April 8, 2003 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 11


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to extend congratulations to the Host Committee of the 2003 Canadian National Broomball Championships held in Corner Brook this past weekend. The event was a tremendous success with over 600 athletes and coaches from all across Canada participating.

I commend the Host Team for their dedication, commitment and perseverance to organize and bring this national event to Corner Brook. Many people work long hours volunteering their time to make this event a reality.

We now look forward to next year when Corner Brook and the surrounding area will be hosting the 2004 World Broomball Championships from October 31 to November 7. There is no better recognition than being recognized by your peers for any contribution to any sport.

Mr. Speaker, I also extend congratulations to Mr. Barry Saunders of Bishop's Falls, Bruce Moores of Grand Falls-Windsor, and Len AuCoin of Corner Brook who were inducted into the Canadian Broomball Hall of Fame at a ceremony held last Monday night in Corner Brook, and I had the privilege of presenting their plaques to them Saturday night at their annual banquet. These three individuals have a combined history of 105 years of broomball.

Mr. Saunders started playing broomball in 1964 with the Grand Falls Men's Broomball League. He held many executive positions with the local Broomball League as well as Broomball Newfoundland and Labrador, including President from 1980 to 1985. In 1987, he was awarded the Lifetime Membership of Broomball Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Moores started his broomball career in 1975 in the Grand Falls league as a player and two years later started his fourteen-year career as a referee. In 1975 he was appointed Referee-in-Chief of Broomball Newfoundland and Labrador and held that position until 1993.

Mr. AuCoin began his broomball career about forty years ago. He has served as President of Broomball Newfoundland and Labrador. He is founding Chairperson of the provincial Hall of Fame and he is responsible for establishing juvenile broomball in Corner Brook.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending congratulations to these three gentlemen and the Host Broomball Committee for a job well done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to tribute to Alice Smith of Elliott's Cove, Random Island. Mrs. Smith, or Aunt Alice as she was more affectionately known, passed away on March 30, 2003, at the age of 106. Aunt Alice was born on October 6, 1896 in Snook's Harbour, Random Island and eventually settled in Elliot's Cove with her husband, Attwood Smith, where they raised seven children.

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that Aunt Alice, if not have the distinction of being the longest living person in the Province, certainly would be one of the few who lived to be 106 and remain alert and active for such a period. She not only remained active and alert but she had a tremendous sense of humor. I recall being at her 105th birthday when she was asked by a CBC reporter: What was her secret to long life? She looked at the lady and said: My love, if I told you it would not be a secret any more. With that, she continued to enjoy a great birthday party and again, we did it this past year.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all the members of this hon. House to join with me today in acknowledging the great life of Aunt Alice Smith of Elliott's Cove, Random Island, and to join with her family in celebrating the life of a wonderful mother, an early pioneer, and a great community builder.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, recently, the first four recipients of the Peter Gzowski Internships of CBC Radio were named.

Frank Durnford, one of these first four recipients from across Canada, comes from Creston South. Mr. Durnford, who is attending Memorial University, will be given the opportunity to delve into the many components that make radio.

Mr. Durnford and the other interns will participate in a program that will begin in Toronto at the Canadian Broadcasting Centre learning the basics of radio production. Once this first week is complete, the interns will move to a different location to continue their studies.

The Peter Gzowski Internships program was created to honour one of radios most enduring voices. The winner of many awards and twelve honorary doctorates, Mr. Gzowski died in January, 2002. Through this internship program named after Mr. Gzowski, his legacy in radio will live on.

I would ask Members of the House of Assembly to join with me in congratulating Mr. Frank Durnford on being chosen to receive this award and also in wishing him well in his future endeavours.

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.

For nearly 120 years the RCMP depot in Regina, Saskatchewan, has been training members of our federal police force. Young Canadians have come from right across this country to partake and be part of this wonderful world-renown police force.

Mr. Speaker, we have a first on the Cape Shore in my district, and I am very pleased today to stand and congratulate Ms Debbie Morrissey from Cuslett, Placentia Bay, a small community of fifty people, who graduated from the Police Academy yesterday, April 7, 2003.

Ms Morrissey is fulfilling a lifelong dream that she has and will be stationed in Surrey, British Columbia, on April 16, 2003.

To commemorate this very special occasion, there will be a party on the lower road in Cuslett on Friday night, April 11, and I guarantee you we are going to have a party to celebrate Ms Debbie Morrissey's induction into the RCMP.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to stand in this House today to congratulate and commend the Grade 6 class at Memorial Academy in Wesleyville, New-Wes-Valley on their recycling program.

Last September Mr. Eli Cross, the school Principal, and his staff, decided that they wanted to do something different with their schools' recycling program. In the past they just had the bin outside the school where parents or anybody could drop off their recyclables as a donation to the school. They came up with the idea of a fundraiser this year with a twist. Their slogan is: We don't want your money, just give us your trash and we'll turn it into cash.

First they solicited the local businesses for cash donations to give out prizes. Every Wednesday is Green Day at the school. When a student brought along five items, they would get a ticket to go in the draw for a prize. The number of recyclables went from 600 to 700 per month to 4,000 to 5,000 per month.

In February of this year, they put on an extra special drive and ended up collecting approximately 22,000 containers. For that month they raised approximately $2,200 for bringing their recyclables to the school. Since October, they have collected approximately 45,000 containers. While they will probably raise about $5,000 before the school is over for activities and programs, the biggest bonus is instilling in themselves the fact that they are helping the environment.

Again, I would like to congratulate Mr. Cross, his staff and the Grade 6 Green Team at Memorial Academy in Wesleyville, and everyone else who participated in this great project.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the Province's Youth Advisory Committee and commend them on their completion of their first annual report entitled: A Youth's Future is Today. This document, which contains twenty-two recommendations, was presented to myself and Premier Grimes this morning.

The Youth Advisory Committee was established in June, 2001, to give youth a direct voice to government. Never before have young people been so well informed and capable of providing advice and input to government on policies and programs.

The recommendations included in the Committee's report address issues ranging from student aid reform to income support, and including the views of youth in the Royal Commission's report on Renewing and Strengthening Our Place in Canada.

Youth and youth-related issues are a high priority to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Even though we live in a day when so many demands are being placed upon us, we must not underestimate the need to continue to invest in our young people. They are tomorrow's leaders and our future.

I also wish to acknowledge the role in which Sandra Kelly, as the former Minister of Youth, Services and Post-Secondary Education -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: - played the important part of development of the Youth Advisory Committee and I recognize that this morning. I am very proud of your accomplishments in this area, Ms Kelly, my colleague.

As the new minister, I look forward to building on the partnership my colleague has developed with our youth and pledge this government's commitment to carefully reviewing the Committee's recommendations.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to table this report today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly would thank the minister for an advance copy of the statement. I stand as well, and I am sure my colleagues on this side of the House would as well, to congratulate the Youth Advisory Committee, certainly for their dedication, for their commitment, and, more importantly I suppose, or as importantly, their strong voice, as well as the four adult mentors who were there to help these young people put together this Committee.

The recommendations, I would say to the minister, are spot-on, especially in the areas of affordable education, youth employment and career direction, empowerment and equality. We have these recommendations, they are being presented to the government, but a word of caution, I say, Mr. Speaker, because the voice of the youth had been heard through the 1990s, and Generation X that went through the 1990s turned into generation death.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HEDDERSON: Their voices were loud, they were clear, and they were ignored, so I am asking this minister to make sure that the voices of the youth are heard, and not only heard but acted upon.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are certainly glad to see the recommendations of the Youth Advisory Committee but I want to acknowledge here today the work of student groups over the past six or seven years since this government and its predecessors starting gutting post-secondary education support: the MUN Students' Union, the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Students, who worked tirelessly as a representative accountable body back to their schools, back to their students, elected by them instead of a hand-picked group that is advising government that is not really accountable. I think we have to recognize that these young people have something say, but, on the other hand -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - are a representative group that are elected to represent the interests of young people in this Province.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions this afternoon are for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned that this government is indeed going to privatize the provision of long-term health care facilities in Corner Brook. In fact, the plan appears to advance to the stage where government has already examined the issue of union succession rights. Furthermore, the proposal seeking private interest appears to have already been drafted. According to Hansard, the Premier said private companies, and I quote: absolutely have to provide a standard of service.

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that privatized health care facilities are guaranteed a certain level of profit. The government pays the private company a premium over the cost of constructing and operating the particular facility.

Mr. Speaker, can the Premier please confirm that this level of profit is what has increased the cost of constructing the facility in Corner Brook from the original estimate of $50 million to the new estimate of $70 million?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question and the very desperate attempt of the Leader of the Opposition to continue on with this issue.

Mr. Speaker, there have been no changes in the estimates with respect to the facility in Corner Brook. For the record, and the Leader of the Opposition knowing that should make that clear, there will be no privatization of health care in Newfoundland and Labrador with this particular government. He knows that, and why he would persist in characterizing it otherwise is beyond me, Mr. Speaker, and I think it should be called into question.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, however, to see the continuing changing in the position of the Leader of the Opposition who, a little while ago, said: I cannot make commitments to the people of Corner Brook at this point in time. I am not prepared to go out and make political promises. I cannot responsibly do that, and I am not prepared to do it. I think the people are going to find out that, as we lead up to an election, I am just not going to come out and do those kinds of things. In Hansard, yesterday, he says: We will go and build the facility. We will build the facility too, Mr. Speaker, and we will find a way to do it within the means of the government and protect the needs of the people.

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, the Premier seems to very carefully select his headlines and his quotes. Yesterday, he said there was a quote from me that said it was not a high priority to build a long term health care facility in Corner Brook. I quote The Western Star: The Western Star would like to clarify that the headline accompanying Friday's story, which stated a new facility was not a high priority with Williams, did not accurately reflect William's comments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Romanow Commission on health care stated that an overwhelming majority of Canadians don't want a private health care system. The President of CUPE has stated publicly that the Premier will not even discuss the issue of privatization and continues to stick his head in the sand. He is prepared to privatize health care, Mr. Speaker, without even listening to the concerns of the people.

Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the Premier himself acknowledged yesterday that this facility could be between $50 and $70 million, an extra $20 million, will he not admit that it is merely just another opportunity to reward companies with strong Liberal ties just as it did with Trans City?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me repeat again for the record, because it bears repeating: There will be no privatization of health care in Newfoundland and Labrador by this particular government, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, what we have laid out for discussion and for a proposal that will happen within the next fifty days or so, to meet a need in Corner Brook which is also a need in Conception Bay North and here in St. John's, is a process whereby we will guarantee nationally accredited and approved levels of service for people in long term care in Newfoundland and Labrador. No doubt about it, Mr. Speaker, no doubt about it, none whatsoever, we will guarantee that it is done with the right mix of professionals who provide that care in jurisdictions right across the country because it is the national standard that will be met. It will be paid for by the taxpayers of the Province, 100 per cent, as it is today, with the same rules and conditions for entering the system as exist today, with any fees and charges the same as they are today, Mr. Speaker. We will examine methods to do that sooner rather than later, and one of them is through a private-public partnership, so that we can meet the needs today rather than wait for four, six, eight, ten, twelve or fifteen years.

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, it appears that the Premier is saying one thing and the new designated spokesperson for health care, Mr. Mercer, Humber East, is saying something completely different.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have noticed on a number of occasions now that members, when referring to other members of this Legislature, have been calling them by name.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask hon. members that, when they refer to a member of the House, to use the constituency that they represent.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this Province just brought down an election budget that had a deficit of $286 million, and the Province's debt increased to well over $11 billion. The Member for Humber East said the Province's credit card, while not maxed out, is getting pretty close to the line.

Mr. Speaker, my question for the Premier is: If the credit card is at or near its maximum, what possible reason could there be for privatizing health care and unnecessarily spending an additional $20 million of taxpayers' money to privatize a long-term health care facility in Corner Brook?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say it again, quite clearly. The government is not contemplating the privatization of health care under any set of circumstances. We are contemplating a private-public partnership to provide for publicly funded health care at nationally approved standards, with entry and access to the system exactly as it is today through the publicly functioning health care boards in Western Newfoundland, in the northern part of Conception Bay, Conception Bay North, and here in St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about any increased cost. As a matter of fact, the whole idea of going through an Expression of Interest and a Request for Proposals is to get it done at a lower cost than if we did it ourselves. That is what the Expression of Interest and the Request for Proposals will actually flesh out for us, Mr. Speaker.

As a matter of fact, in meeting with the committee on Thursday evening in Corner Brook, we did point out to them that if an Expression of Interest and a Request for Proposals does not demonstrate that we can provide the same, if not an improved, level of care for the long-term care needs of these residents in Corner Brook at lower than or equivalent cost to what the government would do it ourselves, there is no point in us doing it. The whole notion is to provide the level of care that is needed at a cost that is less than what it would cost the government if we did it ourselves through traditional methods.

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.

That is a different position than yesterday. The Premier seems to backing off his position. It is also a different position than that stated by the designated spokesperson for the health care in the Province, the Member for Humber East. We will get to that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, privatization has not worked in other provinces. The auditors for projects in New Brunswick have said that because of the private sector's need for profit, privatization of public projects have created additional costs. In fact, the Government of Nova Scotia said that its privatization was a failure. Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that other maritime governments have had bad experiences with privatization, and large interest groups in this Province are vehemently opposed to it, can the Premier explain why he continues to stick his head in the sand and proceed with privatization of health care at all costs?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say it again, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is characterized by an old expression that goes something like: There is none so blind as he who would not see, and none so deaf as he who would not hear.

Let me say it again. The government is not contemplating privatized health care. Let me say it one more time. The government is not contemplating privatized health care in any way, shape or form. What we are looking at is a system and a proposal whereby nationally accredited and approved levels of care will be provided for the long-term residents of Corner Brook and the rest of the Province, if we are successful, at a cost that is less than, or no more than equivalent to, the government doing it itself by traditional means. We will find out if that is possible through an Expression of Interest and a Request for Proposals.

My view, and the view, as I understand it, of the committee in Corner Brook, is that why anyone would not want to go through that process to find out if it is possible or not is beyond me. That is the group that is burying their heads in the sand.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, it is a group that would not even want to examine the circumstance under which the level of care could be guaranteed, the accessibility could be guaranteed, the public funding could be guaranteed -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - and the taxpayers could pay less for the same service, Mr. Speaker. That is what we are trying to accomplish.

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, let's deal with what the Minister for Environment, the Member for Humber East, is saying on the airwaves in the last twenty-four hours. He acknowledged that there are two options. One was that the private sector staff the facility and operate it, and the other one was that the Province staff it and operate it and lease it back. Then he went on to say, between those two posts there are all kinds of possibilities. So, you have one privatization here and you have another privatization here -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: - and in between here the minister is saying there are all kinds of privatization possibilities.

Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that his minister is laying out all kinds of possibilities for privatization -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question quickly.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that his own minister is laying out all kinds of privatization possibilities, could the Premier tell the people of this Province: What are all those different possibilities, and what is the financial analysis, the resource analysis, the standard of care analysis, and what are the consequences for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for the many different forms of privatization that he and his minister is contemplating?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me repeat again, it seems to be kind of pointless to pursue the line of questioning when the Leader of the Opposition wants to talk about privatization which we are not doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I can say this, that in the Expression of Interest, which I am sure that the people of Corner Brook and the people of the Province would like to see, and the Request for Proposals the comes from that, we will have examined and determined how we guarantee the level of care that meets, if not exceeds, the Canadian standards, how we guarantee accessibility to the system on the same manner that it is done today through a single entry evaluation system conducted by public health officials, which is the way it is done everywhere in the Province today; how we will guarantee that there are no extra charges to individuals and that if it is a private sector person who is building and even operating the facility, that they cannot charge the people anything other than what would be charged here in any other facility - even the ones that are on the West Coast today, run by the government directly. All of those things will be laid out in the expression of interest and the request for proposals. There is no private health care being contemplated by this government. It seems kind of pointless if the Leader of the Opposition does not understand that or does not want to understand that, then there is not much point in pursuing the line of questioning, 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: Mr. Speaker, the designated spokesperson for health care, the Minister of Environment, the Member for Humber East, was also on Open Line this morning and said that the Province cannot afford to borrow the money needed to build the long-term care facility. He said: Borrowing the money could jeopardize the Province's credit rating.

Mr. Speaker, can the Premier explain, is this the real reason why this government is privatizing health care, because of its fiscal mismanagement? The Province's credit rating is so fragile it cannot sustain a loan between $50 million and $70 million. Was this year's deficit so bad that we have maxed out all our borrowing capacity?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The facts of the matter are these. There is no privatization of health care occurring or being contemplated by this particular government. We are trying to find the right and proper and appropriate way to meet the needs for long-term care, first and foremost, in Corner Brook and then in other regions of the Province. There is no fiscal mismanagement. The fact of the matter is we have made the choices and laid them out in the Budget.

As a matter of fact, and here is where the issue really comes to the floor. The Opposition would have to suggest that if we had decided to borrow $50 million this year in cash to build a facility in Corner Brook, then there is $50 million worth of other expenditures in our Budget that would have to be taken out to have the same budget that we presented today. Maybe he would like to stand up now and talk to the people of the Province about the $50 million worth of programs and services that we have laid out in our Budget that he does not agree with and would take out of the Budget because he would want to do something else, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, we have made our choices. We have laid out our plan in the Budget. We stand by it, and with that done -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - we can still find a way to meet the needs in Corner Brook, along with the rest of the plans that we have.

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.

My questions today are also for the Premier.

In light of the fact that the Premier had trouble answering my questions yesterday on personnel within government, I want to ask him a couple of questions on another issue that has been brought to my attention: Is the Premier aware that a former Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development purchased several costly items under the departmental budget, including a computer, desk, VCR, laptop computer, fax machine and shredder? Even though many attempts were made to retrieve these particular items, they have still not been returned. I would like to ask the Premier: Is he aware of this situation, and has it been brought to his attention?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker, it has not been brought to my attention, but I am sure if it is a issue, it is being dealt with in the government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, the items purchased were at a cost close to $10,000 and were purchased for the Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development. Several people from this particular department have been involved over the past number of months trying to retrieve this equipment. Personnel, right up and including the Deputy Minister, have all made attempts but to no avail.

I would like to ask the Premier: Will he take it upon himself here today to investigate this matter and report back to the House tomorrow?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Most certainly, now that it has been brought to my attention I will have it looked into.

Thank you.

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, yesterday I received a copy of a letter that was sent by Minister Gerry Byrne to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for the Province. It is obvious in the letter that Minister Byrne has distanced himself from the all-party committee recommendations, and it is also obvious that the minister is prepared to close the fishery in 4RS+3Pn and 2J+3KL.

Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the comments of the Province's Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, shortly after the FRCC recommendations came down, were referenced in this letter, I would like to ask the minister: Has she had any contact with Minister Byrne since she received this letter and, if so, does she share the same views that Minister Byrne put forth in this letter?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I did send off a letter to Minister Byrne last week and I did receive a response to it. I would like to say to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, that my position stands as it always has been, and that is that we would like to see this fishery continue in both areas of the Province. My letter to Minister Byrne outlined that specifically at that time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, one of the members said that it was a good answer, but obviously Minister Byrne and the federal government haven't heard that.

He goes on to say in his letter, Mr. Speaker: I have heard your public comments that the 3,500 ton fishery recommended by the FRCC in 4RS+3Pn would not be a viable fishery for those who depend on this stock and the fishery would be better off closed. As I raised here last week, Mr. Speaker, these were the comments of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. He acknowledges, Mr. Speaker, that this is the opinion of the Province's Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Would the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, today, Mr. Speaker, confirm that her comments, after the FRCC report came down, are jeopardizing the possibility of a fishery, particularly on the North West Coast, Southern Labrador and on the South West Coast of this Province in 4RS+3Pn. It certainly contradicts the report of the all-party committee.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say to the hon. Member for Ferryland, before I respond to my hon. colleague, that the only flip-flop in this House is on that side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: And I intend to clarify that for him immediately.

Mr. Speaker, let me outline, quite clearly, that in the letter I had written to Minister Byrne - and I will read directly from this letter and I will table it after that - the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador remains committed to the position prepared by the all-party committee and I urge you -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: - to lend your strong support so that we can avoid the devastating impacts of fisheries closures on the people and communities of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, as part of our all-party committee deliberations we decided that we would not talk to the federal government about compensation programs for fishermen, plant workers and those who might be affected by a closure of the cod fishery in 4RS+3Pn or 2J+3KL. The letter that Minister Byrne sent back goes on to suggest that provincial government officials, on their own initiative, have already started the process of discussing this issue with federal government officials some weeks ago - some weeks ago, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, or any other minister who might be involved with these discussions, who those government officials are, what they are discussing, and doesn't this confirm that this government has accepted that the closure of this fishery is going to take place?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the references that Minister Byrne makes in his letter are not directly to anything that I have written to him. You can look at the letter and see that quite clearly.

I will tell you this, Mr. Speaker, that this minister is not willing to go into Ottawa -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this minister is not willing to just walk into Ottawa under the cloak of an all-party committee, drop a report on the table of the minister and walk away.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: I am more concerned about what is going on in this fishery. I am more concerned about what the impacts of any decision that minister takes would be on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I have followed this issue, I will continue to follow this issue, and I will say again, Mr. Speaker, closure is not the answer and I stand by that.

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 Minister of Mines and Energy.

Under current legislation, the Newfoundland Power is allowed to receive a rate of return, or profit, on what is called rate base, which is unlike most utilities in Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Under current legislation, Newfoundland Power is entitled to receive a rate of return on rate base, or a profit on rate base, which is unlike most utilities in the country. This has resulted in problems in regulating Newfoundland Power and has caused over-earnings by Newfoundland Power over the past few years.

Mr. Speaker, the problem has been identified by the Consumer Advocate and could be resolved by changing the legislation to allow the Public Utilities Board to regulate on the basis of a return on equity.

Is the minister willing to introduce legislation into the House during this session to affect the current rate application to allow the Public Utilities Commission to do that, and to control the rate of return on equity of Newfoundland Power the way it should be?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to assure the hon. member that we are interested and intend to do anything that we can to make sure we have the most efficient possible electricity system in our Province, to make sure we have a system that is going to provide electricity efficiently and at the lowest possible cost.

As I have said in the past few days, Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of reviewing electricity for the Province for the next number of years and we are contemplating all of the suggestions that are being proposed. Once we are convinced of the proper action to take, we will be prepared to act hastily.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is easy for the minister to repeat platitudes to the House of Assembly, but in February of this year the Consumer Advocate wrote every member of the House outlining the problems with the current situation and suggesting that excess earnings, for example, of which there was nearly $1 million in 2001, should be, by legislation, put back into the pockets of consumers instead of letting the Public Utilities Board decide what to do with it. Will the minister do the specific thing that the Consumer Advocate asked, and change the legislation now so that excess earnings that Newfoundland Power is earning, over what they have been allowed, are in fact returned to the consumer and not used for some other purpose?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are keeping track of what is going on in the present process before the Public Utilities Board. We do not want to interfere in that process. We will let that process take its course. When that is completed, we will review the various arguments that have been made. We are concerned that rate payers in the Province may be paying more money than they need to pay for electricity provided by Newfoundland Power, and that is one of the reasons why we are prepared also to look at whether an argument can be made for combining Newfoundland Power and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. We are open-minded in all of these issues, Mr. Speaker, and we are going to make the decision that is in the best interest of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are certainly convinced that it is in the best interest of the people of this Province to have their own power corporation that includes Newfoundland Power, but in the short term, Mr. Speaker, there are two specific things that this government can do in this session to ensure that $1 million goes back into the consumers hands, and that for the short term Newfoundland Power will be regulated properly: a very simple amendment which we can do in this House of Assembly in this session. Will the minister do it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we are prepared to take whatever action is necessary to ensure we have proper electricity service in the Province, and we will act when we are convinced the time is right for doing that.

The hearings are going on before the Public Utilities Board, and this session will be going on for some months to come, and we will have an opportunity to do anything that we wish in the course of this session if we are convinced that is the appropriate action to take, and we will do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today the 2001-2002 Annual Report for the Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to table for hon. members, three reports from agencies reporting to my department, namely: the Livestock Owners Compensation Board, the Newfoundland and Labrador Crop Insurance Agency, and Newfoundland and Labrador Farm Products Corporation.

The department's annual report outlines important programs and initiatives that are key to our overall sound and prudent management and development of our outdoor resources. It highlights the progress made in our efforts to manage, grow and diversify our forest and agrifoods industries in a sustainable and environmentally responsible manner.

Mr. Speaker, sustainability is foremost in our management efforts and we are proud of our progressive forestry management and overall improved management techniques. Our agricultural industry is growing and diversifying. Government and industry continue to work together to enhance our agrifoods sector and pursue new growth opportunities, especially for our rural communities.

As I table these reports today, Mr. Speaker, I also want to take this opportunity to say that government remains committed to continue working with all stakeholders in reaching a common goal; that is to ensure a healthy forest ecosystem for future generations and prosperous and sustainable forests and agrifoods industries.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in the House today the Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development's Annual Report for the fiscal year 2001-2002.

A major goal of the department is to ensure that all parts of the Province, but particularly rural areas, share in our economic progress. A core part of achieving this is the implementation of the Renewal Strategy for Jobs and Growth, which was released in March, 2001, shortly after the creation of the department. Two-thirds of the priorities for action in the strategy focus specifically on rural Newfoundland and Labrador, making the strategy a strong rural agenda.

In addition to presenting the department's annual report, I am tabling reports of the following external boards, corporations and agencies that report to the department: Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador Corporation, Farm Development Loan Board, Fisheries Loan Board, Newfoundland Ocean Enterprises Limited, and Newfoundland Hardwoods Limited.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In keeping with our government's commitment for an open and accountable government, I am pleased today to table the 2001-2002 Annual Report of the Women's Policy Office, Executive Council.

This document is an account of the activities undertaken by the Women's Policy Office to address issues impacting women's equality and co-ordinate the Violence Prevention Initiative. Training, research, policy analysis and public awareness initiatives are detailed in this report. The annual report outlines initiatives and programs that promote the advancement of the Status of Women.

Mr. Speaker, the recent government's social audit provides a benchmark for tracking progress on issues including those related to the Status of Women in economic, education, health and other sectors. The social audit is a valuable tool in the work we do.

The provincial government has provided funding of $257,000 to the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women. The Council is an arm's-length body fully funded by the provincial government. The Annual Report of the Provincial Advisory Council of the Status of Women was tabled in the House of Assembly on December 5, 2002.

Mr. Speaker, the provincial government also provides core funding of $50,000 each for eight regional Status of Women Centres throughout the Province. This group, along with the Provincial Advisory Council, ensures women have a voice in decisions that affect them and their communities.

The Women's Policy Office will continue to address issues impacting women's equality through its programs and services. We will continue to work with women's organizations that mobilize community action around issues that affect women and consult with them on research and issues that affect the Status of Women in our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with section 10 of the act, any government department that decides to purchase a product or a service that is an exemption to the Public Tender Act under section 3 and section 4 must report to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation the appropriate exemptions and reasons. In accordance with the act also, I am to report those to the House of Assembly. I do that today for the months of November, December, January and February.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to move the following private member's resolution:

WHEREAS the residents and visitors to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador rely and depend heavily on our road system for transportation, business, health care, tourism and for basic quality of life; and

WHEREAS provincial roads and highways are in a serious state of disrepair in virtually every region of the Province; and

WHEREAS the condition of the Province's roads and highways are a significant competitive disadvantage for Newfoundland and Labrador companies that market products in both Canada and the United States; and

WHEREAS there are over 900 kilometres of dirt roads and some 1,500 kilometres of twenty-five year-old paved roads in the Province; and

WHEREAS over $300 million is immediately required for provincial roads; and

WHEREAS there is only $23 million budgeted in this year's Budget for provincial roads which is completely insufficient; and

WHEREAS the Roads for Rail Agreement is coming to an end;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the government negotiate a new cost-sharing agreement with the Government of Canada for road repair and construction that will bring the quality of the Province's roads and highways up to North American standards and contribute to the Province's overall productivity and competitiveness.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I have a petition from the residents of Shea Heights who wish to petition the hon. House of Assembly to address the need for wheelchair accessible housing units in the Shea Heights area.

We are asking government to consider the fact that people with disabilities and their family need to be able to utilize the support of family and friends within the community of Shea Heights. If persons are forced to live in units outside the community it compromises the help and support families so vitally need.

We are asking that serious consideration be given to the construction of wheelchair accessible units in the Shea Heights area so families with physical disabilities may avail of essential support networks.

Mr. Speaker, I have presented a number of these petitions in the past. I am going to continue to present these petitions. Government has recently entered into an agreement with the federal government for an infusion of cash for the purposes of constructing wheelchair accessible units, one and two bedroom units, and they are needed throughout the entire Province. They are needed in the downtown area. I know of one individual, at present, who is handicapped, a young girl in her early twenties, who is living in a senior citizens residence. While she enjoys the company of the senior citizens and the senior citizens enjoy the company of this young lady, the reality of the fact is that oftentimes senior citizens and young people in their twenties have different interests - different interests in music, different interests socially - and sometimes the fact that they are not compatible can lead to some confusion and animosity. A young person in their twenties should not have to live in a seniors residence, nor should the seniors have to deal with the different interests that a young person in their twenties would bring to that unit.

Mr. Speaker, families in the Shea Heights area - and Shea Heights is a very unique community in the fact that it is a community unto itself. While it is a part of the City of St. John's, it is a community unto itself. The families in the Shea Heights area do not wish to be living in other areas of the city. They do not wish to be forced to live in other areas of the city just because they have a disability, and I am sure there are families in other areas of the Province and, in fact, in other areas of the City of St. John's, who would rather be close to their own families.

This city needs, and the Province needs, wheelchair accessible units. I am asking that the Province give serious consideration, Mr. Speaker, to wheelchair accessible units as requested by the residents of Shea Heights.

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.

I rise today to present a petition again on behalf of the residents of The Straits area and the area in particular serviced by the Flower's Cove Health Care Facility, an area from Castors River to Eddies Cove East. The petition reads as follows:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador;

WHEREAS the Health Care Facility in Flower's Cove is in a dilapidated condition; and

WHEREAS the building is not completely wheelchair accessible, has very bad ventilation, poor air quality and is much too small for the services being provide by the centre; and

WHEREAS the report titled: Facility Assessment and Master Planning, dated October 2002, recommended that a new modern health care centre replace the existing centre in Flower's Cove due to the vast amount of deficiencies which were detailed within this report;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and, in particular the Minister of Health and Community Services, to assist in ensuring that the Flower's Cove Health Care Facility is replaced with a new modern health care centre, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is another installment, I guess, or followup to the petition I presented last week on this same issue. As I said before, I raised this in the Budget Debate last year, in the Budget Debate the year before. It is obvious to anybody who goes and tours this facility that it is certainly lacking in quite a number of areas. Although I have not seen this Facility Assessment and Master Planning report, I am sure that there are quite a number of deficiencies identified.

As this petition references, this facility, a health care facility in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, in 2003, where government on a daily basis - I remember last year government insisting that a wheelchair ramp be put up to the top floor of a fishermen's centre on a wharf in St. Lunaire-Griquet and today I am here standing up presenting a petition; and so a facility should be wheelchair accessible. The point is, here we are today with a health care facility in Flower's Cove that is not wheelchair accessible. The people can get in through the door of the facility in a wheelchair but they cannot manoeuver from one end of the facility to the other end of the facility. Today, in 2003, in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, it is shameful, Mr. Speaker.

That is just one small example. I mean it is not a small example for anybody who is in a wheelchair. It is not a small issue by a longshot, but it just highlights the situation here. The roof is in desperate need of replacing. From time to time throughout the year -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TAYLOR: By leave to conclude, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. TAYLOR: The roof on this facility has, from time to time over the past couple of years, needed extensive repairs to the roof, the eaves and so on.

Just in closing, I would like to impress upon the Minister of Health and Community Services, and the government, that they really need to look at this situation here. They need to look at what the report says, and they need to take the appropriate action in a timely manner.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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 as well. The petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

WHEREAS Route 235 from Plate Cove East to the Open Hall intersection has not been upgraded since it was paved approximately twenty-six years ago; and

WHEREAS this section of Route 235 is in such a terrible condition that vehicles are being damaged, including school buses serving schools in the area, and school children are finding their daily trips over the road very difficult;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade and pave the approximately three kilometres of Route 235 from Plate Cove East to the Open Hall intersection.

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

Mr. Speaker, this petition again is brought forward with the concerns of the residents who live in the Plate Cove, Open Hall, Red Cliff, Bonavista area. They are not asking for 300 kilometres of pavement or 100 kilometres of pavement. What they are asking for is for the government to look after and to accept the responsibility of maintaining one of the main thoroughfares leading to the Bonavista Peninsula. Mr. Speaker, they are not asking that Route 235 be lighted, they are not asking that Route 235 be provided with double lanes or passing lanes. They are asking that three kilometres of one of the main roads on the Bonavista Peninsula, which is used every day by seniors, by school buses, by people accessing health care, be maintained to a level that they can drive over without damaging their vehicles.

Mr. Speaker, this section of roadway today, if you drive down there, has a road sign on it, a road sign put there by the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, that says: speed limit 30 kilometres an hour. That is twenty miles an hour on one of the main thoroughfares on the Bonavista Peninsula. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that is shameful.

It seems like this government, and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, or the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, must find it much easier to erect a sign than to go out and do repairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: As you drive over the highway, instead of the minister and his department being responsible and looking after the condition of the highway, what do they do? They go out and put up a sign. They put up a sign: speed limit 30 kilometres an hour. Or else, Mr. Speaker, what they do is go and put up a sign: road bump.

I suggest, Minister, that I can offer you an alternative to save some money as well. Instead of putting up a road sign on every bump on the Bonavista Peninsula, all you have to do is put up one sign on each end saying: road bump every 100 feet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: That is approximately what the people there are asking for.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the people on the Bonavista Peninsula are asking this government -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. LUSH: By leave, to finish.

MR. FITZGERALD: Just to finish up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: No leave?

No leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair thought I heard several members say no leave. If the hon. member was the only one, then -

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is probably an indication of the seriousness that some people on the opposite side take to those petitions as put forward here by the residents of the Province.

I say through you, Mr. Speaker, that all the residents of the Bonavista Peninsula are asking for is that this section of roadway and some of their other concerns on the Bonavista Peninsula be addressed in this year's Capital Works Program so that at least they might be provided with a decent road to drive over that will reflect the year in which they live.

Thank you, very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to present another petition today from the citizens of Western Newfoundland concerning a long-term health care facility, a subject which I thought we had adequately dealt with in the Budget Speech but it would seem, Mr. Speaker, that it still remains to be a very current issue.

I just want to reiterate the concerns of the people of Western Newfoundland for a long-term health care facility and to try and bring some semblance of order to some of the statements that we have been hearing in the last couple of days respecting how it is going to be built and the cost that is going to be associated with that.

Mr. Speaker, in a meeting with the long-term health care committee in Corner Brook last Thursday night, the estimate was put forward that this building would cost somewhere in the order of $50 million to $70 million. Now, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition claims that the cost that he has, and I quote: the estimates from the Western Health Care Corporation told me that their estimates show it could cost government between $50 million and $55 million, as opposed to the $50 million to $70 million range which we had put forward. It goes on further to say that is obviously another $15 million to $20 million to be spent on our Liberal buddies in the building of this building. Statements, of course, Mr. Speaker, which I find to be repulsive because -

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, if the minister wants to respond to the Leader of the Opposition's questions in Question Period he may do so, but he is presenting a petition and, if I look at the prayer of the petition, I do not think the prayer of the petition, and the people who have signed it, have anything to do with the comments by the Leader of the Opposition. What does the prayer of the petition say?

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the minister is quoting from, but, seeing that he has quoted it, whether it is from Hansard or something else, maybe he will take the time to table the whole document, which he must do anyway, seeing that he has quoted from it and he is a minister of the Crown.

My advice, Mr. Speaker, and I am asking you to rule on it, is that the minister, in presenting a petition, stick to the prayer of the petition and not use it as an opportunity to impute motives on another member or to start or charge debate on an entirely different topic.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Opposition House Leader raised that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: That may be so.

I am glad the Opposition House Leader raised that particular question because it is a point that has concerned me somewhat with petitions. All hon. members know, Mr. Speaker, that in presenting a petition on either side of the House that a member is restricted primarily to the prayer of the petition and the allegations made in that petition.

I heard the hon. the Opposition House Leader say that the person speaking to the petition must speak to the prayer of the petition and, Mr. Speaker, if that is to be enforced I will be a happy member on this side of the House, too, because I have sat and listened to petitions time and time again and it is one of the most contentious issues in this House, how hon. members will use it as a point of debate. The petition is not to be debated. Primarily we speak to the numbers signed to the petition, the material allegations in the petition, but primarily the prayer of the petition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is ready to rule on this point of order.

Obviously, what both the Opposition House Leader and the Government House Leader have said is accurate: that when members are presenting the petition to the House they must confine their comments to the prayer of the petition, and I ask hon. members to do that.

The hon. member's time is up.

Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly I have a petition and a prayer to a petition that I certainly would like to stick to. It is a petition, Mr. Speaker, from the residents of Georgetown and surrounding areas in this Province, and it concerns the roads in the community of Georgetown that have deteriorated to a point that the safety of motorists and pedestrians is being compromised; and

WHEREAS access to residences, businesses, churches, postal facilities and recreation areas have been seriously affected; and

WHEREAS little, if any, maintenance and repairs are carried out on an annual basis;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to make a commitment to include the upgrading of this road system in its annual capital disbursement for the upcoming fiscal year.

And as is duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

This is signed by a number of residents, Mr. Speaker, from the Georgetown area and the surrounding areas. In particular, in staying with the intent of the petition, it is to point out to all assembled that this particular road is in a deplorable state. It is in a deplorable state. It is a paved road. Some sections are not paved. The last section of the road is not paved, and the pavement, I would say, does not come up to the standard of even a good gravel road. The residents are certainly trying to maneuver around the numerous potholes, trying to maneuver around the pavement that has deteriorated to a point that it is not fit to drive over. Many have expressed to me that perhaps the best thing to do is to bulldoze the road as it is now, and at least it would be a good gravel road.

The reason for this deplorable state has been the lack of maintenance, and I guess the term that is used is deferred maintenance. This is not a new road. This is an established road that has been there for certainly thirty-odd years, but the maintenance on that particular road has not been of a standard to keep that road to where it should be. More importantly, it was brought to my attention from a business person in that particular area, as a matter of fact, who runs a salon there for hair care. What this lady finds is that she is losing business, and losing business, Mr. Speaker, because her customers who have been going back and forth there for years are finding that in the wintertime, in the springtime, in the summertime, any time of year, the road is just almost, if not, impassable.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: By leave, just to clue up.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, in cluing up, this is a business that is located on a local road - it is at the end of the road, as a matter of fact. It is the livelihood of this individual. Because of this, of course, it is absolutely necessary that the infrastructure of their community - namely, the road system - support this small business. I cannot say enough of how important it is for small business in a rural community, how important it is that this be done.

It is a simple petition in asking that the money be there to do what should be done. This maintenance should be done. Hopefully, the message will get across to the minister and the minister will act in making it a priority in taking care of the maintenance of this particular road so that the motoring public can have a safe passage and that their vehicles will not be destroyed in their journey.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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: Mr. Speaker, before the Minister of Environment leaves the Legislature, I wonder -

AN HON. MEMBER: You are not supposed to say that now.

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: You are not supposed to say that.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I guess at some point, I say to members opposite, we are all going to leave today. I did not refer to any specific time when he was leaving, but if you want to, that is up to you, Minister.

Mr. Speaker, the question is that before the minister - for whatever reason, he may have legitimate reasons to go, and I am sure he does. He is a Minster of the Crown and obviously an extremely busy person. Before he goes, I wonder would he be able to table the documents that are referred to. He must table them. We have asked for them. I wonder if he can table those before he leaves.

Thank you.

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

MR. MERCER: With pleasure, it is a copy of Hansard. If you would like to have a copy of that, you are more than welcome to have it.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have petition on roads as well. As we know, there are many concerns about the roads all across this Province. The prayer reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador;

WHEREAS the District of St. Barbe is in desperate need of road improvements; and

WHEREAS the District of St. Barbe supports large volumes of traffic especially during the tourist season; and

WHEREAS many roads in the District of St. Barbe have deteriorated to the point that they are a safety risk;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to invest in the necessary restoration and improvements so that persons using the roads in the District of St. Barbe may do so without compromising their safety, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, since I have been in this House I have presented many petitions on the roads because of the road conditions. There has not been any significant upgrading or improvements to the serious conditions that we have there. One of the things I always speak about when I speak about the roads is Sally's Cove. The enclave of Sally's Cove is there and it is in a terrible condition. The terrible condition it was in, it appears to be much worse now.

When Parks Canada went out there and paved both sides of the enclave, you have a new stretch of pavement. When it comes to an end, it comes without much of a warning. So anybody who is coming down there is certainly not aware and find themselves at a risk factor there. Even myself, as often as I have travelled the highway, there are times that you may be thinking or drifting off a little bit and as you go off that new pavement onto this deplorable road condition it certainly brings you back to the reality that the roads on the Great Northern Peninsula are not in that great a shape.

One of the other reasons I would like to bring up Sally's Cove is the very fact that we have invested so much into tourism. Tourism on the Northern Peninsula, especially after the cod moratorium, became an alternate source of employment for the people there. We have a great cluster of attractions that are known worldwide and have certainly attracted people, but as we have invested in those opportunities and a move down, both by government and by the private sector, as we moved down that road opportunities are arising because of different changes. Such as the port of St. Barbe being the main link now with Labrador and the tourism potential that would come in from the north as well. We are expecting that tourism opportunity to expand considerably in the near future, but the road conditions are going to be the bottleneck. I think it is what will keep people from really coming and enjoying what we have to offer. That great opportunity, as great as it was, will be only stopped and slowed and deterred from growing as it should, because of the road conditions. I think that it is very shortsighted for us to go out there -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. YOUNG: By leave.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. YOUNG: Just to clue up.

What I just wanted to say was that opportunity - although the idea, and all the bases were practically there. I think 80 per cent of that plan was very sound but to have such a main component, such as the road, to stop that investment is shameful.

Thank you.

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.

I, too, would like to present a petition here in the House today. The prayer of the petition reads as follows:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador 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 Center area, hereby draw your attention to the unsatisfactory and unsafe conditions as they now exist on Route 90 St. Mary's Bay; and

WHEREAS it is the duty of government through the enactment and enforcement of the Highways 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, once again, I have been asked by the people in the St. Mary's Bay region to raise the concerns, and certainly the issue, of the poor road conditions in that area and they are doing so through this petition here today.

People who signed this petition are from St. Joseph's, Riverhead, Gaskiers, St. Mary's, St. Vincent's, Peters River, St. Stephens and many other communities along that area.

What I find interesting here is the lady who signed the petition and whose address now is in St. John's but in brackets behind she puts Riverhead. It brings to another issue that I have not raised previously when I raised these petitions in the House, and that is the many, many people who travel back and forth, who have families in the St. Mary's Bay area, who live in St. John's, Mount Pearl, Paradise area because of work commitments, who travel back and forth to see their parents, travel back and forth over the roads to see their families. Many of these people have homesteads still in those communities but live here in St. John's, and are very concerned about the road conditions also.

Mr. Speaker, it is an issue that was certainly brought to my attention and I bring it to the attention of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation here today, through this petition, and hopefully he can find some dollars within his budget to address some of the concerns that the people have in this area. As the petition states, while there are many reasons people raise the issue of the road with me, and do so through this petition, the number one priority, and certainly the number one reason for this petition coming forward to this House is because of safety. The safety of the travelling public, whether it is an emergency vehicle, such as ambulance or a fire truck, or you have people in their own vehicles who are travelling back and forth and swerving from potholes in the road. That certainly is a danger to everybody who is on the highway.

Mr. Speaker, there certainly is a major issue here with the road, and while we realize that there are not enough dollars to address all the concerns that people have, and certainly raised here -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: By leave, Mr. Speaker. Just a moment to finish up.

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

MR. MANNING: The major issue that people have here is the safety issue and hopefully - even though, as I said, there are not enough dollars to address all of the concerns that people have. Several petitions that have been raised here today, through different members and different road conditions in different parts of the Province, we would certainly hope that the minister will find in his funding to address some of the concerns that have been raised through this petition here in the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Motion1, Mr. Speaker, the adjourned debate of the motion that the House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government. The debate was adjourned, again, by the Member for Ferryland.

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 address some of the other particular concerns in this Budget that I did not get to do in my previous comments.

Yesterday, when I was debating parts of this Budget and putting forth certain opinions, and counter-opinions actually, for what government has put forth in their Budget. Basically, I can honestly say that I cannot support Motion 1, that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government; because the budgetary policy of this government is not one to get very excited about, I tell you, Mr. Speaker.

I am going to deal with that a little more a little later. I want to address that situation from a fiscal perspective, but I want to just continue going through this book. The last day I got as far as page twenty out of the thirty-nine pages. A very lengthy Budget Speech that tried to camouflage - the longer a Budget Speech is the worse it is because they are trying to spend so much time putting nice showy statements - put out things to the public that are not true and try to hoodwink the public into believing something.

I do not, for a moment, think that the budgetary policy is one that anybody would want to follow. In fact, the budgetary policy this government is following is one that is on a road to disaster. It is a policy that is budgeting and mortgaging the future of our children here in our Province. It is passing the debt on to those who follow. Any responsible government would stand up and deal with the issues at hand, deal with the present as well as prepare for the future. We are leveraging the future of our children. Any economist out there - and there are numerous analysis, and I will refer to some of them a little later. Analysis would show that the path we are on is not the path to success. It is not the one where we are going to achieve. In fact, this Premier states that, on a cash basis, our deficit of $213 million - when you combine the deficit for borrowing for capital construction, $286 million, about $300 million - he said: If we reduce it by $75 million a year, we will get there. In other words, $75 million over the first year, the next fiscal year, and the next year $75 million more. That is $150 million further we are down. Another $75 million the next year puts us $225 million down. In year four, he is telling us, the deficit will be zero on a cash basis. That is, Mr. Speaker, $300 million less in four years. So, in four years time, from what it is at the end of this fiscal year, it will be $300 million less.

He has not put forth any projections or plans to show us how he is going to achieve this for this government. It is only fair to say, Mr. Speaker, in the absence of any plan, to show us how we are going to achieve a balanced budget on a cash basis in four years time, I remain skeptical. Where are the four-year projections on expenditures, where are the four-year projections on revenues, to do it? They haven't done it, they have just paid lip service, talked about something that they have no plan to accomplish. That is a pretty cheap form of politics. It does nothing to inspire confidence in the people of the Province, many people out there who understand the fiscal situation of our Province. There are economists and there are people in the banking business and others who can look at this and tell you the real picture out there.

Many people, today, their main concern is a job, an education, health care, but we have to have a fiscal situation that enables us to be able to provide those benefits. We need to have a healthy fiscal position so we can have more dollars for health care. With 15 per cent going towards the interest on the debt, if we had a smaller debt it wouldn't be 15 per cent, basically, of our expenditures. It could be 12 per cent or 11 per cent or 10 per cent. It is approaching 15 per cent. That is money, $500 or $600 million, on interest on debt, that could be used to trim down our debt and to enhance and improve educational and other social programs, health care, et cetera.

In reference to the Budget here, I just want to run through a few of these things. Youth Opportunities, Newfoundland and Labrador. It says, this program "...will provide incentives for employers to hire cooperative work term students and new post secondary graduates." It says, it "...will make it easier for new graduates to find meaningful employment and pay off their student loans by working right here in Newfoundland and Labrador." Well, it is important, Mr. Speaker, that in order to be able to accomplish this we must have the workforce to be able to accommodate those particular people. There is no sense in providing incentives to hire people when they cannot pick up the rest of the cost. That is like telling rural Newfoundland municipalities - and my colleagues here for rural Newfoundland know what it is all about. That is like saying, we will cost share 50-50 or 70-30 with some municipalities on water and sewer and other infrastructure. There are communities in Newfoundland and Labrador today that cannot afford to pay one penny, not a cent, for infrastructure in their communities. Some cannot afford to pay any, so what is the point of having a program available if you cannot avail of it?

What we have to do is, we have to try to stimulate, grow the workforce, grow the participation rate, increase the benefits of the economy so people going out will have jobs. There will be cushions there to be able to absorb the new students coming out, the co-operative students, the people to get that work experience. One of the biggest things that people tell you when they are looking to hire people: Well, they do not have experience. They do not have work experience. How do you get work experience if you do not get work? So, hiring co-op students, yes, it is positive to give incentives to do that because some companies just may hire some if they are given incentives to do it. Other companies may not have the ability to be able to do it. Fiscally, they cannot afford it.

The minister went on then to talk about Newfoundland and Labrador Student Loan Tax Credit. It went on to say that, "...eligible residents of the Province who are repaying their student loan will be able to reduce their Provincial personal income tax by an amount of up to 20 per cent of the principal payment on the Provincial portion of the loan".

So, if a young Newfoundlander and Labradorian were paying back their student loan in this fiscal year, they would pay back $1,000 on the principal, they would get 20 per cent of that, up to $200 credit on their income tax toward basically that, on the principal portion that they pay. That is not obviously on the interest portion. The biggest cost with paying back anything, if you look at a mortgage, a house mortgage, looking at a student loan, if you are paying it off over a long period of time, you will find that interest is a huge part of that cost. The interest clock starts ticking, I think, six months after you finish your schooling. Then the interest cost starts ticking and that is bogging people down, too, with high payments.

Many people want to be able to alleviate that burden of their student loan. They want to be able to get that down to a manageable level. Many find they cannot do it here in the Province. Many find they cannot do it here because the jobs are seasonal. They do not get steady work. People in education feel they have to depend on substituting, and hopefully they will get a replacement position that might get them 40 per cent, 50 per cent of a year's work. Many people are getting positions out there now that are half-time, a half unit over a course of five days, scattered all over the day. Some get a half each day. Some get the first two-and-a-half days of the week, and the next two-and-a-half they can seek substitute positions elsewhere. That is a burden. Unless someone is the position or they have another income in their household, or a spouse or whatever bringing in an income, people cannot survive on half a salary. What are they going to do? They are going to look for employment elsewhere and out of this Province.

I will make reference a little later to a pre-Budget consultation in the session that the Capital Coast Development Alliance put forth some very interesting statistics on our Province, and I will relate that in due course when I get an opportunity to look at that hopefully this afternoon.

It went on to say, too, "This $3 million measure complements the existing tax credit of 10 percent for the interest portion of the payment." If the interest portion of the payment was another $1,000, for example, that is 10 per cent of that. Overall, basically, if they were equal, both principal and interest, you would be looking at basically 15 per cent. It is still a huge debt, but anything to alleviate a burden is positive, I might add. Anything to alleviate debt for young people is positive.

Our Plan for a Healthier Future, the minister talks about. We have a plan for a healthier future. Federal Response to the Kirby and Romanow Reports. We are quite familiar with the concerns on health care and where it plans to take us in the future. The reports were brought down. There seems to be a lot of confusion coming from government exactly on where they sit on that. Romanow talked about public health care, public controlled health care. The Premier talked yesterday about private. He said privately built and privately operated long-term care. He has also indicated that then succession rights would go from workers there from union rights to this new facility if it is built independently and privately, he talked about. He has conceded the point that it would be public money going into a privately run system. Obviously, it is public money. The Premier can get up and mince words and say, well, it is publicly funded. Sure, it is publicly funded. It is publicly funded if we contribute to it from the public purse. That is what we do, publicly fund it. It is not like going out and building a facility, whether it is in Calgary, and saying we are going to do surgeries here. You come in and pay the full shot and you get it done. That is privately paid for.

MR. J. BYRNE: What about profits?

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right. The Member for Cape St. Francis said, what about profits? I can tell you, we have seen in this country over the past several years an increasing amount of money going to private funding of health care. It is now over 30 per cent. Almost one-third of the dollars in this country in health care are privately funded. By privately funded we mean that you are paying it through your insurance plans, through funding that comes from other sources outside the government purse. There are numerous third-party billings and other costs being picked up, insurance companies and so on, whether from automobile insurance or whatever the case may be. It is up to almost one-third of that now funded privately.

The Premier tries to mince words and say it is publicly funded, it is going to be publicly funded. Of course, if the money is provided to a private contractor to build, to operate, from the public purse, do you call that publicly funded? Yes, it is publicly funded, but is it publicly built, publicly run, publicly administered, publicly operated? In some cases, no. The minister, or the Premier of the Province, tried to mince some words today. He tried to play on words. The Premier has been pretty good at playing on words and picking out what he wants. That is the same Premier -

MR. NOEL: He is good at everything.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. The Minister of Mines and Energy said he is good at everything. He is good at getting into trouble. He is good at flip-flopping. He is good at many things, I might add.

MR. LUSH: And you are not good at any of those.

MR. SULLIVAN: Now the Government House Leader, too, wants to interrupt and ask a question. I tell him, it is not Question Period. I am talking about the Premier. It is not Question Period. If the Government House Leader wants to ask us questions, let us get over there, and they get over here, and then we will try to answer all their questions. To the best of our knowledge and ability, Mr. Speaker, we will answer them.

Why I shouldn't I be able to speak about what the Premier does? The Premier was speaking today on an issue very much related - very much related - to the Budget. The page that I am referring to, page 21, we are talking about health care, the Romanow and Kirby Reports. I will not go into the details of them. I have gone through the generalities of all of these, and I took a look at them and followed them fairly closely on the health care issue, being the health care critic for a number of years. Also, having worked in the system on an employee basis and on a volunteer basis on boards, and as chair of a particular project, I have an interest and followed it relatively closely. I am far from being an expert on the issue, I might add, Mr. Speaker. I do not profess to be, and I never have, but I do consult with people that I consider to be experts in the system. Whether it be in administration, whether it be doctors or nurses or people running establishments or associations or groups, we try to get the best information and draw the best conclusion from that information.

It is kind of difficult to do that in the light of one day there is something said by the Premier and the next day he says something different, gives a different impression and so on. The Member for Humber East, the minister, gets up and says something else. Then we hear, on another report from government, the parliamentary secretary to the Premier gets up on another issue, fisheries, and says something different from the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries. How do you know what is going on? They are all on a different page. They are all on a different page, I would say, in the song book. That is why they are all off key and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador do not know what tune they are singing.

MR. NOEL: Do you want us to take over Newfoundland Power?

MR. SULLIVAN: Now, the Minister of Mines and Energy is talking about Newfoundland Power. He was asked a question today in this House, what would he do, yes or no, and he beat around the bush. He skated miles around the issue and would not answer. Oh, we will wait and get a report and we will do this and we will do that.

They are always going to do something tomorrow, never going to do something today. The next election we are going to do something. We are going to do this after the next election. We are not going to do it before. We are going to tell you we are going to do this. A promise made is a promise unkept.

MR. E. BYRNE: It certainly worked in CBS. (Inaudible) record of achievement.

MR. SULLIVAN: Without their record of achievement in CBS - my colleague here, who is right behind me in CBS, with 83 per cent of the votes - something like a five to one margin, showed what a record of achievement can do. That was what they placed their cards on. Trust us. Vote for this man here, or vote for his opponent on a record of achievement.

They had a fine young man, maybe not so young but a fine gentleman, running against him, a guy who has been involved in volunteer work, a guy who is the principal of a school, a reputable individual and a fine individual, and still what would they have done if they did not have somebody of that calibre running against him? That tells you a record of achievement. I pity the person who had to bear that mantle in that by-election. I pity the person who had to bear that mantle in that by-election, because it was a campaign on a record of achievement. That is what it was. It was pretty difficult for somebody to campaign under that circumstance, trying to defend a record that was not defensible. That was a difficult thing to do. The results showed that, and reflected not only the record, of course, a vote against this government, but it also reflected the record and a vote for the member representing the area, the member who now sits in the House, the Member for Conception Bay South, who is tuned into the issues there, who knows the district, who has worked in that capacity, who is familiar with it. They are all factors. That is why there are people knocking on the door, candidates who want to offer themselves for our party - young people, energetic people. Hundreds and thousands of people at nomination meetings, over 2,100 at one, and 1,500. Every time there is one held, you would see the people coming out in unheard of numbers at nomination meeting after nomination meeting -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: - because they endorse this party and what we stand for and they have lost confidence in the governing party of this Province. That is why they are coming out. That is why we are seeing it happen. Right in the member's own district we are seeing huge numbers out there, right in the member's backyard.

MR. NOEL: We had a nominating meeting in (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: When did you have a nominating meeting?

MR. NOEL: Nobody wants to challenge me.

MR. SULLIVAN: Nobody wants to challenge him. He is so far ahead, no one was going to take him on. Well, when the writ is dropped there will be somebody challenge him, I will tell him. He will be challenged when the writ is dropped. Somebody will take him on then. Then people will have an opportunity, when the writ is dropped some time. Who knows when. He told us, first when the Premier got elected, well, we are not going to call one right away. We will see what happens. Then, as it got later, well, it will be 2003. Then it got close to that and they said, well, we do not have to call it before 2004; it could be the fall of 2003. As we got on closer he said, well, we do not have to call it until the winter 2004. He kept pushing it back and back and back. I am not so sure now, to be honest with you - it is his prerogative. It should not be. It should not be at the whim of one person to control the political determination of this Province. That is not a definition of democracy.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) five years, and after the election it is going to be four years.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is right: I believe in four year terms, but only after I am elected again for another term. I believe in smaller Cabinets, but only after I am elected again, when I do not have to keep all of my members happy back here.

There is no one else left to put in. With all the ones that went out, there are only three more left besides all of the Cabinet ministers there. Besides the departed Cabinet ministers, there are only three other people left there to go in Cabinet. One happens to a Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier, one happens to be Deputy Speaker, and one other who is whip and serving on committees. I know their work must be getting spread pretty thin because it is a lot of work, all of these committees, and working there. Some are on two and three committees. It is a lot of work but there are not many back there to do it because there are so many out front. They have to spread it all out to those and make all these other six of seven do all the work. That is what happens, all of the work and none of the glory, none of the compensation that comes with it, but do all the work. That is basically what happened there.

The Premier does not believe in four year terms. How can you believe in four year terms when you do not practice it? How can you believe in smaller Cabinets when you do not practice it? How can you believe in those things? So now you want a five or six year term, I suppose, or you want a seven year term. Like the Senate of Canada, you might want a lifetime term, almost, until you are seventy-five. That is what he wants. He wants to get elected for life. That is what he wants to do. There are regimes around that want that to happen. One is Iraq. That is one regime that would like that for life, and there are people rising up and want freedom. They want an opportunity to have a voice and a say in their future. There are people all over the world who have been suppressed for years, for decades and generations, and they want to see freedom. Here we have a government who wants to increase the agony, prolong the agony they are inflicting on people in this Province. That is what they are doing. They have had an opportunity -

MR. LUSH: What you are doing now.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Government House Leader is trying to interfere with the process of democracy here - so I can enlighten, Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador with the real truth that is here in this Budget, not what we heard on Budget day when the Budget was brought down by the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Not what we heard on March 27, on a somber Thursday afternoon here in the capital city of this Province about one story, and we find the other story.

I do not see any reference, to this day, on what they predict the real deficit on an accrual basis is for the fiscal year just ended. They told us what it is going to look like for next year, the $666 million they said. What is it for the year just ended? Well, it could be significant. Why did the Comptroller General and the Auditor General last year, in September - the Comptroller General within the department -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, it is not. The Comptroller General and the Auditor General sign off on the Public Accounts of this Province in September, and the work was all done, but the people in the Province and the Legislature did not get access to that until later. Two months later, within two months later. Now the Minister of Education rushes in -

MR. REID: Listen for a minute. (Inaudible) called the Marshall plan and not the Sullivan plan. You have been the critic now for three or four years. How come they will not called it the Sullivan plan instead of - they got the Marshall plan (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Now that Minister of Education is here, I am going to ask him a question. I am going to ask the minister a question. Why hasn't government monitored school construction? Why could there be millions? He said we might have to take it all down almost. Out in Twillingate district, why wouldn't you monitor it? Why are we going to have to spend hundreds of thousands, maybe millions or whatever, a significant amount, when people up in a Mobile system made $1.5 million to build new schools that are badly needed, and they are not safe to be in?

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

MR. SPEAKER (Butler): Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He asked me a question and I would assume that he wants an answer even though he is not part of the Marshall plan. I am rather disappointed that they did not call it the Sullivan plan, why they are calling it the Marshall plan. If I were you, I would feel somewhat insulted about that, the Member for Ferryland.

To answer his question about monitoring the situation, it was monitored, Mr. Speaker. That is the reason why there looks to be a litigation pending. Obviously, I cannot go into details right now because it is going be before the courts. We do not know how much it is going to cost yet but we know that we are going to remediate the situation so that before the children on New World Island go into that school, we are going to be assured and they will be assured that school will be safe for them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Based on their past court record, based on their past court performance of this government, God help us in the courts of this Province. Trans City years later, Tors Cove Excavating, Cabot 500 Corporation, Atlantic Leasing, millions and millions of dollars cost to this Province. Look at Trans City. I even kept it here for a reference on Trans City. I had a breakdown. I have it here somewhere, but I know the figures anyway. I will tell you what it cost the taxpayers of this Province on Trans City, besides the millions awarded in court cost damages. Basically, what has happened, it cost the taxpayers - we are still paying - a price tag when you look at the lease repayment, over $19 million extra on top of the awarded settlement in the courts. We are paying extra on behalf of the taxpayers of our Province because government ignored the Public Tender Act. They gave it to a higher bidder, not a lower bidder. They gave it to their friends; not the lowest bidder. If their friends happened to be the lowest bidder, I would say, give it to them. Do not give it to them if they are the highest bidder. That is political patronage to nth degree and the courts rendered judgement on that. They took it to every level of the courts. The Supreme Court passed its judgement and this government was found guilty.

Now, the minister over there tells us they are going to court again. That frightens me. They are going to court again. They spent - what is it? A $7 million structure, not even built, not even into it, and there is mould there because they did not follow the proper procedure. And who is on the hook? The taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador.

There is a school up in Bay Bulls in a state of disrepair; mould, and people are sick. They find when they go to school they get sick because of the environment. They cannot get $1.5 million to supplement the $4.5 million when they had overruns of hundreds of thousands on other schools here they completed - and they will not give that to the children from Tors Cove, Burnt Cove, Bauline area, down to Bay Bulls in the schools. These are some of the fundamental things that are happening; but we can waste it, be inefficient in our management, not monitor it properly, whatever the case may be. They can find it for things they want. They can find it for political appointments, and there is a list of them here, hundreds of them.

We can take other cases, the cottage hospitals contracts. As I said, there are millions there. Atlantic Leasing, Cabot 500, the Utilities Board with the Andy Wells case, Tors Cove Excavating, and there are numerous others here. I will not even get into a lot of these. I am familiar with these cases, we followed them. We sat here and watched the gouging and spending unwisely of the taxpayers' dollars. Now they have the nerve to tell people: Elect us for another four or five years so we can keep on doing it to you.

They do not want to have an election, I can tell you, because people are sick and tired of giving bids to higher bidders, costing taxpayers money, children having to leave this Province to look for work, mortgage their children's future for those who stay, the highest per capita cost debt here in this country, and now they are telling us everything is honky-dory and things are going great. Well, that is an utter fabrication. That is what it is, and the people of the Province are too smart to believe that, Mr. Speaker. They are too smart to believe that utter nonsense.

I will tell the Minister of Education, they are going to find out. He asked about the Marshall plan. The Member for Topsail will find out about that, I will tell you, when they call the writ. That is who will find out about it. They will find out about it in spades. They cannot stand to see their members go down to defeat. People coming to our camp, one after the other, prominent individuals, successful people, out over the Province here. Thousands and thousands out in nominating meetings there. They cannot take it. It is killing them every time. They just cannot wait for an nomination to get over so they will not have to hear this everyday; but we will prolong it as long as we can to make you aware that when you stop representing the people, when you ignore the people of the Province that is when you will find out what the result will be.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the member there, you are supposed to refer to people by their district. You were told earlier today, not by your name and not other remarks. He is trying to get personal over there now. He is trying to get personal across this House but I can tell you, I am not going to get personal, Mr. Speaker, I am going to stick to the facts. I am going to relate the facts of the Province and if they do not like it, they have to put up with it. That is their problem. That is what I am going to do.

Now, we talk about health care. He wants to talk about Fogo Island. He wants to talk about the hospital he flip-flopped on. They flipped and flipped and flip-flopped all over the place. He is like a flounder -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: He is like a flounder flopping its tail on the head of a wharf. That's what he is like!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education, on a point of order.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me talk to you about flip-flops on the Fogo Island hospital. When the Leader - the hon. Member for Ferryland, his own leader went out there last fall, Mr. Speaker, visited three councils and told them three different stories. Then the last one he had the gall to say, he went down to the Town of Tilting, walked in and met with the council in Tilting and told them that a Liberal government would never build a hospital on Fogo Island. Well, Mr. Speaker, I tell you one thing right now, the steel is on its way to Fogo Island and the hospital will be built.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member of Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell the member, he went down in one part of Fogo Island and told the people one thing and he told them something different in Fogo. He even had a letter, I think, if I remember, even had a letter. That is like the person who ran in Ferryland District, Mr. Speaker, when he spoke to them in the Goulds at a gathering he said: my father was a farmer. Then when he went to Ferryland he said: my father was a fisherman. That is what he told them.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education, on a point of order.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman opposite would tell the truth I would not have to stand on a point of order for three occasions here this afternoon.

He talks about the flips that I did on Fogo Island. I went to every town on Fogo Island during the last election. I told every town where I stood on that hospital, including the Town of Fogo. That is something I can say that that crowd opposite never had the guts to do.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

There are some things that we can say in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, and there are some things we cannot say. The Minister of Education said last week that he was one of the only people in the Legislature that takes the time to sit down and listen intently to people, without interrupting he said.

Two things, Mr. Speaker. One, it has been ruled in this House by the Speaker of this House - I think it was even just last year - that referring to someone and saying that you do not have the guts to say something is not appropriate and unparliamentary. So I will ask the minister to withdraw.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, you cannot stand on your feet and impute motives to members opposite, which the member already did, because essentially, he called the Member for Ferryland a liar. He cannot do that, and I am asking him to withdraw those two statements.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Here is what I will say instead, Mr. Speaker, I will say he was misleading the House and he did not have the intestinal fortitude.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister may say what he wants to say but his words on the record are very clear.

One, he has imputed motives to the Member for Ferryland and basically called him a liar, which he cannot do. I ask him to withdraw unequivocally and unconditionally.

Secondly, it has been ruled in this House that saying to a member of this House that you do not have the guts to do something or say something is unparliamentary and he must withdraw that unconditionally. No qualification. Stand up and withdraw those statements.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take this under advisement and report back to the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is something about the portfolio of Fisheries and Aquaculture that creates a flip-flop. We had the minister up today, the current minister, and she was like a flounder flapping its tail on a wharf fighting for its last bit of life. She flip-flopped there. Is it contagious that you have to flip-flop if you are a Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture in this Province? Because that minister, in the last election, flip-flopped so often on Fogo Island on where the hospital should be, he did not know what he said in the final analysis. That is basically what he said. That is basically what they did.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Fogo Island need access to health care the same as anyone else in the Province. They are just as entitled to it as anywhere else. When it gets to election time we hear all this utter nonsense. I have not made a statement in an election yet, since I have been in here, to get me elected. I have not made a statement to get me elected that I did not believe in or I did not say I would not stand on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: He might indicate -

MR. REID: (Inaudible) tried to buy their votes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, he is trying to get personal. He is trying to get personal down there but I am not going to go there. He might insinuate I am a liar, but I can tell you I have never told a lie to anyone to vote for me or elect me and I hope I never do, to be honest with you. I hope I never do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Some people get offended by the truth. They get offended by it and they take great offence to it because they do not like the truth. I tell you, if something is the truth and I tell it to my constituents - you can call any of them and ask them. Open up the phone book. Call anyone in the district and ask them. I tell them the truth. I tell them upfront. If it is bad news, I tell them. If it is good news, I will tell them, and I tell them fairly.

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

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education continues with the unparliamentary behaviour. I know every member in this House heard it because everyone here heard it. He has done two things -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: It is not your decision to make.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, but it is my decision to bring it to the attention of the Speaker, I say to the Minister of Finance, thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, he has made a personal charge against the Member for Ferryland singing out that he tried to buy people's votes and at the same time impute people's motives. I say to the Minister of Education: if you cannot participate in a mature and responsible way in debate, go out in your own caucus room and have a coffee, and let the rest of us do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, to the point of order.

I think the hon. Opposition House Leader is getting a little too touchy, a little bit holier than thou. In the sallying back and forth of debate many members make some comments, but the Opposition House Leader - I have noticed him in the past - seems to have bionic ears and seems to be listening for comments so that he can get up and try and delay the proceedings of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LUSH: I am making a point here, and I ask hon. leaders opposite to hear me out.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, to make the suggestions that the hon. Opposition House Leader made - these remarks made in the heat of debate are very often just dismissed and not brought to the attention of Mr. Chair. I would say that the Opposition House Leader is becoming a little bit nitpicky and a little bit holier than thou.

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I listened and it was the fifth time. The Minister of Education said on five separate occasions that the Member for Ferryland attempted or was buying votes. It was the fifth time when I brought it to your attention. Now, it is not about bionic ears. The Government House Leader was sitting right in front of him, and I am sure that he must have heard it, but he will have to speak for himself because members here did hear it. Mr. Speaker, we would like you to make a ruling on this before we proceed, if that is possible.

MR. LUSH: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, if reference to the buying of votes were ruled unparliamentary in this House, I can assure Your Honour that many people would have been thrown out of this House many, many times. It is not so much the utterance of that statement, the buying of votes; it is the context in which it was said. Sometimes it is not said in a venomous way, in an acrimonious way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LUSH: Sometimes it is just said as a comment back and forth. I say to the hon. member again, it is a matter of nitpicking and the holier than thou approach, the approach that he has been using in this House for the past number of days.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, we have gone from me supposedly having a bionic ear to the Government House Leader now saying that it was not said with any venom.

The fact of the matter was that a charge was made on five separate occasions by the Minister of Education. If he had any sense of fortitude about himself, he would stand up and acknowledge that it was done in the heat of debate and withdraw the comment, like any parliamentary person should do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the issue of buying votes, it goes back to Fogo Island. If you want to know who accused the hon. member of buying votes, it was the then leader of their party, Ms Lynn Verge, and it was supported by those opposite because the executive of the PC Party agreed with it and threw out his delegates!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair advises the hon. Opposition House Leader - and I have heard the Government House Leader - and I assure you that all of the comments that were made on both sides will be taken under advisement and the Chair will report back.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to state on the record, I have heard it several times by the Member for Fogo and Twillingate, and when the Minister of Finance joined in and shouted on three occasions. I have never in my life tried to buy or attempted to buy a vote.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: And I never will, I might add. As much as they want to get down there and make an accusation, I never have. Mr. Speaker, I want to earn the right to get someone's vote, not to buy it. I want to get it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: For people in debate in this House, the Member for St. John's Centre, the Minister of Finance, and the Minister representing Education, the Member for Fogo & Twillingate, to get on with that nonsense here, is getting down to the lowest level you can get, Mr. Speaker. I personally take offence to it and I think this House should not tolerate that. It should not proceed until that decision is made on this point of order, because it undermines the integrity of this entire House -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: - and the democracy by which we operate.

Mr. Speaker, I feel, as Speaker of this House, you have an obligation to settle that matter and put it to rest before we proceed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I advise all hon. members that I will adjourn the House now and report back.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER (Butler): Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, just on a quick point before you make your ruling, when we left the House a few moments ago there was a motion to adjourn proceedings. Technically, when the House was voted upon, the motion was passed and the House was adjourned; but we are willing to provide leave to the Chair to provide the ruling, and I wonder if the Government House Leader is also willing to provide leave for the ruling.

MR. LUSH: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I am interested in carrying on the House. I think there was a technicality, and if everyone is allowed to agree, I am permitted to agree and allow the House to continue and allow Mr. Speaker to make his ruling.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. LUSH: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

I would like to advise all hon. members, I guess, being new in the Chair, I will start this way: It was a slip of the tongue when I took the motion for adjournment verses recess. However, we have reviewed the tapes. There is no indication on the tapes that there was a motion put forward, or if the motion was carried or defeated on the tape.

I would also like to advise all hon. members that our Standing Orders state very clearly that it is only on Wednesdays that the Speaker can adjourn the House.

On the ruling, I have listened to the tapes clearly and heard the Minister of Education make the comment that he was buying votes, in reference to the Member for Ferryland. I have to say to all hon. members that this caused quite a considerable disturbance here in our hon. House and I therefore would ask the Minister of Education if he would withdraw his remarks.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. REID: I withdraw them, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly accept the minister's withdrawal of those remarks, and I want to indicate that at no time have I ever in my life attempted or tried in any way to buy a vote. It is absolutely false.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I think it is unfortunate when the Minister of Education and the Minister of Finance, who added to it at that time, indicated it, and added to it. It is false, it is utterly wrong, and I think the people in due course in this Province, in a democracy - who get an idea and hear people make false accusations in this House, I think it is improper. I think, in due course, the people in Newfoundland and Labrador will get an opportunity to pass their judgement on this Budget and on every single member here in this House, by what they do or by what they do not do.

We are into the fifth year of a mandate. The people of this Province want an opportunity. They want an opportunity. You cannot run forever, I say, Mr. Speaker. You cannot run from the truth forever. You have to face up to it.

I would hope that people who make statements, whether budget or otherwise, will stand by their statements, ensure they are true before they are made, and make sure they are accurate when they are made, because it reflects on all of us.

They might still shout things across the House -

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to get to the debate.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am dealing with the Budget here, Mr. Speaker, and I said anybody who makes judgement on people who put forth facts or information in the Budget should stand by it.

In this particular Budget, I was speaking before I got interrupted, I was talking about health care, the importance of health care facilities. I have indicated and said that people, during election time, make statements, conflicting statements. They tell something to some people and other things to other people. Before I was interrupted, I said that I liken that to the person who was campaigning in Ferryland district. The person who was campaigning went into the Goulds area and swore to a group of people and told them that his father was a farmer. Further on, he went to Ferryland and told them his father was a fisherman, basically, because they want to tell people what they want to hear at election time.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Was that in the Budget Speech?

MR. SULLIVAN: I tell the Minister of Finance, who is interrupting, I am making a comparison to her Budget, that I say does not contain the facts according to many particular authorities, experts and economists. I will get to that a little later. That is correct, I will say.

There have been conflicting statements on - the government changed their mind. They flip-flopped, I said. They flip-flopped on the hospital on Fogo Island. They flip-flopped where they were going to put it in the beginning. They were going to put it in one area and then changed that. If that is not a flip-flop, what is it? A change of decision, isn't that a flip-flop? I said it must be contagious. I think that is what really got the minister excited. It must be contagious, I said to the Ministers of Fisheries and Aquaculture, because a flip-flop is like a flounder, flip-flopping for his last breath on the head of a wharf. We could see -

PREMIER GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Now the Premier wants to get in on it too. The Premier wants to get in on the response.

Basically, Mr. Speaker, I think we will see, in due course, the true colours showing on people who want to get nasty and personal here, because I do not think the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want that to be a part of a campaign.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I think people in Newfoundland and Labrador want some honesty. I think they want some honesty.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I think they want some honesty. For a member representing a group of people to imply that they could be bought is not a very good reflection on the people represented.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: We looked at the Budget here, and when we look at the Estimates there, the details in health care, we do not know if the minister has made adequate provision for funding of, for instance, physicians salaries and other things. She has put a figure in there that may not reflect a true budget. It may not be on a worse case scenario. It may be budgeting for a best case scenario, and budgeting for a best case scenario sometimes gets us into trouble. It gets us into a lot of difficulty. We know the difficulties that this government has encountered, when we have just seen a cash deficit this year four times what it was last year. Then this Premier tells us, and the minister, that we are going to reduce about $75 million a year over four years. In year four, it will be $300 million taken out. They are taking $300 million, he told us - or it is going to close the gap $300 million in four years but they have not laid a plan. They have not indicated anywhere how they are going to do it. If you have a plan - and we saw a three-year plan by this government previously, I think, with Premier Tobin. He put forward a three-year plan of revenues and expenditures. This government says they are going to do something in a four-year period -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - but they have not, Mr. Speaker, put forward a plan to show how they are going to do it. They tell us they are going to do it in four years. We are going to cut $300 million more. We are going to reduce the difference between revenues and expenditures by $300 million in four years. That is what they said; $75 million the first year. The next year, another $75 million. So that is $150 million. Another $75 million in year three, which is $225 million, and in year four it is going to be $300 million. Where are they going to get the $300 million to balance the Budget? Show us where on your projected revenues and your projected expenditures. Show us. Do not just tell us. Do not say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador: Trust us. Do not tell people to just trust us. Show the projections. Show the figures.

We have not seen a true budget. The minister has not even projected or told us what might be or what the projected deficit on an accrual basis is for the fiscal year just ended. She has put forth a budget for the next fiscal year on an accrual basis of $666 million deficit but it will not see the light of day on the end of that budget because the fiscal year will not be over when an election is called. We will not see the final figures. We do not have to. They are not subject to the scrutiny. We will not know what it is, but the budget on last year's public accounts, the minister's department had them ready in September but did not let the people of the Province have access to them until November.

The figures were hidden within the Department of Finance for two months; or within Treasury Board for two months before we saw these figures. Why were they not made available to the public of Newfoundland and Labrador so we would have known in September what our true deficit for the previous fiscal year was? They were ready. The staff had them prepared. They worked diligently. I heard they even worked overtime. They worked hard to get these public accounts ready and then sat on them for two months. Why do you go out and pay a pile of overtime and extra work for several months, from the end of the fiscal year until September, and then you do not release them to the people of the Province? You release them when you figure it is an opportune time; when people are least tuned into it; when there are other issues out there that you might hopefully slide them by and people will not notice. That is the rationale, that is the strategy they use in this government. It is not a strategy of straightforwardness and a strategy of truth. It is a strategy of manipulation. Putting out figures when it is convenient and running up extra costs in preparing them that may have been unnecessary, because they had no intention of letting the people of the Province see them. That is the type of truth and honesty this government has put forward.

It says per capita public sector. When you look at the Canadian Institute for Health Information, per capita public sector spending on health in this Province has exceeded the Canadian Average for the past five years, and for 2002, it should exceed it by about 11 per cent. Well, I suppose it does. We have a population in this Province - if we spent the same amount on health care, we have a rural - the demographics is very rural in orientation. We have significant costs in delivering health care. We have an outward migration of 70,000 people since 1989. The number of people, and the costs are there - the per capita is going up. If they never spent another cent of money on health, just spent the same amount, the per capita costs go up because population goes down. The total you spend on health care, divided by the population, gives you your per capita. If populations go down, per capita goes up. That is not the indicator of the health and well being of our people. The health and well being of our people is measured in more concrete terms. It is measures in concrete terms like: How long do you have to wait to get the surgery that you need, and you are living in pain with your hip or your knee, an elderly person? How long do you have to wait to get any type of surgery or medical attention? They are the concrete things that measure the well being of our people.

Mr. Speaker, diagnostic tests: People have to wait over a year. They are waiting over a year to see dermatologists and over a year to see other specialists. I know people who are booked with appointments in eleven months time. People couldn't get mammograms in this Province if they were under fifty. They had to go to Ontario, in little small communities of 8,000 people, and get one within a few days. Emergency ones take about three weeks. Urgent CAT scans take several weeks or a couple of months. That is what measures the success of health care. It is not per capita spending. People are not worried about what the per capita spending is when they have a problem. They want to know: How long does it take to get attention? How long does it take, not only to get a diagnostic test - and there has been a manipulation of waiting lists in terms of length of time. I have been told by people in the system that we start counting the waiting list in this Province, not when the doctor orders an MRI or when he orders a certain diagnostic test, but when they call you to tell you it is booked at a certain point on a waiting list. On the waiting lists, the first weeks don't count. They are knocked off the waiting lists. That distorts the true waiting list for those diagnostic tests. Other jurisdictions don't use these.

I spoke with agencies that report on waiting lists. I spoke to them several years ago when I was a critic at the time, on what is happening here. That is what is happening, trying to manipulate and tell you it is a different list than it should be.

How long do people wait on cardiac surgery? I remember, when I first became health critic, there were 115 people on the waiting list, waiting for cardiac surgery in this Province. That mushroomed up to 300 people. People have left this Province and have gone to other provinces. They have had to make other arrangements to get surgery. People have died while waiting for cardiac surgery, and I know of instances. People have died waiting to get diagnostic tests. People getting numerous tests have experienced great difficulty. The aging people in our Province, our seniors in our Province, are some of the most tolerant people in our Province. They do not want to bother you. They accept a certain status quo. They are very tolerant and accepting of things, but they should not have to wait inordinate times when people in other provinces are getting through way quicker, a lot faster.

Then we talk about the five basic principles we aspire to under health care in Canada, the Canada Health Act. We talk about comprehensiveness of the program as one of them, and universality, public administration, portability and accessability, the five fundamental principles of the Canada Health Act. You talk about accessibility. When you have to wait months and months longer to access services in this Province than elsewhere, how can you say we are getting treated the same as we are in other parts of the country? That is why this government dropped the torch. They let it go. When the federal government unilaterally changed the Canada Health and Social Transfer away from a needs basis to a more per capita basis. There was no fighting, no resistance. We took it on the chain. We accepted it, and we saw our populations decline and our revenues started to dry up. We were receiving, before this change, $443 million a year in Canada Health and Social Transfer. It dipped then to an all-time low of about $272 million or $273 million. We siphoned out of this about $170 million per year and accumulated over a period of time, around 2000, it meant it was three-quarters of a billion less that came into this Province because we sat back and let Ottawa walk all over us.

We need our government standing up and fighting for every single thing, every inch of the way. We need to take them on. We cannot be just bowing over for political purposes. We have seen them come and go, people who play political agendas at the expense of people in the Province. That has happened. I have seen it happen. I have been here and watched it. We should be elected to fight every step of the way, not only with the federal government, to get everything that is justly ours. We should be fighting tooth and nail with major companies and others that come in and try to take our resources and maximize the benefits to their shareholders. We have to see that a fair price is paid to the shareholders of Newfoundland and Labrador. What about our shareholders? We seem to be worried about shareholders of other corporations. We have to be tough bargainers. We have to be fair, but we have to do it in a climate that is going to be conducive to business opportunities. We have to do it and we have to squeeze every inch we can out of multinationals that are coming here to reap what they can, then get out of here and close shop when it is done. I have seen them come and go, and other people have, and we are left holding the bag.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The process. All we see left behind is the environmental problems that are left behind, and in other particular areas. We have to start addressing these. We have to start dealing with those particular issues.

We have not taken up the fight. This government has let us down in a battle with Ottawa. No wonder we are being taken for granted. They do not even give us the time of day. The relationship between our elected member federally and provincially is not very good, not very good at all. We need to strengthen our relationships between federal and provincial. We need to have someone who can work with them.

That stems, I am sure, from some other particular thing that I am not going to talk about, that is not directly related to the Budget, but we have to try to build relationships and bridges here, not destroy them. We need to depend on people in Ottawa. We need to work with them. We need to be strong and fight. We need to be forceful. We need to be organized. We need to show them a plan. We have to show them where we head in the long term. We, here, do not want handouts. We do not want handouts. We want to put forth a plan that is going to reduce the dependency on Ottawa. We want to show a long-term plan. We have not seen it come from this government here. All we have seen is a stop-gap measure, a band-aid approach from one year to the next, throw funds here to make it look good, get us by this year. In an election year then, call it when the timing is right. Get it over in less than three years. Get the last one over in less than three years. They cannot wait forever. Now they do not want to call one at all. They want to put it off so long when they were nurtured on jumping on opportunities. Maybe the window is not there any more. Maybe people are tired of those antics.

I have not seen that. We saw a power point presentation on a new road structure, a joint federal shared thing, that was told in a small community in Southern Labrador, and put a lot more sophisticated and better presentation there. I am not sure what community. I do not know if it was St. Lewis or one of the communities in Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pinsent Arm.

MR. SULLIVAN: At Pinsent Arm there was a lot better presentation than they could muster for the minister in Ottawa, a little power point presentation. Where is the meat on that? Show it long term, what our plans are, our goals, where there is an eight or ten year plan, where we should be, and how we want to accomplish it, how we want to reduce dependency on federal transfers. We need to depend - and we realize it, everybody probably realizes - we need to depend to a great extent on the Government of Canada to be able to negotiate a fair and reasonable return on our resources, not siphoning back money and clawing it back on our resources. We need to do that.

When you hear people say, oh, we cannot negotiate equalization until 2004, that is a pile of bull. There is no truth to it. In the last federal election they removed unilaterally, political purposes, the cap on equalization, and legislation put the cap back. Legislation to remove it for one year, for one year they removed it. Our Province, $38 million that year. We would have had hundreds of millions of dollars since that was put on, had the cap not been there. We cannot equalize. In a country where we talk about equalization equality, there is an equalization formula to equalize up to a certain standard. We are capped in how far we can equalize. I think we can only equalize to 80 per cent of that standard, and we accept that. We should not accept it.

We are an important part of this country. We brought tremendous resources into this country. We brought the oceans here, international waters. We brought international airspace. We brought a people that were proud, hardworking people into this country, and we are making profits for people all over this country from Fort McMurray in the north to British Columbia, all across Western Canada, parts of Alberta, Ontario, you name it, everywhere. There are more Newfoundlanders and Labradorians living in other parts of this country than there are living in Newfoundland and Labrador today. More people have gone to help build the economies of other provinces where the jobs were and where provinces in many instances protected their resources and developed a prosperous economy. We have not done that.

We have been too content, our governments, to look to the next election. We are focused, yes, we have a foresight, but the foresight only gets us to the next election. That is all the worries are about, the political agenda. There is more money wasted and spent on political purposes in this Province when there is not a sound economic basis to doing it. They are some of the major problems in our Province.

Decisions in Newfoundland and Labrador are not made on a sound economic basis, sound economic principles. Decisions in Newfoundland and Labrador are made on a political basis. Who are we going to give a job to? Who are we going to give a contract to? Who are we going to give it to? They support us, let's make sure they get this; millions and millions of dollars of public money. Millions and millions and millions on tens of millions. One alone was tens of millions. That is what has happened to the Province.

I think it is about time things changed. It is about time we start doing things for the right reasons, not for political reasons. We have seen dozens of commitments. I do not know, my colleague from The Straits & White Bay North, whether they have a dialysis in St. Anthony. I do not think they have. That is why I asked that because I heard that commitment here about what, two years ago?

MR. TAYLOR: Three.

MR. SULLIVAN: Three years ago. I do not know the situation now. I am not as close to it as when I was health critic but I did speak with people. I did speak with people on the Northern Peninsula. One gentleman in his eighties, he had to leave home for the first time. He had to come in here into a basement apartment and live to get dialysis, and that man died broken-hearted a few months after.

People think, and the minister said when I asked a question, dialysis is more than plugging in a machine. I remember the young man from Grand Falls - who has since passed away - he came in and I met with him as Leader of the Opposition, young Quigley. I think Brian Quigley was his name. He fought and wanted to see dialysis in Central Newfoundland. That man had a wife and two young kids. His whole life was disrupted when he had to come in here away from his family all week to try to get the medical attention he needed. We are told it is more than plugging in a machine. Well, we knew that because we had consulted with people, specialists in the area. You did not need an nephrologist, a kidney specialist in every single area. These can be supervised, I think, by internists or other specialists. They can operate under the authority, I guess, of a central location.

Some of the services since that they have talked about - when I see them here now. They talked about the one in Stephenville, I think, and made reference. I am not sure. Also, the Grand Falls-Windsor area received one. That is Central Newfoundland. Now, the Province said they are evaluating a renal dialysis service for Gander. They recommended deferring a decision.

I remember my colleague from Bonavista South went over to visit this gentleman in the hospital who left - out in that area, to come in with his pickup truck. He put a fridge in the back and stayed in the hostel. He came in on Sunday night and had to leave on the weekend again. He brought it in, stayed in the hostel, and had to get out on the weekend. Back and forth, down to Bonavista, three or four hours - a three-and-a-half hour drive. Fortunately, that man received a transplant since then and eliminated that.

I think we need to look at the reasons. We cannot expect every single community around and every area to have all of these facilities because it costs money, but I think we have to look at the instant rates in the area and the people who need this service. We have to look at reasonable distribution of medical services there. They are not going to have a cardiology centre or cardiac surgery done all over the Province. Right now we are competing with other areas. We are competing with Halifax. Halifax could be fast becoming the cardiac centre of Eastern Canada. We are turning away people. We are not being able to deal with it.

I spoke with individuals who indicated that almost every case that gets done is a severe case. Almost every case is an emergency. They are waiting so long and out of work so long that when they do go through the surgery they cannot get back again to a normal productive life because they waited so long that it has deteriorated so far. The fastest they can get people in through the turnstiles; the productivity. I will touch on that a little later on, productivity and so on, and what it means with lost time due to sickness and health care in the workplace.

People leave their families - they become almost bankrupt because they are waiting for medical services. If they could in and get that bypass done, within months they are back to work again and they can lead a productive life and support their families. But people are waiting so long they are told - some of them can hardly get out of bed. I know people have to stay in bed for weeks after weeks after weeks in hospitals waiting to get transferred in for surgery. If they got it done early, it would prevent that.

We need to look at the indicators that reflect and show us if we are better off than we were before. It does not make a row of beans, people do not care. As I said at the outset, what the per capita spending is, is not relevant. What is relevant to people is: How long do I have to wait to get this done? How long more do I have to suffer? People like to get out of the hospital as soon as they can after a particular surgery is done. So these are some of the important things.

Health care facilities. I said before - on Gander, for example, the facility. If you are going to build a hospital, a facility out in Gander - they made a decision to build it - and ten or twelve years later, $50-some million. They spent ten or twelve years building a facility, millions of dollars, why don't you have a target to get something done in five years? What company out there is going to spend $50 million on an expansion and not use it for twelve years? You cannot invest - you have to close the period of time. Don't stretch it out over ten or twelve years. It is too long. If something is needed, get a target. Identify your priorities and don't try to please everybody. You cannot please every single person but you can list the provincial priorities - one, two, down the line - and you can allocate money to get that done in a reasonable period of time. That is what is needed, Mr. Speaker. We need to get that done.

I did not render judgement on the needs for spending because I am not in the position to judge the need. It might be the greatest need there. If there is a need there, don't have it going for ten and twelve years. You might wonder: How important is a need if it takes twelve years? You said: Boy, my business needs to expand. I have to expand my business for the new market. I am going to build on and I am going to have this ready in twelve years time. You might wonder: How important is it to your business if you do not need it for twelve years? This government has not done a very good job. If a company tied up that much money over that period of time, they would be gone bankrupt.

Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province are the lenders of this money to government. It is your money, the people of this Province's money, that this government is misusing and not managing efficiently - that is theirs. Then they stand up and talk about: I am going to give this to this district and I am going to give this to them. They are going to give nothing because it is the people's money. We are going to give the people's money. The people are entitled to it, and wherever you live in the Province you are entitled to an opportunity.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: As someone shouted out, it is Liberal money. It is not Liberal money. It is not PC money, or NDP money, it is the public money in taxation that comes from the people in the Province. That is who owns the money; don't think that it is. I cannot see how they think it is their money because I am telling you, they do not spend it wisely like their own money. If it was your own money you were dealing with, I can tell you, a lot of decisions would not get made that are getting made.

MR. NOEL: Like what?

MR. SULLIVAN: Lots of decisions. Would you give your Trans City buddies $20-some million of your money, the Minister of Mines and Energy is wondering? Would you give $20-some million to your friends if it was your money? No, but you will give the people of the Province's money. You will give your money to Trans City, public taxpayers' money to your friends, but you would not do it with your own money. You should treat the people's money as prudently as you would use your own money. That is what you should do when you are entrusted with their money. If you cannot adhere to that standard - I say to the Member for Virginia Waters, who is doing a lot of heckling and shouting over there, that is the standard that you should use with public money. The standards you would apply to your own, that is what you should do, in having to get on with the work at hand.

More time should be spent governing and running this Province than worrying about political consequences. You are always looking over your shoulder, looking at what impact that this will have on the poll, or what impact this will have here, will they vote for me. Everybody would like to have everything done in their area, no doubt about it. Everybody would like to have that, but I think anybody in the Province would think that if you establish the priorities and followed them one after another, people would understand that. I think people are understanding.

There are not many in this Province here who want to see us mortgage our children's future. There are people out there today who are seeing their children's future. How do you get from under that debt, the highest per capita debt in the country? One way to get away from it is to go to another province where you might have the lowest per capita debt. That is one way to do it, and people are doing that.

What happens as that happens, as that occurs? The cycle goes viciously and viciously deeper. The population goes down, the per capita debt goes up, as our debt goes up and is going up at phenomenal pace, an unprecedented pace in our history. The debt is going up at a pace unprecedented in our history and our population has gone down. We have had a net loss of population right back for the last decade or more. We are seeing a tremendous loss of our people.

Another area is long-term care facilities. I made some reference to acute facilities there, but in long-term care facilities we have seen the Premier today and yesterday, in the House, with two different statements. We do not know where the Premier is on this issue. Does he want it? Does he want the facility built by private contractors? Does he want it built and leased back to government? Does he want it operated by private companies? What does he want? How can we tell what the Premier wants? How can the public tell what the Premier wants when the Premier does not know what he wants himself? From one day to the next he has flip-flopped. That is getting contagious, I can tell you. I am starting to believe it is not only with ministers, or former ministers, of Fisheries and Aquaculture. I think it is getting contagious. The Premier has caught that flip-flop flu too, I might add. He has also caught it, because today, if I had any idea by reading the paper today, and listening to him yesterday and the comments today, I am utterly confused. I do not know what he wants. I do not know what he stands for.

As a colleague of mine said here in this House, the former member for Placentia: If you do not stand for something you will fall for anything. That is what he said. I think it is about time you stand for something. Come election time, the people will be standing for just about everything out there. That is not the answer to people. People want a plan. People want to see a vision. People want to see a more prosperous Province. People want to see their children stay here, get jobs and work here in our Province. People want to be able to have access to education for their children. Hopefully, they will be able to be looked after in their aging years and our Province will be able to meet their health care needs.

A lot of people have said to me over the years: Look, give me back the health system we had ten or fifteen years ago. Give back to me what we had before, that is all we are asking. Granted - and I have said this before in the House - there are people not out complaining about the quality of care we get, because we have some tremendous health care workers and specialists and nurses and LPNs and personal care attendants, you name it, and people working within the whole area of maintenance and podiatry and the whole area of our public service. People are out there going to work and doing an honest day's work, a lot of people, but we do not have a government that knows what they want or where they are heading. We can only deal with this, we find, on a day-to-day basis almost.

It talks here about increasing nursing enrolment, allocations by $445,000, thirty-two new nursing students to begin nursing on a fast-track basis in September. Well, that may be happening but there are very few, if any, a very limited number, getting permanent jobs this year. Very few of the couple of hundred graduates will get permanent jobs in the Province. Some are being offered part-time or full-time casual for the summer, temp jobs and so on. It happened last year, too; a significant number did not land jobs here. So people start to look elsewhere across the country, but we have to be able to accommodate, to an extent, the people working in the Province because if you train doctors and they all go away and you train nurses and they all go away and you train other people and they all go away, we are spending a tremendous amount of money on education of our youth and our skills and our future people who are not staying here in our Province and we are not getting the benefits back.

That is why it is important to ensure that we train within the ability, a reasonable level of employment, that there is a reasonable expectation of getting employment. We can never narrow it down and say here is how many we need in all cases, but in certain trades 100 per cent have gotten work. In some trades a high percentage of people get work.

There is an interesting article, and I will get to that a little later, by Capital Coast Development Alliance, and research there identified some of the important aspects of what we need to be addressing to a degree here in our Province. It was an excellent submission, I might add, that they made to the pre-Budget consultation session that was held.

Personal care homes is another area in health care. Personal care homes probably provide the cheapest care you can get here in this Province. Most people in a personal care home have what they take in, in their own pensions and their supplement, and if they get a limited Canada Pension, they almost pay for all of their own. The Province subsidizes back so much to the individual. I think it is $145. I am not sure what the figure is now. It is in that ballpark. It is the cheapest they get. They provide for the subsidized patients, or residents as we call them, subsidized residents, so much there and provide certain services.

I can tell you, when you look at the numbers that are served, many of these people are not able to live at home. They are Level I and Level II. They are not candidates for nursing homes, but they are certainly people who need assistance to live elsewhere, and that care is provided. They have been underfunded. The amount of money that is needed to maintain those particular homes has pushed many of these into bankruptcy, and there are significant numbers of these. I made reference to it in the House, when I talked a little earlier on this, under another aspect of health care I was dealing with. I said I would get back to it. That has to be looked at.

One point three million last year and this year is a help but it is far from addressing the problem there. So, things have to be looked at in perspective, because there are a significant number. Many of these people, today, if their families were here might be able to reside with them or live at home with people in the community, but they are not able to care for themselves in their own homes twenty-four hours a day. There is a limited aspect to home care for them, because they are reasonably ambulatory and they wouldn't require much care at home at all. Their families are gone elsewhere, so they have to resort to going to a personal care home. Many of them get in there and it is their home, it is their environment, they are treated exceptionally well and they have enjoyed it. They are a resident, that is their home.

There is going to be an increasing need for housing for seniors and personal care homes for people, as we have an aging population. We have to be able to provide adequate funding to be able to support them and to enable them to be able to survive. It is a business from the perspective of the owner of the home. It is a business from that perspective, but there has to be sufficient money to be able to operate and care, because they are providing a care for people who need it. It is recognized under our community health program.

I am not sure of the breakdown. I have not heard, but I am sure we will hear. I know in the past it has usually been September or later before we even hear how much is going to each and what the particular support is, or each subsidy. I have not heard it this year yet, and it will probably be September. I don't see why it has to be that long. People should know right now. If you present a budget and you have the majority of people in the House on the government side - that is how governments are formed - and you will assume your budget is going to be passed, you should have earmarked what is going where. You should not have to wait until September or August or any time, you should know now. If you put $1.3 million into a budget for a certain purpose you should know generally how it is going to be spent, because we are dealing with a certain number of subsidized people. The subsidy recognizes a certain number of people. We should know exactly what that is. People should be told. They should know upfront. They should not have to wait several months to be able to avail of this particular amount of funding that they get to deal with running those particular homes, because there are fair costs involved. There are people who are living in an environment that it is healthy, and people get to mingle. One of the biggest problems with older people, I found - and I shared a project of primary health care, a nursing model, that was an innovative project in nursing care that was carried out in Denmark and here in this Province. That project was funded by Health and Welfare Canada, by the provincial government. The World Health Organization aspect was also involved in this particular process.

One of the things they found out in the home-to-home interviews and with seniors, there was a very extensive consultation that went on within the community initially. They found one of the biggest problems and concerns is loneliness in older people - people at home and the lonely factor. There are a lot of seniors today living alone. By having people, whether they are in personal care homes or they are in senior housing, where they have the capabilities to care for themselves, there is that friendship and that comradery and participation in little activities there that allow them to be able to have a little more enjoyment in their life. That is important.

The Province talks about a commitment to a social audit this year. They say it is underway, and I am looking forward to the completion of the entire social audit there to look at - there are economic needs in the Province, and there are also social needs. I think we have to recognize that there is a certain role to play in meeting the social needs of individuals as well as meeting the economic needs. They go hand in hand. They are not separable. They are inseparable, because a better economy and satisfying economic needs of individuals enables you to be able to meet many of the basic social needs there. So they do go hand in hand. A mark, they say, of a society, is one that cares for its sick and its aging. That is a mark of a society or a government, and that is important.

The minister indicated here in her Budget Speech, there is a declining social assistance caseload. Well, this last fiscal year they underestimated that. In fact, they estimated that it would decline at a faster rate, and we had it tabled here in this House, actually. I have a copy here. The minister tabled here a special warrant. Now, special warrants I have always said, should not be tabled except in emergency situations. There was a special warrant that they tabled here in this House for social assistance. Last year when they estimated how much money they would need for social assistance, they underestimated by $1,550,000. In other words, the social assistance caseloads did not go down as much as government anticipated last year. So, when they talk about it this year, decline social assistance caseloads, I am wondering what their projections are this year. Were they projecting then? Did they make that adjustment for missing on their calculation and requiring $1.5 million more? Did they make that adjustment in this Budget to reflect what their projected caseloads will be, or did they allow more flexibility in that because they were not right last year in estimating? In other words, the economy, the spinoffs, the reduction associated did not equate to reduce revenues by our Province as a result. So, if you project with a phenomenal increase in GDP growth of 8.2 per cent, our provincial taxations were up in revenues to government, they said the jobs were higher than they have ever been, the highest participation rate in the workforce, and the social service caseload was higher than government had anticipated, that does not go hand in hand. You would think if their projections on one area are up, and it is going to be that good here, shouldn't we have a reduced social services caseload beyond what they predicted? I am not saying it did not go down. They missed the boat on it by $1,550,000. That is another issue.

Another aspect, I guess, under the social area, the Kids Eat Smart program, it said, we support a $500,000 contribution. That is important, certainly, and we have endorsed anything that is going to encourage young people to get into the proper eating habits, eating healthy and so on, because our generation, statistics show, are more obese than the previous generation, and it is a problem with younger people. I think that equates into two things. I think there are two contributors. There could be other contributors there, and people who are more directly involved in that are certainly a lot more versed in it than I am, but being involved and being a teacher for a portion of my career, I see the importance in the physical education aspect in our systems and with having kids eat smarter and encouraging people to eat healthy. There are certainly important aspects there because it increases longevity; it reduces costs on our health care system, and it produces a healthier and a happier society, generally, if people are in good health. So that is important.

Affordable Housing. We have had in our Province, and every member around this Province knows that there is a long list of seniors - and I deal with cases, not everyday, but I deal with cases every single week and several some weeks, where people are looking for housing, elderly people, widows and widowers. Senior couples have houses that are leaking. Even younger people, living in older houses with limited incomes, the houses are leaky and the windows there - one person I spoke with had twenty-five buckets spread out catching the water as it came down. Those types of things.

We need to get affordable housing, too. I know there is the Housing Corporation and subsidized housing. There are other units; seniors apartments. There is one I know in Marystown. There is one there that was built. I think that was a Kinsmen one. There is one in the Trepassey area. There are numerous other ones around that are run by particular boards or committees who oversee that. So those types of projects are important. They give people an option, because to repair an older house which probably did not have insulation; it is a two-story house and sometimes it is colder and the house is really too old to repair without an adequate foundation. It is probably a lot easier to just move away from it and go into an housing area where it is a lot more comfortable. People do not have to worry then with the maintenance and other costs that are expensive and related to it. So these are some of the aspects.

Disability Credit; I talked about it last year. I said this government last year really stuck it to disabled people, students and other areas, in the disability credit. What they did not do last year - the federal government increased theirs. I think it is now $6,000, the federal disability credit. I think that is the amount. I do not know but it is higher; but it is certainly $6,000 on taxes. I have a copy of a tax form here actually. I could find that out. I can address that in more detail the next day.

The provincial government did not increase theirs. We are being told that our provincial tax is a percentage of the federal tax. We are down to what - 55 per cent. The federal upped their disability, we did not. This year we did, of course, but in past we did not. We called for it last year. Now it has gone from $4,233 to $5,000 on your taxes, which is a positive step, but disabled people have higher costs. It is more difficult. They need to look at people who are disabled.

They have also done the same thing with our tax brackets. The federal tax brackets - right now we want to simplify the tax system. We had ten different tax brackets, and we went into three tax brackets. Now, what has happened since? The Province has not moved with inflation. In addition to the three, the federal added over $100,000 bracket, that is four. The Province has a different level now on each of the tax brackets than the federal. So there are seven different tax brackets right now. Seven. It is so confusing for ordinary people filling out their income tax now. You have to do a form for provincial, with your deductions for education separate, disability separate. You have to do your deductions for other areas. Even your personal exemption is different federally and provincially. There are so many things different. I think it is $7,410 or something, that is frozen at provincially. Last year the federal government was $7,412. Now it has gone, I think, up around $7,500-and-something. It is changing from year to year but our Province is not. What I call bracket creep has come into it. The dollar value in Newfoundland and Labrador, they are getting more out of the same dollar into their taxation than other provinces - the federal government - because we are not recognizing this particular erosion of people's personal income. That has happened in the system.

Seniors' Benefits; it is important that seniors and people on fixed income today - they do not have the means. A lot of these use oil as a source of heat. Using oil as a source of heat means they have oil tanks that need to be repaired. I spoke with one particular lady in my district who got an estimate on the cost to do it, but they could not afford to do it. Even at a certain amount they just could not afford - how do you come up with the extra $700 to replace your oil tank?

Another issue out there today, and I do not know how many members have experienced this, but people around have done this for years. They are skilled in numerous areas but you have to have someone who is licensed to do it, and that cost a lot of money. Other people try to get someone who is trained to do it or who can do it. It is such a headache. One person, I suppose, just gave up on it and said: Well, let someone else do it. By having people who are qualified to be - that certification, by having certain people who are capable of doing that, certified, it makes it cheaper on seniors and people out in rural areas, or even in urban areas as far as that goes, having someone come in and make sure the tank they have is safe, secure, the proper foundation so that we will not have an oil spill and other environmental problems associated with that. That is another particular concern here.

That is one of the reasons I mentioned here in this House and introduced a private member's resolution here in this House, just a little while ago, last week, a week ago. Was it last Wednesday?

AN HON. MEMBER: Two weeks ago.

MR. SULLIVAN: Wednesday before last, sorry. It will be two weeks from tomorrow that I introduced a private member's resolution saying: Why are only seniors who heat their homes by oil, propane, natural gas and so on, why are they only eligible for that rebate? What about people out there today, low income people, seniors and others heating their houses by electricity? Why can't they reap the benefit? Many of these people, I have said, heat their house by electricity but they have the stove in the kitchen, an oil stove, and that is their main source of heat. It might not be considered their main source for heat, because the house is heated by electricity, but they burn oil and try to keep the heat in one location, to keep it in the kitchen area, and they spend more time in the kitchen because the cost of heating an entire house is just too much for them and they just cannot afford it. Some people have to figure out how they are going to survive, to pay their phone bill or pay their light bill in the wintertime and so on, with such low incomes. This has been a tough winter. The people are going to get rebates when the sun is shining and it is warm and you can go around in your shirt sleeves. The $100 does not go near to solving the problem, but it is a help. It should have been applied to people who also incur great costs, because the cost of heating your home with electricity, if they burn more Bunker C fuel at the Holyrood generating station, it is going to be reflected in the cost of a bill down the road.

Not only that, but the people who are burning extra fuel are not getting any credit. They cannot get a refund on what they burn in their stoves in their kitchens. That was discriminately applied to people. It was not applied fairly to all people, and I think that is unfortunate.

The next issue here in the Budget, that the minister addressed, was more officers for the RNC. I asked this in Question Period. I asked, and I think it must have hit a nerve with the Minister of Justice because he called Open Line the next day and said there are fifteen more permanent RNC officers than there were last year. There were nine more, but the people of this Province - when you get a call that there is a problem in the neighbourhood, does the person say: I want to have a permanent RNC officer come, or do I want a temporary one answer this call, or one that is on seasonal? Look, there are only six more RNC officers working today in this Province than there were on March 31, six more. Do not camouflage it and say there are fifteen more. You might mix your words and put it there, but from public safety, public protection and total cost, there are only six extra and you can cut that how you like. Those are the facts of it.

MR. J. BYRNE: Playing games.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right, playing games with numbers and so on. We have seen that for some time. That is a part of the process of throwing out numbers to give an impression that things are better.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will tell you what Moody's thinks, I will tell the minister. What the minister read - in fact, I think what I am going to do, it is getting fairly late but I will tell the minister in a minute, and I will get into more detail next time what Moody's thinks. The minister stood in this House and read a statement, how Moody's had done an upgrade, and indicated how great this government is looking after the finances of our Province. Then she went on and said, and furthermore - I will get the exact words. I have them there, but I will not go into the specifics of them now - and furthermore, more certainty in getting transfers from the federal government. Here is what Moody's said in the same statement: What this government is doing is unsustainable.

I went to the Web site, what the minister read in this House was not fact. Moody's said the reason they gave us, and they gave P.E.I., I think it was, or Saskatchewan, an upgrade was primarily due to the fact that the federal government has now committed to having a more stable fiscal regime for transfers to our Province.

That is the basis on which they did it, and they got rapped on the knuckles. What they are doing is unsustainable. The Bank of Montreal's Chief Economist came out and rapped them on the knuckles, and I have those statements here. I also have, and I did not get a chance to get to today, the statements this year on what the Bank of Montreal said on this Budget, and what Toronto-Dominion said. I had an opportunity, actually, to do an interview on it today. You might hear my comments on what they said there. Maybe you might see it this evening on TV, or maybe you might not.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, good. The Government House Leader wants to watch. He said he will watch and try to find out. He should not have to watch it to find out what TD said, or what the Bank of Montreal said. They should know what the Bank of Montreal, TD, and other economists are saying about our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: They should know. They should be monitoring the economists. They should be monitoring what the economists are saying and what the predictions are. That is what they should be doing. They should be tuned in to what is going on in the world and tuned in to what others think of our fiscal performance.

They have said that provinces like Ontario, Alberta, wealthy provinces, Saskatchewan, when they hit 4 per cent of their debt in terms of - they looked at GDP in terms of actual deficit, in terms of GDP, and when it got to 4 per cent they had to take drastic action. Where is our per cent of our deficit in comparison to GDP? It is at that now. Wealthy provinces with tremendous resources, too, have to take precautions. They are telling us that we are on a path that is unsustainable. That is what they have said.

What did the Bank of Montreal say? Before I wrap up, I will just give you one sentence and I will save the rest for another day. "Newfoundland's debt spiral must come to an end." That is what the Bank of Montreal said. There are numerous other things that, because of the lateness of the day, I will not get into. I know the members are very eager to wait and find out exactly what other people have to think of us today.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will adjourn debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of announcements regarding some meetings of the Estimates Committees.

The Resource Committee will meet this evening at 7 o'clock in the House to review the Estimates of the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

The Social Services Committee will meet tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock in the House to review the Estimates of the Department of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

With these announcements, Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

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