to recover it because all the people - the smaller jobs, the smaller amounts. What about the $10,000 and $15,000 and $7,000 or $8,000 as I talk to people on an ongoing basis? I will spend more money in legal bills than I would be in recovering it and people do not do it with justice. They are not getting the justice here. That is part of the problem with this government.

Members over here, the ministers, the Premier of the Province, were a part of that. They were a big part of it. They were head and heels into it; head and heels right into it. Cabot 500, the Premier, I believe, was the one who went to court on that issue. Even people spoke out. Even a former Liberal supporter had to admit that it was politically motivated.

MR. H. HODDER: But the (inaudible) stood here in the House and said that this is all above board. Everything was (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, yes. My colleague tells me they stood and said it is all above board. Well, it is certainly all above board, I can tell you. If it is above board, I would like to see the board that it is above, I tell you. I would like to see the board.

AN HON. MEMBER: The board must be pretty low.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it must be the board of ill-repute or the board of something because it is not the board of fair standards and practices, I can tell you. Yes, it must be the Liberal board that it was above. That is probably what it was.

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible) the people up in the gallery that the Premier (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, yes, and the very Premier talking about he has been a friend of labour in this Province. He stood here, he pointed up to the people in the gallery, and he provoked the people in the gallery, the Premier did, when he was here in this Province. I saw it here. I sat in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) out in the lobby.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right, in the lobby. That is what he did. All over the place he did. That is same Premier, when he was leader of the Newfoundland Teachers' Association at the time, now the NLTA, who wept out there because they were not getting fair treatment from the former government. He wept on behalf of the membership, and, all of a sudden, he becomes the provoker, the person who is inciting people there. They eventually were kicked out of the gallery but incited by the Premier here at the time; by the current Premier who was then a minister. Here are some of the things that are happening.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) give them suitcases (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right. That is another one. I am not sure who made that comment but I cannot blame it because I do not know the source, but it was done by a Liberal minister, or a frontbencher who said: They are looking for someone who will give them suitcases.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I do not know. I do not know who said it. I am not going to get into who said it because I do not know, but the reference was made. If it was in jest, well, fine, but it was not a good thing to say anyway. Tensions were high and people here in this Province fighting and being legislated back to work, they were. They were legislated back to work. So, that is the Premier who provokes.

He talked about making reference to the PCs going to cut jobs. He is conjuring it up because he was a minister who presided over the biggest job cuts here in this public service and he knows it. He was the hatchet man. He was the hatchet man for Clyde Wells. Whether it was in health care, in education, wherever it was, they sent the hatchet man out to do the cutting. Now, to try to tell people that he is a friend of labour in the Province. Nonsense.

Also, he tells us we will lower the tuition. What did they do on tuition? Let's look at what they did. They raised it by 350 per cent since 1989, and then he comes back and cuts it by 25 per cent. Granted, it is always good to cut tuition. But, while they were cutting tuition what were they doing? As I just referenced, while they were cutting tuition they were not increasing the education deduction on the other hand for people when they filed their taxes. The federal government is up to 400; our Province is 200. If we are 55 per cent of the federal rate, we should be 55 per cent. The same thing with disability they announced in this Budget that I called for last year. I said: Why are you crucifying disabled people, students, and other people by not giving them corresponding tax breaks that the federal government is giving? It did not happen. So these are some of the particular concerns.

In economic growth, they did not live up to their promise. They were going to - we are going to cut taxes. We are going to cut income tax. We are going to cut taxes when the economy is better. They are going to cut it when the economy is better, they said. And they are telling us it is the best it has ever been, 8.2 per cent. It outstrips everything across the country. They have no intention whatsoever, only toying with people and trying to let them know something is happening when it is not.

It goes on to say: We are expecting, this year, to get 5.4 per cent economic growth in this fiscal year. Madam Speaker, that is very significant growth. I say to my colleagues, if we are expecting the economy to grow 5.4 per cent, if we are expecting to see significant increases in income tax revenues, in retail sales tax and all other taxes, why have we projected a deficit on current account that is four times what we had last year if we are seeing it so great? Why have we projected, when you look at capital expenditure, a deficit that is really almost six times the current account? Why are we seeing $666 million - and I do not know, I could not get an answer from this minister. I do hope, when we get estimates on this, that I am going to get an answer, because she could not tell me how they depreciated their Tangible Capital Assets that they have added. The depreciation of their net addition of Tangible Capital Assets, she could not tell me. I hope she is out in the Department of Finance getting those figures because I am going to need them when this Budget is being discussed, whether it is in Estimates or wherever. If she wanted to bring it in, even though it is not under Consolidated Revenue Fund as such, in the previous schedules there. I want to get an answer. I want to find out what they did with that. Hopefully, she will come back with it. I asked it two weeks ago almost, a week ago or more, and I hope we are going to get an answer.

We have seen some growth. I guess a significant amount of GDP growth in this Province has come from increased oil production. We have seen the Terra Nova field get on stream and production increased. We have also seen some movements occurring with the White Rose. When that comes on stream it will add to the revenue base and increase the Gross Domestic Product. What it will not do is allow increased percentages of the benefits from that to stay here in our Province. We get a certain amount of work in the construction, that is one thing, but to see all those revenues going out of here to fuel operations in other parts of the world is shameful, really, because it is a non-renewable resource. It is the same as a mine. I said before, if you have a mine that has $1 billion worth of assets, and you mine 10 per cent of that, your asset is not worth $1 billion anymore. It is only worth $900 million. If you drop it by another $100 million to come out, it is only worth $800 million. Why don't we have a look at - that is a depreciation of an asset. That should be factored in. We should have certain factors in equalization with the federal government. We are looking at losing a valuable resource. We are looking at a non-renewable resource that is getting depreciated away. At the end of it, when it is mined out, there is nothing there.

We see many towns across this country that grew up as mining towns, that prospered, and are not there anymore. We do not have to go to Northern Ontario to see mining towns, or Northern Manitboa, or other areas, to see towns that have died. We have seen towns - by the fishery in this Province by having a renewable resource, not a non-renewable. We should never have to see towns die in this Province because we have mismanaged a renewable resource. A renewable resource can be sustained with the proper enforcement, following certain harvesting practices, controlling foreign use out there, making our own people abide by certain laws and certain standards, the proper policing and the proper management given, we could have a resource that would serve us to the end of time. It is a renewable resource. The fish in this water served us for 500 years, or the greater part of that, obviously because people came here, stayed here, dried their fish and shipped it back. We have had a success from the time it was settled. People carved a living out of the coast, the waters of our Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Get rid of the seals.

MR. SULLIVAN: They had tough times doing it and that is all part - I say to the member who commented there, get rid of the seals. That is all a major part of that problem. That is a significant part of that problem, in my perspective. I am not a scientist. I have a general knowledge of science. I happened to get a science degree. I have a general knowledge. I am far from an expert in science but I do have an understanding of the food chain, the cycles and what happens. Seals are a predator on cod. They are a predator on caplin. It does affect - the population has been going up and it has been a problem. Something has to be done while there are still some out there that still fish. Something has to be done. You cannot market - a sufficient number of seals cannot get marketed, I understand. My colleague from Bonavista South might know a little more detail, certainly, as the fisheries critic here. There is not enough that can be marketed to fully meet the growing herd there. Basically, we are finding that we are losing the battle in the growth. We are losing the battle, and that is a concern.

Madam Speaker, with a good fiscal outlook coming of 5.4 per cent - I had hoped, with a good fiscal outlook of 5.4 per cent growth exceeding anywhere in this country, that we would have a better bottom line in our Province. What does a higher bottom line - managing our debt, the minister talks about. The less debt we have, the less interest payments we have. If $500,000 to $600,000 are going out a year - $1 million, I should say, are going out a year in interest payments, it could be going to other important areas within our Province. It could be to promote tourism, to promote new businesses in our Province, to be able to assist businesses get off the ground. It could be used for health care, education, and to put our system far beyond elsewhere with our wealth of resources. But, it is not happening. Our growth is not generating extra jobs and revenue proportionately. I am not saying it is not generating any. I do not want to give the wrong impression there. It is not generating the proportionate revenues, I should say, because any growth is going to generate some revenues but not the proportionate amount that is needed here in our Province.

Here is an interesting one. This was a sensitive topic last year, and for anybody from Labrador in particular. It mentions here: The surplus gave us the flexibility to take a number of measures, including not removing the $97 million from the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund. One time revenues of $57 million were deferred to the coming year - well, basically it is $60 million, I think, they deferred to the coming year, into this year. I think from last year we had $10 million under housing, we had $10 million under the liquor corporation. That is $20 million. I think we had $37 million under Sinking Funds. That is $57 million. The $3 million is not mentioned there. There is $3 million more on top of that from Gull Island Power Corporation. That is $60 million in deferred revenues. The minister indicated, we did not take money out of the Labrador Transportation Initiative. Why should she? Why should they take money out of the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund? It should never, I might add, have come out of there.

Madam Speaker, the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund was set up here in this House under legislation of this Province, and it was set up to dedicate money to the transportation system within Labrador. That is the way it should be. We supported this government over there, when this government over there got up and they proposed that. They got up and applauded, clapped, cheered, and on this side of the House we applauded setting up a special fund to deal with the people of Labrador.

Just the thoughts, in a budget last year, to go take it out. Not only did they say they were going to take it out; they followed with legislation to change that. The legislation would have raided that fund. Even to put it on the books of this Province. I am delighted because of the political push by the people of Labrador. We have made an issue of it here in Opposition. It did not get a chance to come up for discussion as a bill because they did not call it. I can tell you, public opinion and the movement of people in Labrador opposed to this particular initiative, of taking that money out, is not the purpose for which this fund was set up in the first place.

This fund was set up to help pay for a transportation network in Labrador and to be able to fund forever, basically, the ferry system that operates on the Coast of Labrador. Now, that ferry system was costing at the time in the vicinity - actually, I think it went as high as $22 million in one year, the net amount. We were told that basically when this system of roads is there, the usage would go down and therefore it would not cost as much to operate the system. What has happened is, that really has not happened. We dealt with this in the Public Accounts Committee, members of the House here, on the government side of the House and our side. We dealt with this and we saw that the costs have gone up immensely.

What is going to happen at the current rate, and the Auditor General addresses this, is that by 2014, and possibly before that - we have not seen. I have tried to find out how much is in that fund. I have asked in the Estimates Committee and they did not know the answer, what was in there and how long this might last. Maybe it will not even last that long. I did not get an answer as to what is there and how much is used. It is an answer that I and my colleagues certainly hope we will get in committee with Works, Services and Transportation, and we can find out basically how much money is left in that particular fund to use toward road construction in Labrador and in the ferry service. Because we asked questions on it and tried to raise the points, they give the impression we are not interested in transportation service in Labrador. That is the twist they put on it. Look, I am sure every member of this House is interested in transportation services in Labrador, as well as on this Island. Everybody. I do not for a minute think that government are not interested in it. In fact, I think members of the House want to see a better system. They want to see Labrador closer connected to this Island, and break down the barriers. Open up the roads, the highways. Bring us closer. Let's have a freer movement of goods and traffic between our Island and the Labrador portion of our Province. We need to do that because they are our people. They are part of our Province. Many of them came from our own parts of the Province here and went to live there and raised families there, and they are every bit as much a part of this Province as people living on the Island part of this Province. That is important. People are sincere in it and it should not be played as a political thing. This should not have been brought up at all. This was not an appropriate thing, and a lot of people might have played politics on it but, in all sincerity, I think we realize there is a major concern here and we have to enhance the transportation system in Labrador.

The government said, what they said at the time, that we are going to give you a verbal commitment that we are going to do it and we are going to replace this money. The point I make is, what better commitment can you make than leaving it there? I mean, we are going to take it and we are going to give you a commitment you will get it back. That, to me, is not near the strength of a commitment as leaving it there. Setting up that fund sent a message to people in Labrador that your money that you got for a road system to serve your people by a ferry system is going to be used for that exclusive purpose only, for a transportation system in Labrador, and that is where it should have been used.

Now, I will not comment any further on that because we made an issue that is history now, we hope. We hope no other effort will be made, and I think they have learned their lesson from the public on that issue. It was loud and it was strong and it was in great numbers, that the people of the Province, and particularly the people of Labrador, said that. That is why we have a House of Assembly here, an opportunity for us to raise that here in the people's Legislature.

The minister, in the Budget, said, commencing 2002-2003 we will now be including in our budgetary position borrowing for investment of certain long-term assets and capital projects. The borrowings total $81.5 million and, added to a cash deficit of $61.7 million, brings the deficit for the consolidated fund for last year to $143.2 million for last year in the fund.

Now, that is painting a little bit worse picture than existed, a little bit worse, so it would look worse last year and the money would be shifted to this year. What happened? It should not have been that because they took $60 million they had budgeted for last year and did not use it last year. They carried it over to this year. So, if that $60 million was there, that wouldn't be $143 million, it would be down to $83 million.

Not only that, they also took money in this year's budget that would have distorted that too. They got money this year, in this year's budget, and they are taking all of the Canada Health and Social Transfer supplement of $42.5 million and using it in one year. Those are areas that distort that.

That is one of the things the Auditor General talked about in his last report, and previous reports from the Auditor General talked about manipulating the cash revenues available to get whatever result you want to get. If you want to get a lower operating deficit, or higher, you can manipulate and shift it to get that from one year to the next. Those types of things on an accrual basis show up because you have to allow for that expenditure when it was incurred, if it is paid or not. If you have money and it is not paid, it is an expense payable, or a credit receivable if that is the case, if you have one that is forthcoming.

The minister goes on in the Budget Speech, on page eight in the Budget Speech, "If our population remained at the 1994 level..." - in other words, if our population had to stay the same as it was in 1994 - "....we would receive $140 million more in federal transfers in 2003-2004.... In fact, our federal cash transfers will be roughly the same in the coming year as they were 1994-1995, with the transfer in support of health expenditures actually $58 million lower."

I would like to comment on that, basically, on what happened. This government allowed Ottawa, without a squeak, without opposition, back in the early 1990s, 1993-1994, I think it changed, to take the Canada Health and Social Transfer and to move it to a per capita basis, primarily. Before that, the Canada Health and Social Transfer - basically, that came into being from two basic programs before: Established Program Financing, it was called, and Canada Assistance Plan - but this money that we took in the Canada Health and Social Transfer in the early to mid-1990s, around 1993 or 1994, they took that and shifted it to a per capita. Here is a Province that is going down in population and we are getting money on a per capita basis.

If the population goes down, and a few leave different communities, the communities do not close down. We still have to provide health care to those communities. We still have to provide social services or income support to those communities. We have to provide education to those communities. Because the population goes down does not mean our costs go down, but the money we got under Canada Health and Social Transfer for education, health and income support went down. We did not resist it. This government did not resist it. We said, you are making a mistake. You cannot take this lying down. You have to stand up and fight. But, we did not do it.

Not only, as the minister said, are the transfers in health $58 million lower. What we have lost since that time, I tell you, what we have lost in accumulated revenue since that time when it changed is more like $1 billion. When I calculated it up the year before last, we had shown we were down, at that time, $750 million accumulated less that we got since the mid-1990s up to 2000, just beyond 2000, that we received less because they changed this on a per capita.

Our population is going down. It was 2.2 per cent of the Canadian population at one point. Now, it is only 1.7 per cent of the Canadian population. If it keeps going down, and they are forecasting a decline - while they say declines have slowed down, they are forecasting a decline - it is going to go down even further. That is not good news in support to maintain programs here in our Province.

Madam Speaker, it is difficult to serve the rural areas of our Province. It is one of the most geographically dispersed population-wise of any province in this country. We have about 30,000 people in Labrador who need education, health and other services. We have people in areas in this Province - the Northern Peninsula is spread out. There is the South Coast area, in the district of the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. It is a fairly sparsely populated district with long distances to serve people, and there are other parts of the Province, even my district. It is a significant distance from one end to another. It is not in comparison to some of these other districts. They are huge compared to a few, but it is a lot longer and harder to (inaudible) than most districts in the Province, right from Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove to Trepassey. That is in the vicinity of about 160 or 170 kilometres in total from one end to the other. That is fairly significant when you look at most districts in the Province. It is more than most districts travel. There are other districts, of course, that are in a similar category. Of course, some are really difficult to serve, ones in even more sparsely populated parts of our Province.

How do you provide health care in a community with 200 people? The population went to 180 but you still have to have a service. If there is no doctor there, the opportunity to get to a doctor or a nurse, the services there, you still have your other costs, and we are getting less and less money because of it. Not only are we getting less money there; the money proportion on equalization has been dwindling also and that has been a factor.

So, we have lost in the vicinity of a billion dollars accumulated amount because we allowed, this government allowed, the Government of Canada, without a fight, to change the Canada Health and Social Transfer formula from a per capital to a needs basis. Beforehand, if we spent $200 million on income support, we got $100 million back. Now, if we spend $200 million, with the declining population, it probably equates to only getting $85 million or $90 million back, and we are not getting near the amount that we used to get. So, there is a big gap to be filled here. It is because we have been disadvantaged because of our declining population.

Shouldn't there be some formula built in, a stabilizing formula, to allow social programs, to allow health care to be accessed by people in different parts of the country? I mean, if we believe in a Canada Health Act, if we believe in equal access, the Canada Health Act says there must be comprehensiveness, universality, portability, publicly administered and accessibility. Those are the five basic principles on which the Canada Health Act operates. Do you think accessibility? Do the people in this Province have the same degree of accessibility to health care as people in Toronto, in other parts of the country? The answer is no. Do people in rural Newfoundland have the same access as people in urban areas? No. Does a person in St. John's, even in the capital city, have the same access as a person in Ottawa or Toronto? That answer is no. We do not have the same access. The provinces do not have the same programs that they have included as insured services. They do not have the same services included. Not only that, we have allowed, in this Province, to set different standards from one health board to another. For years the eastern area, it takes in Carbonear and Marystown and all this area, had a ceiling on home care. They said: Here is the limit. You cannot get any more. If someone dies or does not need it - . when does someone not need it? In most cases, it is somebody who passes away because they were elderly and needed help. That is how you free up dollars. Then, we will take someone else in. In the St. John's area, that has only happened in the last year or two. Before that, there was always money available. So that cap has come there too. That is another area in which there are different rules in different parts of the Province. One board has a different rule than the board next to it. That is wrong. We should have the same standards here for every citizen of Newfoundland and Labrador in access of this. We shouldn't have different rules across different boards. It has gone to an extreme in many of those areas.

I am talking about another area - and I was going to get into a little more detail - personal care homes. I will just make reference to them now and do it in a little more detail when I get to it. For that area, $1.3 million in the Budget. We know that they are underfunded. They cannot operate and survive with the attention this government has given them since 1989. This government has ignored that important facet of care, Level I and Level II, since 1989. Prior to that there were significant increases given by the former PC government, enough to be able to operate and survive. This government has ignored it. They have brought it to the brink of bankruptcy in many cases. Some people have sold out.

Now they are telling them they have to go in and put in a fire sprinkler system within their establishments, which is important to have. I think government has to look at carrying out their responsibilities in this area. That is an issue that needs to be looked at in the long term, because many people in that industry went out and mortgaged their businesses, their homes, in the process, that they had a certain number of subsidized beds. Those subsidized beds were their avenue. That was their collateral to get loans from a bank.

If you are going to subsidize individuals - and we have never advocated it. I have said, it is the individual that needs the care. There has to be a level playing field for people who are operating in that area now, in homes where they have mortgaged their future. There has to be a reconciliation of that point before we can move totally into a completely free system, in terms of that subsidy. Certain things have to be addressed. I can tell you, for the dollar value you will get in return, it is one of the cheapest forms of care that you can get. I cannot speak for all homes. There are many I am aware of. People are made to feel at home there, they get taken care of well there, and the people are genuinely concerned about making them comfortable. Now, some have done outstanding jobs. I will get to that a little later, I am on a general theme at this particular point in time.

We haven't seen this government take the proper initiatives to do what is needed for the people of our Province. The minister is up telling up why we believe higher deficits is affordable; why we believe we can afford a deficit of $213 million. She said: We have compared it to others and we have calculated it as a percent of GDP. Well, if GDP was the meaningful indicator and proportionate growth in our source revenues of the economy, you could use that as an indicator and it would have some meaning. When that is not happening, it is not comparing apples and apples. It is comparing something to an indicator that does not have statistical validity in terms of looking at where our Province lies today.

The minister went on here and said - and I took offence to this last year, when she said: We have seen an improvement in our credit rating last year. The minister stood in this House last year and read a statement on how Moody's improved our credit rating. It went up a notch. This minister talked about their good government's fiscal responsibility and management, and then she went on to say: Also, it is part because of the federal government's improved commitment to maintaining some stability in our social programs. When I read from the Net what Moody's Investor Service had indicated, it was not the twist that the minister had put on it here. I just got the statement as she was coming into the House. I did not get time to go back to see what Moody's had said, but we got the statement within minutes after, and found out that she tried to misrepresent the people to give them a different slant.

They said: We are lying too much. One time revenues are unsustainable to what we are doing. It is unsustainable. The main reason we had an increase - and also when the other provinces had an increase at the same time - is because there is an improvement. There is less risk federally. There is more certainty now in maintaining a certain level of transfers for health and post-secondary education. Now federal transfers add some stability to it. So you are not as risky any more with your money because the feds have - that is one company up to the notch last year and they tried to paint a different picture than was actually the fact. That was not true. We addressed that at the time, and the minister makes reference here again to tell you how hunky-dory things are here in our Province.

You only have to ask the people in this Province, all over Newfoundland and Labrador, where are many of their children today? They will tell you they are in Alberta, Fort McMurray, Northern and Southern B.C. They are all over the place: Ontario, Western Canada, in other provinces. A lot of people's loved ones are there today. How can they tell us that things have been going so fantastic over this government? In other words, we have not seen people flocking back to our Province. The decline is still going on. We have not turned a corner in population decline. All the government can preach about is that it is not declining as fast as it used to be. That is their line. That is the thing they have to boast about. We are not losing people at as fast a rate as we did before. Well, obviously we are not because so many have gone. About 70,000 have gone in the last decade or so; from a peak, I think, of about 583 or 585. The last census, I think, showed about 513. We have seen 70,000 people leave our Province in that period of time.

She went on to say: we are the most fiscally responsible in the history of this Province. Well, the Auditor General begs to differ. We are not the most fiscally responsible. We are the least fiscally responsible. They cut out even reporting in this House. They did not want departments to come and put a report in this House. Fourteen years of that. We have not seen it, and now they are telling you they are going to be fiscally accountable. We are going to bring it in, when? We will bring that in next year now. We will get a report back next year, 2004. Well after the election. Why don't you do it now? Why are you always going to do things tomorrow? Why are you always going to do it next year? Why don't you do it now?

MR. NOEL: We're going to do it after the election.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Mines and Energy is over there saying they are going to do it after the election. I can tell them the people of this Province may have a different story. They may have a different story. We will live with what the people decide.

MR. NOEL: And you might be the one surprised.

MR. SULLIVAN: Now he is saying we might not be surprised, he is telling us now. Is that what he said? He said maybe we will not be surprised. I am not sure. The people will speak when it is time to speak in our Province, but I can tell you one thing, I have not seen too much about this government that would want me to put too much confidence in them. This government is the least fiscally responsible government since Confederation. The least fiscally responsible government. That is not really something you would want to put on your resume. That you were a minister in the least fiscally responsible government in this country. I hope that does not go on your job search now, on your resume.

The minister went on to say: the deficit now - almost $300 million on a cash basis, and when you look at capital expenditures, $286 million. The minister said: If we target a modest $75 million reduction in the consolidated deficit each year, beginning next year - not this year now. We will do everything next year - the deficit will be eliminated over a four year period in 2007-2008. That is what she said, $75 million a year. But, talk is cheap, Madam Speaker. Where are the figures? I ask the minister to table, in this House, her four-year projections on revenue and expenditures that would produce a balanced budget by 2007-2008. I challenge her to put it in this House. If you make a statement you should be able to back it up. Can the minister back it up? She hasn't put it to this House. She has made a statement that she has not substantiated and she has not put the information there. I would like to see it. I would like to see where it is, and see her do it. Hopefully she will do it. She hasn't responded that she will, and she has not indicated. I have asked for several things in this Budget but we are not getting answers. It is all a part of it. When you make a statement you should be able to, at least, show rationally why it is going to be that result. You should not have to be out making statements that do not add up.

Madam Speaker, under Revenue Measures, the minister said, "...as well as initiating no cuts to social programs or public services, we have avoided general tax increases in this budget." They have avoided tax increases. Well, they have (inaudible) tax increase, of course, and she did mention that. They have increased tobacco tax, I guess, in the light of getting extra revenues and in the light of discouraging people. It is fairly expensive now. I hope that the young people will stay away from cigarettes and smoking and the ill-effects of it. People get on in their later years, and find it is difficult to kick that habit. It is really difficult. That is why you cannot overemphasize to young people today to avoid taking that first draw or having that cigarette because, not only the effect that it is having on you. In fact, there is lots of evidence out there to indicate that second-hand smoke is even more dangerous. If you are in a house and you are a smoker - you are a smoker in a household - your children are probably the most susceptible and probably the biggest cause of a problem down the road with health could be in your own kids. That is becoming more and more researched, this topic of concern. The point, I guess, we have to make here is a proactive program. We do have a reasonably proactive program here in our Province, trying to discourage young people from smoking. I think it is called the Teen Tobacco Theme, I think. That is positive to see, any time you can discourage people from smoking. In fact, I think we have to be fairly active within our school systems too. You can never get too active. I know there is an education process there, but you cannot overemphasize this particular area here, because if we could solve that problem, actually, we would not have any revenues in tobacco. To me, if we have no revenues on it, that is a good thing, because if we have no revenues in tobacco that means there is nobody smoking and that means our health care costs should be minimized. Most people associate smoking and cancer, especially lung cancer, but it is not just lung cancer with smoking. It is the pulmonary diseases, respiratory diseases and so on, the major aspect of that. That is important, that people are aware of that. It is not just because you are not going to get cancer. If it is going to take your life at the age of sixty, does it matter if it is from a respiratory problem or cancer? It is important that it does not happen.

There are so many other effects, not only on whether you happen to get cancer. It affects your overall body functioning. Your metabolic rates are effected. Your overall eating, your appetite, your proper nutrition. There are numerous areas on which it has been known to have different effects. These things, I think, are important, that we give proper acknowledgment, I might say, to programs in place and proper support for programs that deal with this particular initiative.

It says, the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation has been asked again to remit an additional $10 million next year. So, we are asking the liquor corporation now to turn over another $10 million. Last year, Mr. Speaker, we asked them to turn over another $10 million and we did not take it. We did not take the $10 million that we asked for last year. We said, no, we are not going to take that because our bottom line would look too good. We will not take that; we will carry that over to this year. I think another $10 million came in that.

We did the same thing with the housing corporation. We said, give us $10 million , we want $10 million, and then when the end of the year came they said no, we do not want that. Leave that for next year. Things might look worse next year. So, if we did not have all these areas, if we did not have housing's $10 million, if we did not have the liquor corporation $10 million, if we did not have the $37 million Sinking Funds, if we did not have the $3 million from Gull Island, if we did not take all of the $42.5 million in the one year, we would have a cash basis of over $300 million deficit. Who is telling me we are not cooking the books? They are cooked to the tune of a 50 per cent difference on a cash basis alone.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, one of my colleagues says it is ridiculous. Yes, it is a ridiculous what is going on.

Give people the truth. If it is good news or if it is bad news, whatever it is, give it to the people and tell them the truth. Let them be the judge of how they want to take it, but at least they should get the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I am just going to touch for a little while on education. The minister talks about better education for a better future. We all know the value of education. Education is vital, I might say, in getting a secure job in the future. Your chances are greatly enhanced. People who go on to post-secondary and graduate have higher incomes and a higher success in getting jobs. People who go on and finish degrees in university have an even improved chance of getting jobs, as opposed to some other post-secondary. Many people today are going out into technological fields and are getting excellent wages. Many people are going out, doing courses and programs, and they are doing quite well.

Mr. Speaker, some of them can get an education a lot cheaper than going to university for four and five years. They go out and work in the offshore, many have gone away out of this Province to get jobs and come back to land jobs here after. That is an important part. That is why our college system is so vital and so important in educating people and keeping the cost down within our college system.

For example, in Quebec they do not charge tuition in colleges. Quebecers do not pay tuition in Quebec colleges because Quebecers want to see their people get an education, enhance their chances and reduce their costs. That is important. In fact, Quebecers have not increased, have frozen tuition in Quebec colleges. For fifteen of the last twenty years they have seen a freeze in tuition in Quebec. Now they are only paying $1,668 a year, $834 a semester, the lowest rates for people of a province, for their own people living in their province, in this entire country. The lowest by far, I might add, by a long shot.

Quebecers want to invest in the future in education because they know that is where the secret lies. We have a government here who has moved to drop tuition, which we applaud - we applaud the drop in tuition, to lower the cost - but that is only a tip of the iceberg in terms of people getting an education. They increase it. They do not move the deduction, for the education deduction. The cost is getting less and less on that for taxes for people who have an income - students - and when they go to work they can carry it over. They are giving on one hand and taking it back on another. To me, it looks good up front, but when you look at the bottom line it does not look any better. To me, you cannot give it on one hand and take it on the other. That is too shallow. That is not being fair. That is hoodwinking people, trying to tell them you are doing something and then you are taking it back. That is not the solution, I might add. So it is important.

Commitment begins with early literacy like in the KinderStart orientation program. That is positive for young kids and preschoolers and so on at an early age to get a head start. That is very important. Education is the highway for us to be able to secure a better future, a higher employment rate, higher participation in our workforce rates, and more success financially and otherwise by people who have higher educations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: An education does not stop when you get out of university. Companies today that are competing out there and being world leaders have to always continuously train their employees. If a new car comes out, a new device, they bring in their mechanics and they train them. They train people.

My colleague from Waterford Valley has fueled the fire of the pursuit of education for people here in our Province. It is important that we recognize that fact. We support that, but we have to enable people to get an education. When you look at rural Newfoundland, if a person comes in from St. Anthony today and has to travel in here and spend eight months at university, or eight months at the College of the North Atlantic, or the Marine Institute, it is costing that person over them eight months to get in here and to get accommodations, over $10,000. Tuition was close to 30 per cent of that. Tuition is down now to about 25 per cent, or it will be. It will still cost them over $10,000. They still have a big chunk of money, and $7,500 to $8,000 of that person's money goes to pay for light and heat and so on, if they cannot live with their parents. That is the big cost. A person living in St. John's, if they can live at home, only has to worry about their tuition cost of twenty-some hundred dollars a year. There is a difference. It is four times as expensive for a person from rural Newfoundland to get an education, to have an equal opportunity. So we need to look at ways that are going to tear down the barriers to rural people getting an education in our Province. Rural people in our Province are indebted to the highest degree to get a post-secondary education, not only university, the College of the North Atlantic, the Marine Institute, private colleges, wherever you go. It costs way more money for people from rural Newfoundland. We need to look at avenues that are going to make it more accessible to rural Newfoundland.

We have heard this government in the past talk about putting centres and branches of Memorial University all over the Province in all areas. We have heard all of that before. We have heard numerous initiatives. What has happened is, the colleges themselves have even drawn back to a degree from accessibility in certain programs, because they say private colleges are doing them. Now, some private colleges out there provide excellent programs. It is expensive, very expensive. The average person from rural Newfoundland who goes to private college in St. John's, or the average person who goes to Memorial or the College of the North Atlantic in St. John's, no matter where they go, it is costing them a lot of money; even private colleges.

The biggest cost of their education is not tuition. Tuition is the minor cost of a rural Newfoundlander's education. For someone living in the city, yes, I think the big cost is tuition. Now, a reduction in tuition helps everybody, no doubt about it, but what we need to be doing, also, when people do get to work - we haven't moved up education deduction. I will make reference when I get to it, but there are also certain initiatives here, I must say, that I support. I do not want to indicate that we do not agree with any of it. There are lots of things that I agree with, lots of things presented in the Budget. There are lots of things I do not agree with in the Budget and the representation of things in the Budget. I am not pleased with how they have structured that to make it look like it is good when it is not. That is important.

We have seen investments in schools. I am wondering why, today, my friend and colleague from St. John's East, asked a question - there is a new school, I think, going up in New World Island. The total cost of that school is -

AN HON. MEMBER: Eight million.

MR. SULLIVAN: Eight million dollars, the total cost. Here is a school that is not even occupied yet. They might have to take off siding and take off bricks. The minister said: We might have to take every single thing apart. If we do, that is $8 million there, if you have to do that, according to the minister. He said: We might have to.

I am wondering why, up in the Ferryland District, there is a reconfiguration of the Mobile system. There are schools that are not considered safe, up to standard. There are people having problems up there. There is $4.5 million allotted to put a new system in, when the people are saying that $6 million or $5.9 million would solve the problem and put the system in that they want. They are $1 million or $1.5 million short. Are we going to find, because we may not have done our job in monitoring school construction - who is to blame, I do not know - that it could cost hundreds of thousands, even millions more? People in other areas are now going to be deprived because there is only $3.3 million in the Budget for capital construction and $3.5 for maintenance and repair within the system in this Budget. So who is going to pay the price? People need that. We need better management, better controls, better running of the public money. That is where it is gobbling up the fat.

How come our revenues are gone up so high this year and our expenditures passed us by? Our revenues are going up next year and the expenditures are going by us. It is worse we are getting, not better. It is more difficult to keep pace because they are letting inefficiencies and bureaucratic mess in here. Red tape and other things tie up the revenues. It is almost an exercise - I will not get into that at the moment, the process and frustrations of going through a school construction. I went through that before to a degree and I am dealing with it again now. Hopefully, this will get resolved in the near future, that we can get this solved. We need to reinvest in education.

We were told, all of us were told, the people in Newfoundland and Labrador were told, in a householder, that monies saved from restructuring is going to get reinvested back into education. Well, they have siphoned money out. A lot of the money was seen going back in now. A significant amount of this too is going back, basically, in salary increases. It is not going back necessarily into programs and other areas.

We have seen a significant reduction for a period of time. We have seen statistics lowered, preventive maintenance. Here is an example: Facing the Challenge, a report on the Study Group on Hours of Work. Under preventive maintenance, that is lacking in many of our schools, not only because of a shortage of personnel, but because of a shortage of funds for materials, supplies and equipment. It said: This shortage of funds was exacerbated in 1996-1997 when the rate for repairs and maintenance was reduced from 75 cents per square foot to 55 cents per square foot. The present rate is inadequate to meet the repairs and maintenance demands of aging buildings with increased occupancy and usage and should be reviewed by government.

The Premier promised this year even in school cleanliness, janitorial and maintenance costs, $9 million is needed. I think that was a commitment. I do not have the specific quote or a copy of the commitment, I am just taking it from memory. So, if there are some things not entirely - I will sum it up rather than try to quote. The Premier committed $9 million. We are only seeing $2.5 million. That is not going to fix the problem at all. In fact the commitment was $9 million. Commitments made are not commitments kept, I can tell you. This is one other commitment that was not kept.

It says, they are only going to give $2.5 million to implement the phasing-in in September. We need to maintain sufficient staff to be able to keep schools clean, keep students healthy. They can breath fresh air. It is a healthy environment in which to learn because if it is not healthy you cannot concentrate, you cannot focus, you are coming home from school or you are picking up a certain illness in school and it is causing problems. I know of people whose kids go to school and they come home sick, they are not healthy, and the number in the schools have increased.

I have heard numerous complaints from a school in Bay Bulls that should be closed, basically. We are trying to get a commitment of a few extra dollars. Let's see if it going to come, I say to the minister, let's see if that extra $1.5 million is going to be forthcoming, or $1.4 million or whatever is needed to be able to solve the problems in our Mobile system.

There is a commitment of $4.5 million given, it is not sufficient to do the job. Hopefully, the minister will resolve that because we are finding that the conditions there are not up to standard. Mobile school, for example, the Mobile High School, with a substandard gymnasium. I have seen it there where you could almost swim on the floor. Unsafe! It is unsafe, substandard heights. It has produced numerous athletes, excellent athletes, over the years in numerous areas. They were dominate in numerous areas for a number of years and doing so in a gymnasium that does not meet today's standards at all. That is needed to be done.

I am not sure if there is another elementary school in the Avalon East Board that does not have a gymnasium. Bay Bulls, I think, is the only one. Kids up to grade 6 do not have a gymnasium to go to and that is needed, that is important. We need to be able to provide physical education. One of the things that has happened in our school system today is we have moved away from physical education. People participated years ago, they got involved. I think it is important. A healthy mind and healthy body go hand in hand. We need that to be a part of the system. There has been a continuous drawing back, with very little emphasis on it.

People in our system today and in our society, generally - there is higher obesity among young people in our system. I know some of it could be the product of changing lifestyles, but some could be from lack of emphasis on physical education. Our school system, I think, has to bear a certain amount of responsibility for that. That is not something that happens overnight, that is something that has to start at a young age and it has to carry through. If you haven't participated in physical education for six or seven years, what is the chance you are going to start participating and getting involved then? Your chances are not nearly as great. So, there are areas we need to improve on.

Last year there was so much frustration with red tape and departmental stuff and realigning the school system in Trepassey, the board took the bull by the horns, put all their staff up there, got it done, and shortly after school opened they had it ready in there. Now, all K to 12 are there in that facility and it is working quite well. I was there on Saturday, actually, at the Provincial 4A Championships in basketball. A tremendous game, I might add, between O'Donel and PWC. It was a tremendous game, a very exciting game, in which we saw O'Donel run up about a 20 to 5 lead and then PWC came back and took the lead. It changed hands about eight times. Every basket was changing hands to lead. It was quite an exciting game. It is a beautiful facility there, the gym in Trepassey, it ranks with any.

The one in Mobile is substandard and the kids in Bay Bulls do not have gym. They managed to get one in the Ferryland system and St. Kevin's are getting on track, but the Mobile system hasn't been put to rest, $4.5 million short a bit of what is needed to get that settled there. I am sure the minister, in that $3.3 million I see earmarked, or the $3.5 there, will be able to find what is necessary to get things moving this year and get this solved. The Bay Bulls school is not safe. There are a lot of people getting sick. Everybody would agree that the school has to be shut down. I don't think there is any disagreement from the department, the board, or anybody on that issue.

I sat at a board meeting a couple of months ago when there was a resolution passed by the board, a unanimous passing of a resolution, for K to 6 and 7 to 12, a two-school system, in Mobile. Those areas there, Witless Bay and Bay Bulls, are areas that are on the outskirts of St. John's. There are a lot of young families moving in. Unlike the Ferryland school system, the Baltimore system or the Stella Maris system which have experienced declining enrollments, there has been a maintenance of numbers within the system in Mobile. The funding hasn't been put forward to be able to do the job. I guess it is between the board and the department now. In fact, there is a meeting tomorrow with the school councils again to address this. I attended one there last month. They are really concerned because it may not be ready for next year, not this year coming, the following year. Students in that environment is not considered healthy. The school itself is sort of earmarked for, we will say, taking it out of the system. At least it moves one other school out of the system. It is one less school. There are some consolidations and improvements that can be done in that. People have been looking for a two-school system in there and the board unanimously supported that. The funding has not been coming from the department to be able to meet those needs and that is important.

I know other projects on the go last year had overruns in the hundreds of thousands and so on there. Hopefully, we are not getting a slicing of money that could be used to put this to rest in that system because the people there deserve an opportunity to go to school in a safe school, be considered at least healthy and conducive to a proper learning environment. I know there are lots of priorities around the Province in it, but this is a major priority there. So much of a priority that last year there was money earmarked for that. Hopefully, we will see something in this budget that will put that to rest.

Mr. Speaker, there is a considerable amount of money that has been spent. They have indicated today that $170 million has been spent to build twenty-three new schools and undertake renovations of forty-nine existing others. Well, we have seen a significant change in, I guess, the demographics, too, within our Province. We have seen an increase in organization. We have seen a struggle to maintain schools. A lot of schools have been closed. In fact, most parents - and I heard on the news all over the Province, over the past several years, people saying: Look, we want our school built here. We want it built there. There are struggles within communities. In my district, and I can say clearly, the people in the Baltimore system agreed to close schools. They said: Give us one school on the one site. Give us the facilities and give us the resources we need. That happened.

In Stella Maris in Trepassey, two schools, people supported that. They supported it and they wanted to see a closure. People in the Mobile system agree that a school has to close in Bay Bulls. They are not resisting to having a school in the community. They are content to shrink it from three to two. They are content to do that. They are being progressive. In fact, so much so in the Baltimore system that the people went out and got a plan done themselves. They were so frustrated with the process they went out and paid an architect to do a plan, a design of the school. At least a conceptual one of it. They spent several thousand dollars that they ended up paying back locally when they went out with a different design to the department. So, the initiative is there by the people. They want to move forward, but they feel they are being held back by bureaucratic red tape. It is time to cut that red tape, basically, and get on and move forward in the best interests of children.

I have another initiative I want to just comment on briefly. I think it is important that within the next two years there is $5 million toward a broadband Internet connectivity project. It is important to open it up to the world. People want high-speed access to the Internet. They do not want dial-up service. We have dial-up at home actually. You want to have quicker connections, and so on, for people doing business in particular. People carrying out business in rural Newfoundland are disadvantaged when they do not have that. If we want to promote rural Newfoundland and Labrador we have to be able to access the Internet on a regular basis. I might say, by putting money into this we cannot do it fast enough in my mind to be able to improve that access.

There are a few other initiatives there. For instance, I mentioned it before, and I will just touch on it again as I move through the Budget book here. The minister announced the tuition cut, but we have seen students with huge debt loads. I spoke with a student last year who had a $70,000 debt load.

AN HON. MEMBER: A doctor?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, it is a student who graduated with a Bachelor of Sociology or an Arts degree - I am not sure which - and decided to enter and go into another degree program here. That is an undergraduate degree, actually a nursing degree. After a couple of years in there, doing exceptionally well, found that they could not get any more loans. Here is a program where the chance of getting a job in North America is pretty great. In this Province it is probably not so great, but certainly in North America. The student was denied access, but eventually got the loan and the loan has probably skyrocketed now. Here they are with a huge debt. For a young person to come out in their mid-twenties today with $70,000 and $80,000 to get an undergraduate degree, it is a lot of money. There are many families out there today around rural Newfoundland who cannot afford to contribute to their children's education. If you are living at home in St. John's, it is a lot easier. People cannot afford to contribute and they have to go and get loans to the hilt, and some of them have to try to work and get a few hours to help keep them going. That happens. A lot of people spend more time worrying about if they are going to have enough money to pay next month's rent than they are about their exams that are coming up. That actually happens. I am sure members here are not oblivious to that. I am sure they have dealt with some of them. I know I have, and I do not think I am the only one who has dealt with that, Mr. Speaker, on students dealing with that problem. They run through, if parents cannot contribute paying to their student loans. They are frustrated. They drop a course. They have dropped a course because they cannot afford to pay the full tuition. They do a course less or so because they cannot afford to pay it and still it takes longer to get their degree. It is going to cost them more, but at least they can access enough money, and maybe by dropping a course or so they might be able to pick up a few extra hours of work to at least carry them through. You know, people have to balance those things and it is on an ongoing basis this is happening, regularly, to a significant amount of the population.

We cannot have universities in every rural community, that is obvious, and that is not we are not advocating, but I think we have to look at avenues there to assist at least in alleviating the burdens from their student loans in the long term when you are over-indebted, and many of them are. I have gone to appeals, actually, at the loan board, and I am sure people have here, looking at their semesters for courses and so on, and trying to get those who get beyond the threshold and so on in levels, the cut-off points, and what they would be expected to have in debt, and getting these alleviated to a degree, but people getting into debt in the first place is the big problem. People are reluctant to take that extra step. People make decisions. I know people make a decision when they come out of school and they are in university, to go out and go to work for awhile because they want to get ahead. Some people do not want to incur high debt and therefore they sacrifice education for that because they do not want to or they cannot access it. Some do not want to do it, and some cannot access it. That is happening. So, there is a major problem overall with debt load among students, particularly with the rural versus the urban costs of getting an education. That is very significant also.

These are things that we need to address. I would like to say again, and I have said it before, and I know the minister was on her feet half-a-dozen times but I would like to say it again, that people in this Province, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, do not have the lowest tuition rates in this country.

People in Quebec have a rate that is about $1,000 lower. When you factor in other compulsory costs, it is even more. These figures, while it says that other compulsory costs are about $300 more in this Province than in Quebec, on top of tuition that is $900 to $1,000 more. So, it is significantly more expensive and $1,300 a year, that adds up. If you are in there four or five years, that is $6,500 more in debt and then the interest to pay that back all adds up over a period of time. There are costs for people who try to attend school.

MS THISTLE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Butler): On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, (inaudible) give the Member for Ferryland a break. He seems quite exhausted over there, and I know he was edging me on because he needed a break. I took pity on him, Mr. Speaker, I thought I would hop to my feet so he could relax.

I wanted to reiterate what I said to him last week, Mr. Speaker, that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has the lowest tuition rate in the country for university. I even sent out a news release today in response to the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne who challenged that figure last week. I also included the Stats Canada report along with it, so I am sure he will have the information once he reads it on our Web site.

What I will say to viewers out there today, Mr. Speaker, is that if you compare apples with apples that means that in Quebec for all Canadians they pay $3,970 and starting in September of 2003 all Canadians in Newfoundland and Labrador who attend Memorial University will pay $2,540. So, we do have the lowest tuition rate in all of Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad that you agree with me on no point of order because it did not make any sense to me whatsoever what she was saying, none whatsoever. It is in black and white. I will let people draw their own conclusions.

It says, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador 2002-2003, $2,760; Prince Edward Island $3,870; Quebec $1,670.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is that again?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, it is rounded off. I actually think it is $1,668 but they have it rounded off here to $1,670. British Columbia $2,979; Manitoba, $3,069; Saskatchewan $3,900; Ontario $4,126. The minister said in her statement, in her news release that is included with a backgrounder in this package that we all received under the budget under Youth and Post-Secondary Education, that we have the lowest tuition rates in the country.

Quebecers can go to university in Quebec, any one they like, for $1,668 just the same. A Newfoundland and Labrador student last year had to spend $2,760. If anyone thinks $2,760 is lower than $1,668 -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: - a former President of Treasury Board, no wonder we are in the financial mess our Province is in today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I would like to see the calculator or the machine she is using for adding up those numbers, Mr. Speaker. I think she should table it so we all can see how it just does not add up.

It goes on to say - and I think this information is provided by this government on their Web site, on their own Web site.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was a release today, Sir. That came out today.

MR. SULLIVAN: It came out today, April 7, and she shows the rates for Quebec. Yes, this one from Quebec comes from our Web site too, $1,670. She missed it by $2 but I will accept $1,670 and $2,760. Not even close.

In fact, the article I read, and I quoted it here in the House, said: Also, other compulsory costs. Their cost of attending university was $300 higher in Newfoundland and Labrador than it was for compulsory costs to attend university in the Province of Quebec; $300 more. Add that on to over $1,000 difference last year, almost $1,100 and that is $1,400. If you go four years, it is $5,600 and five years it is over $7,000 more for a Newfoundlander and Labradorian to attend Memorial University here as opposed to a Quebecer attending university in Quebec. That is the difference.

We are moving into different rates here in our Province for other students. We have done it in medical school for international students. We have had a funding arrangement with New Brunswick traditionally for ten students. We have had funding arranged with other students from the U.S., have medical schools pay different rates too, but they are separate from that. Granted, I do not want to confuse that issue, but they are. They are factual in what I am indicating there.

I have the list here, actually. If the minister wants the list of all of the universities in Quebec, I can certainly go to them. I can mention a few here. I am sure she would like to know. It says here, in Quebec, la belle province: Concordia University, $1,668; Université Laval, $1,668; McGill University, $1,668; Université de Montréal, $1,668; École Polytechnique de Montréal, $1,668,the National School of Public Administration Quebec, $1,668, and on they go. Every single one of them, the one at Chicoutimi, Abitibi-Témiscamingue, $1,668, at Montreal and Rimouski, all the same. They are all there for anybody who wants to look at them and find out exactly what they are paying. We like to get the facts, and we do not want to get it twisted to give an impression.

When I heard that, I thought from that statement here and from reading the release - now the Minister of Finance did say in her statement, she sort of indicated: For students from this Province, tuition rates at Memorial are the lowest Canadian rates.

For the tuition for this Province, yes. It is cheaper for one in this Province to go in this Province than to go to some other university, but it is far, far cheaper for Quebec residents. She said that I am not comparing apples and apples.

Look, to me, apples and apples is a student from Quebec going to Quebec university and a student in Newfoundland and Labrador going to a university in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is apples and apples.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: She was trying to compare apples and something else when she said: But a Newfoundland student goes to university in Quebec is going to pay more, or somewhere else, than they do here in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is not apples and apples, I tell the minister. If not, the apples are pretty green, I can tell you. They are not capable of being compared.

AN HON. MEMBER: They have been caught.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right. They made a statement that was not true. So hopefully they will correct that now.

I have not seen a correction in a news release, I might add. I have not seen it. I will be looking forward to seeing that correction coming.

We have looked at Youth Opportunities. It says, "Youth Opportunities will provide incentives for employers who hire cooperative work term students and new post secondary graduates. This new program will make it easier for new graduates to find meaningful employment...."

Well, anything that can help a graduate find meaningful employment is important, but it is also important - since this came out, I spoke to some businesses and people who have called my office looking for work, actually, and they said: It is great to say we are going to give incentives, but if the jobs are not there, who is going to hire them? Who is going to hire somebody, if the jobs are not there, because they are getting a reduction or an incentive? It is not going to happen. The climate for business growth, development for new opportunities and new jobs with newly and highly trained people has to be stimulated here in our Province and we have to have the market out there ready to accept people there. That is the underlying thing. That happens. People are not just going to hire. What they will do - traditionally, when people get a subsidy to hire somebody, or a Targeted Wage Subsidy, and they bring them in - they are in there under HRDC, what happens when it runs out? Many times they get laid off. That happens in a lot of cases. The take them while the subsidy is there because the benefits there reduce their cost of having someone there, but they cannot afford to pay the full salary. So we have to have a workplace that is growing and that is able to have an opportunity for new employees and increased growth.

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The Member for Waterford Valley is wondering where I am. I have not gotten to the main bulk of my comments, I would say to him, but I have gotten to page 20 in the Budget Speech, and there are thirty-nine pages in the Budget Speech so I am a little over halfway through the Budget Speech today. I do not know if I should start on another topic right now. Do you want me to? I will talk about health care next. That should keep me going for a few hours.

I will just make a quick reference on this. This Province - we are told we have seen an improvement basically in our health care. We have seen the worst decline in health care in our country, of any province, since this government took over. We have seen the longest waiting lists. We have seen surgery denied because they cannot get access to it properly. The five principles of the Canada Health Act - accessibility varies, not only from province to province; accessibility varies from board to board within this Province and it is difficult. I know from speaking to people over a number of years that there are problems with getting that particular access.

Without going deeper into that, Mr. Speaker, I now adjourn debate. It is becoming that time of day.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the House, I just want to make some announcements.

The Social Services Committee will meet this evening at 7 o'clock in the House to review the Estimates of the Department of Human Resources and Employment.

The Resource Committee will meet tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock in the House to review the Estimates of the Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House on its rising do now adjourn.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.