May 1, 2003 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 15


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings for the day I would like to take this opportunity to welcome to the House of Assembly a group of forty-five ladies. They are led by Donna Peyton. They are with the Women's Home League of the Salvation Army Corp in Bishop's Falls in the District of Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

 

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, in 2001, Human Resources Development Canada launched the Therese Casgrain Volunteer Award, to commemorate her work and to honour annually two Canadians, one male and one female, who have demonstrated a lifelong commitment to volunteering.

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured and proud that the male recipient of this award is a citizen of our Province, Mr. Des Dillion. Des is originally from St. Mary's Bay, but now a long time resident of Gander.

Des has spent the majority of his adult life offering his time and support to others. In the late 1960s, he first became involved with the Canadian Red Cross, when he and his wife Jeanne taught water safety courses to children and adults in Goose Bay. Upon his arrival in Gander, he continued this water safety work and also began to volunteer with disaster preparedness and a variety of other services offered by the Red Cross. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the Gander Community Services Council recently presented the Dillion's with its first ever Family Volunteer Award.

Mr. Dillion's volunteer efforts with the Red Cross occurred not only here in Newfoundland and Labrador but all across North America. Always willing to volunteer his time, he has helped to provide disaster relief on numerous occasions, such as the California Earthquake in 1994, the Manitoba flood in 1997, the Swissair crisis in 1998, and the events of September 11 in 2001.

Currently, Mr. Dillion is the Chairperson of the Health and Community Services Board in Gander and also serves as the Chair of a committee established to create a Disaster and Relief Distribution Centre for the United Nations in Gander. It is anticipated that this centre could become one of two world-wide locations established by the United Nations to manage disaster situations.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I ask all members to join with me in congratulating Mr. Dillion on receiving this prestigious award.

Thank you very much.

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.

Today is a special day in the life of a very special lady in the District of Placentia & St. Mary's. Today Mrs. Emily Dakins is celebrating her ninety-ninth birthday.

Mrs. Dakins was born in Mount Carmel, St. Mary's Bay, on May 1, 1904. She was one of eleven children. After marrying Henry Dakins she became the mother of ten children of her own, five boys and five girls. Today she has fifty-four grandchildren, sixty-two great -grandchildren and seven great, great grandchildren.

Mrs. Dakins has spent the last number of years at the Lions Manor Nursing Home in Placentia. As far as we know, she is the oldest person residing at Lions Manor. She was quoted in our local newspaper, The Charter, this week as saying, "Some days she feels alright other days are not so good."

Her favorite activity she says is to go out and pick dandelions, according to her daughter Imelda.

Mrs. Emily Dakins has lived a tremendous life and has seen many changes but even at the great age of ninety-nine she still possesses a zest for life.

I ask all members of the House of Assembly to join with me today in sending our congratulations and best wishes to Mrs. Emily Dakins as she celebrates her ninety-ninth birthday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to congratulate Kentucky Fried Chicken Outlet at the Peninsula Mall in Marystown on recently receiving the tenth annual, Clean Across Canada promotion national award.

This award, sponsored by Proctor & Gamble, was designed to challenge Canadian KFC restaurants to show they are among the cleanest and best run in the world.

Marystown KFC won the Atlantic region competition and then tied with an Ontario restaurant for the top Canadian award. It was one of eight restaurants in Atlantic Canada region to receive perfect scores in the first round of inspections.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all members of this hon. House, I would like to applaud Manager Anita Brown and the fifteen member staff at Marystown KFC on their well-deserved win. I would also like to congratulate all other restaurants that took part in this competition and commend them to striving to make their work area a cleanly and sanitized environment.

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.

I rise today to congratulate Clarenville High's Drama Group who won this year's District Drama Festival. The Festival was held at the Rising Tide Arts Centre in Trinity, from April 9 through April 11, and included presentations from eight schools throughout the Vista School District.

The Clarenville High group, in addition to winning the Best Play Award for their production Stroke Static, won several individual awards. Raphael Borja won Best Actor; both Matthew Green and Desiree Hopkins won Best Supporting Actor Awards; and Keisha Parsons, a violin player, took the Award for Best Original Score. They performed under the direction of their coach, Bruce Stagg, who was supported by teacher sponsor Nancy North.

Mr. Speaker, this group will now go on to perform at the provincial level, which incidently is also going to be hosted in Trinity at the Rising Tide Arts Centre from May 8 through May 10 Trinity is fast becoming the theatre capital of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I invite everybody to join the group this summer on their vacation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like also to ask all the members of the House today to join me in congratulating Clarenville High and wishing them well in the upcoming provincial competition.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Mariner Resource Opportunities Network Incorporated, M-RON, for organizing a series of Community Youth Info Fairs to be delivered at four high schools along the Baccalieu Trail, reaching approximately 2,200 students. The theme of the fairs is: Expanding Horizons.

M-RON has partnered with the Trinity Conception Youth Protocol Committee, the Baccalieu Trail Youth Council, HRDC and the Avalon West School Board to provide needed support for schools to assist students with career development planning and their transition from secondary to post-secondary education. Hopefully, this initiative will alleviate future problems of out-migration and high student debt, ensuring strong social development and a vibrant economy.

I was, Mr. Speaker, in attendance at the Youth Info Fair held at Crescent Collegiate, Blaketown, on April 30, and the response from the teachers and students was absolutely tremendous. Marg Coombs, M-RON Project Co-ordinator, was pleased with the positive feedback she received commenting, "We wanted to put a different spin on the traditional info fairs and bring in presenters from various industry sectors who can give students a positive, realistic outlook as to their options for choosing careers."

Presenters, Mr. Speaker, included the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour, Canadian Labour Congress, Canadian Federation of Independent Business, HRDC, HR&E, RCMP, the Avalon Healthcare Institutions Board, various post-secondary institutions, Edulinx Canada, Student Aid Financial Services, Canadian Armed Forces and Trinity Conception Development Corporation.

I am sure the members of this House will join with me in congratulating M-RON, in thanking its partners and presenters for this initiative to help the 2,200 secondary students along the Baccalieu trail to participate in the Career Development Planning Fair.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reflect on a very important date and a very important week to our Jewish community.

Tuesday, April 29, was the day Yom Hashoah. The Jewish lunar calendar tells us that this is the day of the Holocaust.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador reflect with horror on the systematic persecution and murder of European Jews by the Nazis and their collaborators between 1933 and 1945. With our Province's Jewish community, we mourn the six million dead and grieve the loss this represents. The loss of talent, beauty, potential, and the loss of precious human life.

During the Second World War, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians took part, along with our allies throughout the world, in a prolonged armed struggle to defeat the Nazis and their collaborators. So we choose this day, Hashoah, to observe a solemn remembrance of the victims of the Holocaust and to honour those who fought to defeat the tyranny and genocide that engulfed Europe at that time.

Mr. Speaker, I invite all hon. colleagues, and all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, to recognize this day and to reflect upon the enduring lessons of the Holocaust. Let us also consider other instances of genocide and systematic persecution now going on around the globe.

Let us be mindful of the intrinsic, absolute and inalienable value of the multiple cultures of our Province, our country and our world.

To observe and reflect on this horrific event, on behalf of the Hebrew congregation of Newfoundland and Labrador, I would like to invite everyone to attend the Holocaust Memorial Service being held this Sunday evening, May 4, beginning at 8:00 p.m. at Prince of Wales Collegiate.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let us say, with our Jewish community and the Jewish people the world over, "never again."

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

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I thank the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for forwarding a copy of his statement with respect to remembrance of the day of the Holocaust.

Mr. Speaker, we too on this side of the House join with the minister and the government members in remembrance of this very tragic event in the history of the Jewish people. While we mourn this tragic loss of human life between 1933 and 1945, we now celebrate with the Jewish people especially in this Province for the contribution they are making to both the cultural and economic well-being of our society.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join also in acknowledging this week the recognition by the Newfoundland and Labrador Jewish community of the Holocaust Memorial Day, and also to reflect with them the horror of the systematic persecution and murder of European Jews by the Nazis and their collaborators during the period 1933 to 1945.

The Jewish community consistently reminds us of this horror, and also the horror against not only them but all of humanity by this kind of persecution which was, in addition to the Jews, enacted against political prisoners or enemies of the Nazis state, against homosexuals, against the Romanian gypsies and others, and reminds us of how important it is for us to be consistently mindful of the need for strong human rights legislation and culture throughout the world.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to announce the proclamation of the new Adoption Act. This new progressive legislation replaces the Province's previous adoption legislation, the Adoption of Children Act.

The Adoption Act represents a significant and positive shift in how adoption services are provided in Newfoundland and Labrador. This act focuses on the child as a centre of every adoption. It represents a more open direction in the delivery of our adoption services. The new legislation allows for openness agreements between birth parents and adoptive parents for ongoing exchange of information or contact. It also provides for greater openness in the release of adoption information.

Mr. Speaker, although the new Act is more open than the previous Adoption of Children Act, it still recognizes the confidentiality commitments made under previous legislation. The new Adoption Act has provisions to allow adopted individuals and birth parents to file a disclosure veto for adoptions filed under the previous Act to prevent identifying information from being released through the birth registration or adoption order.

Anyone interested in filing a disclosure veto or a no-contact declaration has one year to do so. There is a one year delay, until April 30, 2004, before the Vital Statistics Division will begin releasing information. We have provided this delay so that adopted individuals and birth parents have time to file a disclosure veto or no-contact declaration with the Vital Statistics Division.

Mr. Speaker, we want children to be involved in the processes which affect them; as such children twelve years of age or older must give consent to their adoption. Children under age twelve years will have knowledge of the adoption process and their views must be considered.

The new legislation also provides for a more independent adoption process for relatives and step-parents. A self-help kit has been developed to guide applicants through the adoption process for relative and step-parent adoptions.

Mr. Speaker, many of the new elements I have mentioned are progressive. We are a model for the rest of the country to follow. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have been asking for changes in adoption policies and law, and I am pleased that after comprehensive public consultations, we now have this new legislation.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

As the minister would know, when we debated this piece of legislation in the House our party was very supportive of the legislation and we, too, would characterize it as being somewhat progressive legislation. I say to the minister, we are very pleased to see the focus is now on the child.

One of the things, though, that makes the success of any plan is how we implement it. Mr. Minister, I suggest very strongly that in this particular process we make sure there are adequate resources in the community, particularly in rural Newfoundland, outside the major centres, to be able to provide counseling to the parents, to the adoptive parents and to the birth parents, so that they all have a good understanding of what is available to them and what rights they have.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the minister very strongly that the implementation plan include a good in-service focus for the people who are going to be involved in the community - social workers, family physicians, school guidance counsellors - because the plan and the act itself is the cornerstone. But, how we go about implementing it, how it is accepted in the communities, and how we present it will dictate its success and whether or not what we have dictated in this House becomes a reality out in the communities where it is really going to have an impact on the child and the parents involved in this process.

Mr. Speaker, I would pass those suggestions to the minister to ensure that as we move forward with this, this becomes a key part of the strategy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. We, too, welcome the changes made to the adoption act and the proclamation of the new adoption act.

It is very important, Mr. Speaker, for open agreements between birth parents and adopted parents and it is very important that adopted children have access, hopefully, to their medical histories and their family's medical histories for their own well-being.

This also bestows rights on children that did not exist prior to the new adoption act and we think that it is a step in the right direction. It is a progressive act and hopefully things will be better, will improve in this Province, and we set an example for the rest of the country to lead as well.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I wish to congratulate North Atlantic Refining Limited on their purchase of forty Petro-Canada service stations throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. It is good to see a local company which employs over 700 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in the Province experience such significant growth.

Yesterday's announcement provides North Atlantic with a greater market share of provincial retail petroleum sales. This growth will be distributed in rural and urban Newfoundland and will expand upon the company's home heat, propane, marine diesel, and jet fuel markets. Each year North Atlantic generates in excess of $140 million to the local economy. This expansion will help that number grow and will strengthen and diversify their operations in the Province.

It is very encouraging to witness the business partnerships between our local companies, and the national and international investment community. Petro-Canada is a major investor in our offshore petroleum industry, and remains committed to the Hibernia, Terra Nova and White Rose projects. Petro-Canada is also continuing with their exploration programs offshore Newfoundland, and are a partner in the Hebron-Ben Nevis project. I commend Petro-Canada for their continuing commitment to our Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join today in congratulating North Atlantic and Petro-Canada on reaching this mutually beneficial business deal. Strong local companies will ensure that our economy grows and remains vibrant.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Usually I would stand up and thank the minister for a copy of his statement today. I commend him because his first ministerial statement he gave to me two minutes before the House opened but today I got this the day before the House opened. So I commend the minister for his improvement.

We, too, Mr. Speaker, would like to congratulate North Atlantic Refining and Petro-Canada for what we believe to be a win-win situation. I spoke with officials from both companies yesterday morning. I agree with the minister, especially North Atlantic who employees some 700 people in this Province and also contributes some $60 million to payroll in this Province each year, which is very significant. Also, to Petro-Canada who are going to continue an investment in our offshore, and as we know that to be very, very important.

Mr. Speaker, we also congratulate both companies. As we said, it is a win-win situation for both companies. As North Atlantic's motto goes - we have seen their advertisements many times. They say it is home heat from home and it is the home team. In this case the home team won, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to wish North Atlantic well with their new acquisition. I am sure it will be very advantageous for them to integrate their refining operations with what they call the downstream and the distribution. It will be very efficient for them. They have been very active in the Province.

I cannot help but be a bit disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that Petro-Canada, our once national oil company that was established at the insistence of the New Democratic Party a number of years ago, is abandoning its presence on the streets in the Province through its oil stations and gas stations. It is a disappointment, Mr. Speaker. We would like to see them reinvest more of the many dollars that they are making in the offshore -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - as we found the other day in this Province. We are disappointed to see that they are leaving. I hope this is not a political statement, Mr. Speaker.

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, the last thing that any member of this House wanted was for this cod closure to become politicized. We wanted to continue to speak in a united voice for the good of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but, Mr. Speaker, the Premier made a comment yesterday that was completely inaccurate and untrue, and I cannot sit quietly by and allow the Premier to get on with his political nonsense without setting the record straight.

Mr. Speaker, immediately prior to the meeting with Minister Thibault on March 17, the all-party committee convened and agreed that our recommendations would be on an all or nothing basis and not a cherry-picking approach.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in this House, the Premier implied that I broke ranks with the committee in that meeting when, in fact, the Premier seriously damaged the all-party report in his opening remarks by indicating to Minister Thibault that the report was not, in fact, comprehensive and that if the fishery closed, various options were still available. I remember it very clearly, Mr. Speaker, because our collective jaws in the room dropped at his statement.

Mr. Speaker, would the Premier confirm, or, if not, it can be confirmed by the MHAs, the MPs, or the senators on the all-party committee, that he, in fact, discredited the all-or-nothing approach by the all-party committee when his own opening remarks completely contradicted the unified position of the all-party committee and seriously undermined our efforts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am disappointed, obviously, at the approach today. Yesterday, I think we had a useful exchange because it was necessary to clear the air in terms of who was supporting whom in the days after the announcement was made.

Mr. Speaker, I think the seriousness of the issue now being raised obviously is put in context by virtue of the fact that we did present that report on March 17, and what he just said was never raised at that point in time. If there were issues and problems, and if they were serious, I am sure they would have been reported and made public at that point in time.

Contrary to that, the reaction to the very clear messages that we left in Ottawa were compliments for the whole group of us, because we had left very clear messages in Ottawa, not compromised by anyone at all. We left messages that our report was indeed comprehensive, that we did not expect the report to be cherry-picked. We did say, though, that we are not completely unreasonable people and that if they had issues with any of our recommendations we would gladly come back and discuss them with them; that is they had some problems with any of our recommendations, we would come back and discuss them with them. And we did say, quite clearly, that closure was absolutely not an option.

Now, that was the presentation that was made. We all made our own contributions to that because we were all equal members. That was the message that was presented in a united front.

If, in fact, what the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting today was true, I am sure that somebody in that group would have taken the offence that he tries to suggest was taken by it now, a month-and-a-half later, and would have made it public at the time. Nobody who came back from that meeting ever said that anyone who was there did anything other than make a very great case on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I am sure that maybe the Leader of the Opposition might want to reconsider and revisit his commentary right now, because again we are trying to move forward. I have been working with Minister Byrne's office again today to try to find out how we work with him to get the decision reversed, how we deal with the compensation issues -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - and how we deal with the best interests of the people involved.

I think it is kind if sad, actually, that someone would now suggest that there were some comments made six weeks ago that were never reported then, so they could not have been too serious or they would have been in the public domain long before this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that the Premier has not denied that he said that, and I can tell him, straight form the heart, as other members will tell him the same thing, we did not make it an issue because we did not want to embarrass you, we did not want to embarrass the Province, and we wanted to make sure that our position was unified and we were all together. That is why we did not do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: And that is the truth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to address the Chair and to get to his question.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would suggest that those who want to know check with the other members of that all-party committee to see if what I am saying is accurate.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier crossed the line yesterday, and I will not allow him to blame me for his own shortcomings at that meeting.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about what led up to all of this. Would the Premier confirm that within days of news breaking about a potential closure of the codfishery last November, he acknowledged that there is, quote: A very real probability that these fisheries will close in the 2003 season, and that he was, quote: very troubled by the absence of any reference to compensation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the Leader of the Opposition may want to live in the past. If he wants it clear, I did not say what he said. The messages - again I repeat them - that we gave on March 17 were crystal clear, and nobody had to bite their lips or bite their tongue because everybody, as a matter of fact, afterwards were very, very congratulatory as to how we had all conducted ourselves. We left the messages.

Let me repeat them again because we are looking at how we move forward from here constructively. The messages were clear, that we believe we had come together on a historic basis and made a very comprehensive report - the most comprehensive ever done. We indicated that we did not want the federal government to be cherry-picking because we had issues in there that were contentious in our own Province, like closing the recreational cod fishery. We knew we wanted to get the message across that we did not want a federal minister to choose that recommendation because we had made it and ignore all of the rest. We did not want cherry-picking.

We also indicated though that if, in fact, you had issues with some of these things because we knew they were going to receive other advice from their own conservation council that was not yet available, and if there was contradictory information coming forward from other sources that led them to have issues with our report, come back and talk to us. Now, the downfall was they got the contradictory recommendations from other sources and did not come back to talk to us, despite the efforts of our chairman, Mr. Efford, to meet, our fisheries ministers to meet, others asking to meet. They did not meet. They made the decisions themselves.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Finally, we did say quite clearly, that closure was absolutely not acceptable; and that is our position again today, Mr. Speaker. So we would like to move forward and see how we deal with these issues now that the worst possible decision has been taken, and it is dead wrong.

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, in my second question to the Premier I read out quotations and attributed them to the Premier. He said he did not say them. Those quotations came directly from his ministerial statement to this House on November 21, 2002.

Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that this government did not handle the entire issue very well. The Premier decided to play politics by formally writing the Members of Parliament and asking them to resign, and three days later suggested in the media that it was merely symbolic when he realized he had made a mistake in fact.

Mr. Speaker, can the Premier please explain why, prior to his one party, not an all-party trip to Ottawa, he broke ranks again with the all-party committee and tried to embarrass all of our federal MPs by publicly calling for their resignation from caucus?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, the Leader of the Opposition wants to live in the past because he has no idea of what to do in the future - has no real notion, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition did not know what to do about it on Thursday, did not know what to do about it on Friday. They are in the media today, himself and his fisheries critic, contradicting each other; giving two different reasons as to why they did or did not say something in the days after. Wondering what to do, how to get some attention.

Notice in the commentary reported in local media today, no concern expressed about what to do for the people, concern expressed about how do we get some attention in the media, Mr. Speaker. Publicly reported in the Province today, and they know it.

Now the issue is: Where do we go from here? What we have been doing is trying to work with Minister Byrne's office. The three federal MPs, that I have talked to, understand the notion of drawing attention to an issue by doing something like calling for resignation. I have met with them since. They have done exactly what we wanted done. They have come out and said the decision is wrong. They have had an emergency debate in the House of Commons. They have asked for the reversal. It took that Leader of the Opposition four or five days to figure what his position would be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: They have made their position crystal clear. I am glad now to see that the Leader of the Opposition wants to work with us to have the decision reversed, to improve the compensation, to have the EI extended, to have the licence buyouts considered -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - to have the early retirement considered, to have a diversification program and to have the science capability moved to Newfoundland and Labrador. I am delighted to have his support in trying to move forward and accomplish something for the people who are unfortunately, very negatively impacted right now, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, prior to his meeting with the Prime Minister, in which he failed to convince the federal government to reopen our fishery, on a radio call-in program the Premier called the Prime Minister - and I quote him - a disaster.

Does the Premier really believe that publicly calling the Prime Minister, the one person who can reverse this decision, a disaster, is that an effective negotiating strategy? Or is that just another part of his decision to try and turn the fishery into an election issue?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not recall using that particular phrase, but I can tell you this. I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker, that in Newfoundland and Labrador when we are elected as representatives for the people of our Province, our job is to stand up for our people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: The Government of Canada has made a decision that I understand every single member in here believes is the wrong decision. The Prime Minister is the person at the head of that government who, in meeting with me, indicated it was a decision of the minister - I am not going to get involved, it was not a Cabinet decision. It was a decision made by the minister, and that minister is the one responsible for it. You will have to go back and see if that minister is going to change his or her mind.

Our focus and attention will be on that in the next little while, Mr. Speaker, and if the Leader of the Opposition wants to stand up and be an apologist for the Government of Canada, for the Prime Minister or any of the ministers and say they are doing a great job, then he can do that. I do not think, on this issue, and I do not believe anybody in Newfoundland and Labrador thinks they have done a great job.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: I think they have done a very poor job because they have made the worst possible decision they could possibly make, and we will do anything we possibly can to have it reversed and to have it done in the right fashion for our 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 went to Ottawa to meet with federal MPs, federal ministers, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister, and he successfully, personally, offended each and every one of them prior to his visit. He even insulted the next Prime Minister by taking a cheap shot at all Liberal leadership delegates - candidates, I am sorry.

Mr. Speaker, would the Premier acknowledge that he harmed his ability to negotiate with John Manley when he stated, in reference to Sheila Copps, John Manley and Paul Martin, that he is, quote, "...very suspect of those kind of things, people coming around looking for a vote and trying to make you believe that they understand and they care and they would do something different."

That is what you said, Premier. That is your quote. You should look in the mirror. Do you think that harmed your ability to negotiate with any of those people, personally offending and personally insulting them?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind hon. members that they ought to address the Chair when they are speaking in this Chamber, and not individual members.

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to see the Leader of the Opposition being so helpful today. Yesterday, his whole plea was: I want to be helpful. I do not want to enter into a political debate. I would like to put politics aside and see if we can do something for the people impacted.

What a difference twenty-four hours makes, Mr. Speaker. What a difference in twenty-four hours. Here was a person yesterday wanting to suggest that politics did not matter, they just wanted to do something for the people impacted. The questions today show how concerned the Leader of the Opposition is about the people who are down in the offices, the people out in their homes wondering about their future, the people who want to know what we are going to do about trying to get this decision reversed. That is what they wanted to know. That is what they were criticizing me for yesterday when I was clearing the air and making sure that everybody knew that we did not have the support. A day later, no interest in the people, and if he wants to start apologizing and saying that it is okay by me if people come to Newfoundland and Labrador, using Sheila Copps as the example, who came to Newfoundland and Labrador, used to be the Deputy Prime Minister, sits in the Cabinet, and made a speech about the Gander Weather Office and said: If I become the leader, if I were the leader today -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

- and this was shortly after the announcement was made to close it - if I were the leader I would not have closed Gander, I would have moved the full national weather forecasting service to Gander.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: If you think that is something that you would look at without some cynicism then you can explain that to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I remind hon. members that addressing this Chamber ought to be done through the Speaker and not speaking to individuals in the Chamber.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister, in her Budget Speech, said that government would eliminate the consolidated deficit of $300 million between 2004-2005 and 2007-2008, and the minister publicly said since that, Mr. Speaker, that they have an effective plan. The Toronto-Dominion Bank said that government has provided no clear plan on how that goal can be achieved.

I want to ask the minister: Will she tell this House, where is the four-year plan to meet that commitment of a $300 million deficit reduction?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would be happy to speak about it, and I would say to the member opposite that he did not comment on what the representative from Moody's said when he believed that we were able to achieve our plan. I think that it is an important piece of it as well.

The plan was to achieve continued growth. The plan was, when I spoke about it on Budget day, I say to the Member for Cape St. Francis, and I will say it again today, and the plan still is that we will continue to grow our economy. Just yesterday, in this House of Assembly, I presented a Ministerial Statement that spoke about unprecedented growth for this Province leading the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I know that is disturbing to the members opposite because our economy is strong, but we also said yesterday, and we will say it again, there are areas in our Province where we need to continue to work even harder because we recognize it is not even all throughout the Province.

Our plan is solid, and there is one other very important point, Mr. Speaker. Every year for the last five years, we have consecutively grown our own provincial economy by over $100 million. That is the plan, Mr. Speaker, to continue to grow our economy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is only fair to ask, in this House, when the minister makes a statement she is going to cut $300 million over a four-year period, and the investment community and financial institutions are questioning that we have not seen a plan, I ask the minister to table in this House and to put forth to the people of this Province where that $300 million deficit is going to be slashed, by putting forth your projected revenues and expenditures over that four-year period. That is the only way, Mr. Speaker, that can be done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I think we are finally starting to see the Marshall plan here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, just listen to the question. The only people talking about cut and slash are the people opposite. They will never hear it over here, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulty talking about how we continue to grow our economy. We have made it very clear in the Budget Speech. We have made it very clear at every opportunity. We will continue to grow the economy. We have already put in place an 8 per cent and 5 per cent reduction into our own departments, and if you are going to talk to me about finding the word slash in my Budget Speech, well, I was not the person who read slash. It is not there. You are the one who is going to cut and slash. You are the one doing the Marshall plan. She is the one who wants to hire more accountants than social workers. All will be seen, I am sure. You point out to me the word, slash. It is not there.

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.

According to the Oxford Dictionary, the word "redundant" means, not needed or that which can be omitted without any loss or significance.

As we are all aware, the Premier is responsible for the appointment of deputy ministers. I would like to ask the Premier today, how does he justify recently declaring a deputy minister's position redundant and then, within a few days, appoint another person to that very same position, which has a salary of $130,068?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I expect he will give more details, because I do not know what he is talking about yet.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, in the past few weeks, a deputy minister vacated his position within government. When a position is vacated in the public service, that person normally receives a twenty-week severance package.

I would like to ask the Premier why the government would pay an additional sixty-two week redundancy package on top of the twenty-week severance package, totally $297,000, when the position was filled a few days later?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You will have to give me some details. I will find out some time, I guess. I guess, at some point in time, he will tell me exactly what issue he is talking about.

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, there is tremendous frustration in this Province today. Many industries are finding it difficult to keep afloat. Many people are forced to go on social assistance, and in several cases do not know where the next dollar is coming from.

I would like to ask the Premier to come clean and tell us, how does he justify deeming a deputy minister's position redundant while the position is filled immediately within a few day, and how does he justify putting $297,000 in someone's pocket as a farewell gift?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, if he would like to tell me what he is talking about, I will gladly provide the answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

After the negative decision a week ago regarding the closure of the Gulf and Northern cod fisheries, the Premier and his delegation went to Ottawa. I want to ask the Premier whether he made known to the Prime Minister, or the Minister of Fisheries, or others in Ottawa, any timetable for a change in this decision? Does he have a timetable by which he expects this decision to be reversed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the issues that we raised, being, a request to reverse the decision outright and have a limited viable fishery in line with the recommendations of the Conservation Council, an extension of EI benefits for those people impacted due to the cod closure, as well as those with respect to ice conditions causing other fisheries to be late starting, improved compensation involving license buyouts and early retirement options, a long-term diversification program, more details along the lines of what Minister Byrne had been indicating is available, and, as well, the relocation of the science capability, on the more immediate ones we asked that since the issues are all very well known we would hope to have a definitive reply by the end of this week, if at all possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to ask the Premier, then, on behalf of the fishery workers of this Province, and particularly the fish harvesters who hope to participate in this fishery: What are the Premier's next steps?

Last fall, when the Premier was disagreeing with the plan of the Prime Minister to sign on to the Kyoto Accord, he talked about defying Ottawa. Does the Premier plan to defy Ottawa on the issue of the closure of this fishery?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will consider any and all alternatives that will get the right response for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. If we take extraordinary or exceptional actions, we will announce and explain them fully to the people of the Province and expect endorsement and support.

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.

My question today is to the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

Minister, the Employment Insurance Program was implemented to help Canadians provide income to their families when they were unable to access employment income due to reasons beyond their control, reasons such as being laid off due to shortage of work, and especially between seasonal jobs. Minister, hundreds of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are without an income today. Due to ice conditions off our coast, fishermen are unable to fish, plant workers are unable to process.

I ask the minister if he would inform the House today if those unemployed workers will have their EI extended so they may be able to provide for their families when conditions like these exist due to no reasons of their own?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I think it is well known public knowledge that the government has already made representation to hon. Jane Stewart some weeks ago requesting an extension of the EI.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, the EI account in Ottawa today has in excess of $36 billion accumulated, money that was paid out by those very same Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are without an income today.

I ask the minister if he has met with his federal cousin, the hon. Jane Stewart and what action he will take, as our representative right here in this Province, to look after those Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are without an income due to no fault of their own.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

As I said earlier, government had made representation some weeks ago requesting that the hon. minister extend the EI benefits to the fisher people in the Province. He talks about the $39 billion. My understanding was it is somewhere around a $43 billion surplus. They also have responsibility for the EAPD, which is Employability Assistance for People with Disabilities. We are making representation to them on that. We are constantly making representation to the federal government so that they can help us to help the people of the Province. I can give you an example that the federal government will say that they contribute 50 per cent of the support towards employability for people with disabilities. Myself, the Department of HRE, and the Department Health spend some $11 million helping people with disabilities, while the federal government represents 4.1 per cent, which is a total of $15 million. So, they say they pay 50 per cent. When I went to school that is a long way from 50 per cent.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: We are continuously making representation to the federal government to try and help us help the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We do not live in a bubble here. We understand exactly what is going on in the Province. That is why we continuously make representation to the federal government so they can do their share also.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Final Supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, the federal Auditor General was on the radio today talking about this excess in the EI program going into general revenues, going in as taxes rather than as income to help fishermen and plant workers and other unemployed individuals. I ask the minister if he would give us a straight answer and let us know what he has done to help those Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who find themselves in this desperate situation today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is obvious that the hon. member opposite is listening but he is not hearing. I have been telling you that we are continuously making representation to the federal government to help them provide their share to help the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I can tell you upfront that whether it is a $40 billion surplus in the EI fund, it is a shame on the federal government that they are not coming forward to help the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: It is easy to portray us as the poorest province in Canada with the most GDP, but when you look at it, there are some 469,000 people in the Province of Ontario on income support - almost the whole population of Newfoundland and Labrador. So we are continuously making representations to the federal government. We want them to help us. They have an obligation to help us. Mr. Speaker, they should be helping us. We do not control - if I were the federal minister, we would be doing a lot better than what we are doing now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

I rise again today to present yet another petition from my district on the road conditions throughout the Province. Many members in this House have done so in the last couple of weeks from all over my district. This particular petition I will read to the House comes from the Green Bay side of my district, from Little Bay to Beachside. It says:

WHEREAS the road from Little Bay turnoff to Little Bay was paved approximately thirty years ago. And since that time very little has been done to upkeep the road. The road is in a deplorable condition.

We, the undersigned residents of the electoral District of Baie Verte, petition the government to repave the road from Little Bay turnoff to Beachside.

Mr. Speaker, we continue to stand in this House to present petitions on behalf of people in our districts who are very upset with the road conditions throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. Everyday, especially this spring in particular, Mr. Speaker - especially this spring - when we talk about a road here similar to the La Scie Highway that we talked about a little while ago. It is thirty years old. The road into Little Bay and Beachside is some thirty years old, and in many cases, Mr. Speaker, are worse than some of the gravel roads. As we continue to speak about the road conditions throughout this Province, throughout all parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, we have to remind the government again that there are some over 900 kilometres of gravel roads still left in Newfoundland and Labrador, and over 1,500 kilometres of pavement that is thirty years old or older.

Mr. Speaker, most people know that the best you can hope for out of a paved road is twenty-five years and we still have 1,500 kilometres of pavement in these districts that is thirty years old. Anybody who lives in a part of this Province who sees that old pavement can tell you that it is many times worse than even going over some of the gravel roads, and they are in some pretty deplorable conditions.

Mr. Speaker, day after day and year after year we see this government spend some $18 million to $20 million on roads in this Province, when the minister himself has also said they need something like $340 million this year to keep up with it. You do not have to be a financial wizard to figure out that sooner or later, Mr. Speaker, they are not catching up with the real problem in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, and I make note of this today because there were some students here from my district who travel on buses every single day. I sat on one of those buses with students one day just to get the feel of what it was like to go around on these terrible roads, especially on gravel roads. Some of the students said again today, imagine getting up every morning - lots of times it is hard to encourage students to stay in school as it is, but to get up every morning and face a bus ride and those conditions with some of these buses in very bad condition, it is hard, Mr. Speaker. It is hard for parents and the students to encourage themselves everyday to get back on that road and to go to school every single day.

That is why our priority, Mr. Speaker, for this part of my district and throughout my district for gravel roads and poor paved roads that are in such deplorable conditions that this should be a priority of any government. It is a basic need. They are not asking for double-lane highways that went through Grand Falls or the Outer Ring Road. They are looking for a simple - at least an upgraded road. Some of them are not even asking for paving anymore, just looking to have it upgraded. That is what they are looking for. It is not some grand scheme, Mr. Speaker, or asking for something grand and gigantic to be built. They are asking for a simple, basic necessity of a decent road to drive over. I do not think that is too much to ask for, Mr. Speaker. That is why I continue to stand everyday on behalf of people in my district to say that road conditions have gone too far. It is time that we really address the real problem and get a long-term plan, not just from April to April when we looking to the minister to try to get a few crumbs, a few kilometres of pavement to take care of little bits of roads.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I will just conclude by saying this, it is important. It is something that should be a priority and there should be something done with the road conditions in our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: If the hon. members would not mind, somebody missed there, going down through the Routine Proceedings. We have at least one minister who wanted to table a document. I wonder if you would mind going back to that proceeding, Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees, and we could pick up again with petitions.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed?

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, when any minister wants to table a document in the House of Assembly (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: We will revert to Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to table invoices for government furniture and equipment which was in the home of Beaton Tulk, former minister, Deputy Premier, and Premier of the Province in accordance with the previous request made by the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's. These assets have since been returned to government.

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

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure today to present a petition on behalf of some 10,415 residents of Western Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, the petition is in the format prescribed by the House and it has been approved and seen by the Table.

The petition reads as follows:

WHEREAS the federal government has transferred $42.6 million to be used to purchase diagnostic equipment for health care; and

WHEREAS half of the 5,000 referrals for MRI scans in St. John's are from outside the St. John's area; and

WHEREAS placing additional MRI services outside of St. John's would bring this service closer to the people who need it and will reduce long waiting lists, travel time and expenses for all involved; and

WHEREAS Western Memorial Regional Hospital in Corner Brook serves the largest catchment area outside of St. Johns;

THEREFORE the undersigned residents of Western Newfoundland and Labrador resolve that Magnetic Resonance Imaging equipment must be purchased by the provincial government and established at Western Memorial Hospital, Corner Brook, to serve the greatest good for the largest number of people, and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, this petition is signed by some 10,415 petitioners. All the more remarkable, the initiative for this particular petition only started at a meeting in Corner Brook on April 23, and on April 30 it was presented to me with 10,415 names. I am informed today that another petition, with well over another 10,000 names, will be delivered to me and will be available for presentation in this House on Monday.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of an MRI arose out of the 2003 Budget wherein it was announced that we would be spending an additional $26 million for medical and diagnostic equipment. Further, it was announced in the Budget 2003 that this particular equipment would be purchased and placed in accordance with the recommendations received after consultation with the medical community. We will note that in the Budget commentary, there was reference made to a mobile and/or a fixed place type of MRI. No decision was made in the Budget presentation. That was left to the recommendations of the medical community.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that yesterday, April 30, that particular consultation was held here in St. John's, and I will be consulting -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MERCER: Just to conclude, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MERCER: Just to conclude, Mr. Speaker, the meeting was held yesterday. I have not yet had an opportunity to speak to the doctors from Western Newfoundland who participated, but I expect to see them this week, this week being tomorrow, on Friday, and we will be able to report further in the House when I present the second petition.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition today.

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

WHEREAS the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is the only Province in Canada that does not have a downtown library in its capital city; and

WHEREAS the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has the worst rates of illiteracy in the country; and

WHEREAS the citizens and visitors of downtown St. John's require a downtown library for access to literature, the Internet, and a place to develop their literacy skills; and

WHEREAS the children of downtown St. John's need access to books; and

WHEREAS the Province and the city used to provide the citizens and visitors of St. John's with a downtown library;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to return the downtown library to the citizens and visitors of St. John's and to take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the downtown library has adequate hours of operation, adequate staffing, and adequate books.

Mr. Speaker, I presented a petition similar to this just prior to the Easter break in the House of Assembly, and I said at the time to the Minister of Education and the Minister of Finance that I am not demanding today that they put a library downtown. What I was demanding was that they conduct a study into the viability of putting a library in downtown St. John's versus the cost of illiteracy that would result by not having a library in the downtown area.

Many of the children who live in the downtown area do not have proper transportation, do not have access to transportation, and are not able to afford monthly bus passes. Many of the children who live in the downtown area are from areas that suffer from the highest rates of illiteracy in the city. Those families would do very well by having a library in the downtown area. Those children would be advantaged by having a library in the downtown area, by having Internet access, by having access to books, by having access to librarians and clerks and assistants who could assist them; and with the news today that teacher-librarians are being cut in the Avalon East School Board, it seems even more appropriate that this petition be presented.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present this petition on behalf of the undersigned and I ask that the Minister of Education and the Minister of Finance and the Premier take consideration into putting a library in the downtown area of St. John's.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a large number of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and particularly those who have been calling my office over the last six months in particular. Just let me read the prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker. It says:

WHEREAS the cost of therapies for Multiple Sclerosis are very expensive, ranging in cost from $12,300 to over $21,000 annually; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is the only Province that has not created MS drug specific financial eligibility criteria; and

WHEREAS in order to qualify for treatment costs individuals in Newfoundland and Labrador have to be eligible for Income Support Drug Program or the Senior Citizens Drug Subsidy Plan; and

WHEREAS most people in Newfoundland and Labrador with MS are being denied adequate funding for the four breakthrough medications that have been clinically proven to reduce the frequency and severity of MS attacks and slow the progression of the disability;

THEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to establish a separate program for financial coverage for MS therapies that would give all residents of this Province equal access.

Mr. Speaker, the uniqueness about this particular petition that is different than other petitions that have been presented in this House with respect to the provincial drug program, the medications in question here are medications that have already been approved for the provincial drug formulary. The provincial government already has these drugs covered in its provincial plan. It is available to people, as the petition indicates, who are getting their prescription drugs through the provincial program and through the seniors' program.

This is a situation here, Mr. Speaker, where individuals who have this dreaded disease find themselves having to deplete all of their resources: their RRSPs, their savings. Anything they may have in liquid assets have to be spent before they are able to get any access. The problem then becomes, the income threshold to be eligible for the Prescription Drug Program is such that if any individual is working in this Province today, they very quickly will have exhausted all of the lifetime benefits available in all group plans that are currently underwritten, but they are left with a situation where they make too much money to be eligible for the provincial plan, but do not make enough money to cover the cost of their prescription drugs. So, they are left in a situation where they are being discriminated against.

We are not talking about a large number of people. There is only a very select number of people with MS who are eligible candidates to have these drug therapies actually work, so that minimizes and reduces the number of MS patients who will actually be eligible. Some of those are already covered by the provincial drug program.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Just by leave to conclude, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

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

Thank you to the hon. House Leader.

Just to conclude, Mr. Speaker, we are asking government in this case here, on behalf of those small number of MS patients out there who find themselves falling between the cracks, to create an equity, to fix the inequity that currently exists and provide these individuals with the same access to much-needed medication as is already provided in the provincial drug program.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to present this petition on behalf on these individuals.

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, I rise today to bring forth a petition regarding the establishment of a library in the downtown area. I have been asked to present this petition on their behalf.

It reads that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is the only Province in Canada that does not have a downtown library in its capital city, that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has the worst rates of literacy in the country; and

WHEREAS the citizens and visitors of downtown require a downtown library for access to literature, the Internet and a place to develop their literacy skills; and

WHEREAS the children of downtown St. John's need access to books; and

WHEREAS the Province and city used to provide the citizens and visitors of St. John's with a downtown library;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly return the downtown library to the citizens and visitors of St. John's, and to take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the downtown library has adequate hours of operation, adequate staffing, and certainly an adequate supply of books.

Mr. Speaker, this petition brought to my attention, and it is certainly a petition that I take great pride in presenting because the need, of course, has been established by the very fact that these people have taken the time to put their name on a petition requesting that the government - and certainly, as my colleague a little bit earlier indicated, it is not a question now of jumping ahead and doing it - to bring about a study to see again the particulars: the need for it, the number of people it will serve, the cost of it, and the hours of operation.

Mr. Speaker, it is most important that the realization being if we are to want our literacy rates to increase, or illiteracy rates to decrease, the citizens of our particular Province need accessability to resources in order for them to be able to maintain their literacy skills and certainly increase their literacy skills.

The downtown area in particular, Mr. Speaker, is an area that has - in all my recollections - had access to a library, a library that was always available, that was used extensively, and I guess largely because of financial cutbacks was phased out in light of the larger regional libraries.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out that there is a need, that we call upon the Minister of Education, and we certainly call upon the Minister of Finance, to look at -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: Just to clue up.

- the feasability of placing a library in downtown St. John's in the hope that it can be realized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition as well. The petition reads: To the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative session convened. The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

WHEREAS the main road to the community of Winter Brook is in deplorable condition and in desperate need of paving;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to pave the approximately three kilometres of road leading to and including part of the community of Winter Brook.

And as in duty bound your petitions will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is just one in a series of petitions that I have presented here in this House of Assembly asking the government to include this section of roadway in this year's capital works budget. I understand that the announcements of road upgrades and repairs - the capital announcement - will be made within the next very, very short period of time. I guess it is timely to present this particular petition again from the residents in Winter Brook asking that the road work that was started there ten years ago now be allowed to be completed.

Back some ten years ago there was a road leading to Winter Brook. The main road, the only road, Mr. Speaker, was upgraded and at that particular time they were told by this government that they should not expect their road to paved in that same fiscal year because it was not something that government did. They did not go and upgrade roads and pave them in the same year. They needed some time for the gravel to settle and for the bed to form. That is what they were told by this government, by the member of the day who sat on that government side, I might add. Mr. Speaker, ten years later they are still waiting for their road to be paved.

A few years ago, I took the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the Member for Humber Valley, when he was the minister at the time, and went down and met with the residents of Winter Brook. They brought forward their concerns to him. Two years ago, I took another Minister of Works, Services and Transport to Winter Brook, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Bellevue. At that particular time, there was a commitment made that they would have their road started, that we would start paving their road. We did two kilometres that year, which included mostly the main part of Winter Brook. Last year, we were fortunate enough to get another two kilometres for that particular road. So we included the section to Jamestown Lumber and included part of the community of Winter Brook again to take in a number of houses that existed near the community. Mr. Speaker, there is three kilometres of road that needs to be paved now to connect those two projects together. If we could get -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Just a minute to clue up, if I could?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, if we could see those three kilometres of road paved this year, the community of Winter Brook would then enjoy a road comparable to what most people have been enjoying in this Province for the past twenty-five or thirty years.

The plea is simple, Mr. Speaker. All they are asking for is that their section of roadway be included in this year's capital works budget and that the Liberal government would see fit to spend the amount of money needed to upgrade - not upgrade, to pave, because the road is already upgraded - to pave that particular section of road.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to present a petition on behalf of several residents in my district, notably the residents of St. Mary's Bay. The prayer of the petition reads as follows:

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

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

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

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I stand here and present this petition, one of many I have presented here on behalf of the people of the district in relation to road conditions. There are many reasons why roads need to be improved: notably the fact that we are trying to develop a tourism industry in our area, and certainly for commuters of the area who travel back and forth. As most people know now, much of what people need in relation to medical, financial and other issues that they have are dealt with in the greater city, the greater area here. People travel back and forth from St. Mary's Bay on a continuous basis.

The number one concern that has been raised with me, as the MHA for the area, is the situation as it relates to safety on the highways. We have now, over the past number of years, amalgamation of the schools in that area. Now that all students from the outlying communities are travelling into St. Mary's and into St. Catherine's, following over the road, the safety of these children on the buses - when they have to swerve away from holes that are in the pavement, it is certainly creating a very serious safety issue in relation to the transport of those students.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I have talked to several of the ambulance drivers in the area and certainly they have a major, major concern. Over the past couple of months we have been without a doctor in St. Mary's, and with an aging population as in most parts of rural Newfoundland, once again a lot of the situations are brought in here to St. John's to the hospitals, and the safety issue for those people traveling, especially in those emergency vehicles, such as ambulances, and in fire trucks, Mr. Speaker, is a major concern.

Mr. Speaker, as the Member for Bonavista South just noted, the minister is supposed to announce in the next number of days some roadwork for the Province, and we hope that he finds it within his budget to certainly take care of some of the concerns and the conditions of the roads in my district. We look forward to some positive response from the minister on that, and certainly look forward to presenting any more petitions that come forward from the people.

Road conditions are a major issue in the District of Placentia & St. Mary's, as they are in all other districts of the Province, I am sure. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the minister will find some money so that the needed work and the needed repairs are carried out as soon as possible.

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, too, would like to present a petition today on behalf of the residents in my district, with respect to roads. The petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, in Legislative Session convened:

The petition of the undersigned residents of Noggin Cove, in the electoral District of Bonavista North, Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

WHEREAS the gravel road and previously paved road in Noggin Cove is in deplorable condition and is in desperate need of upgrading and paving.

THEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador more particularly of the community of Noggin Cove hereby petition you to upgrade and pave the road during the construction season of 2003.

And as in duty bound you petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, the road to Noggin Cove, I say again, has to be among the worst in the Province. Part of the road in Noggin Cove has never been paved and the other section between Carmanville and Frederickton was upgraded in 1972 and paved in 1973, thirty years ago. This section of road is probably worse than what the gravel road is at certain times of the year.

Three weeks ago, the gravel road was so bad in Noggin Cove that a local resident, Mr. Lester Sheppard, had to modify a tree farmer machine and drag it over the road until the road was made passable. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that most of the Cabinet Ministers and other government members should be quite familiar with the road in Noggin Cove after traveling over it many times last summer during the by-election.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I am calling upon the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to include the road in question in this year's roads upgrading and paving program.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker, the continuation of the speech by the hon. Member for Ferryland, to move that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: I just want to say before the hon. member speaks, that the sponsorship is moving slowly on this side.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That does not surprise me one bit. Knowing the makeup of that side of the House, that is very much in-line. Very much in-line, I might add.

No, I cannot support, I might say, the budgetary policy of this government. I cannot support it at all. They should not be too surprised because the minister stood in her place today in this House and could not tell us the plan to slash the $300 million she talked about on page 12 of this Budget. She said starting next year, not this year now - there is an election this year by the way. There has to be an election this fiscal year. She said: Next year we will start and slash $300 million. We are going to take $300 million from the budget, and we have an effective plan in the public. She said: In the public, we have an effective plan.

Toronto-Dominion Group said: The government does not have a plan. They have not seen any plan on how they are going to do that. How are you going to take out $75 million next year; the next year, it will be $150 million; the next year, $225 million; and then $300 million. So they get back the $300 million over four years - it is $300 million, plus $225 million, plus $75 million, plus $150 million. That is a significant amount of money. That is $750 million. So over four years it is going to be a $750 million accumulative amount basically, and they have no plan. In other words, trust us. Then ask us to stand here in this House and support a budget that this government cannot even explain.

I asked a question on the Budget and I almost became despondent over it. I guess I almost went into a withdrawal mood. They could not even answer my first question on the Budget in this House. I asked her to explain what she was factoring in when she was looking at depreciation on the net additions of Tangible Capital Assets. The minister could not tell me that, how that is factored in on the accrual basis of this Budget. What is the point of standing up in the House and asking questions? The minister cannot give an answer to it. She could not tell us. How did you calculate the Tangible Capital Assets? What is included? What are the net additions for this fiscal year? What is the depreciation on those? Those items, the minister could not tell us the answers.

Today in this House, the minister could not give us the answer. She could not tell us the plan. In fact, she read a statement in the House yesterday. She stated that Stats Canada reported in 2002 the GDP of this Province grew by 13.4 per cent.

I am going to talk for a while on what GDP is in a sense, and how it is not the real indicator, the only indicator, at all. I am glad the minister, or hopefully the minister is listening there. When she stands in her place sometime in debate in this House - she will get an opportunity before this session to stand and outline her plan. I am looking forward to that. I am looking forward to seeing that.

It is tremendous to see Gross Domestic Product, tremendous to see a growth here. We have led the country three out of five years and now, hopefully, two out of the next two predicted or five out of seven. What is happening, we are not equating into revenues proportionally for our Province. I have said that is the big flaw. This Province has not generated the economic development that we need to be able to sustain economic growth and put more disposable income in the pockets of people. There is a growing gap between the graphs of personal disposable incomes here and Gross Domestic Product, and that gap is widening each year. I do have a graph, and I did a little bit of research and looked back.

Back in 1989 when the PCs were in power in this Province, I might add that personal disposable income was 80 per cent of Gross Domestic Product; 80 per cent. In other words, if the economy grows you get more money in your pocket, 80 per cent correlation. Today, it is 59 per cent; down to 59 per cent. All through the 1980s you could see the gap. You could see the graph, how it was widening. The gap between personal disposable income and Gross Domestic Product is widening.

For instance, by government's own figures, on page 5 of the Economy. The book put out by the minister on Budget Day. When you look at that, you will see on page 5 that the Gross Domestic Product in 2001, it is showing here the figure was $13,761 million compared to personal disposable income of just over $9 billion. When you look at that figure, that is 66 per cent. Can you imagine, in three years we have gone from personal disposal income 66 per cent of GDP, 2002 it went to 61 per cent of GDP, and 59 per cent now.

What was it in 1989, when the PCs were in power? It was 82 per cent in 1988. It was over 80 per cent in 1989; over 80 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product. What does that tell us? That tells us as our economy grows, the benefits - in other words, the economic rent from the growth of that economy does not stay here. It goes elsewhere, outside the Province. It is not putting money into the pockets of people in our Province as the economy grows. Why is it so high? Well, one the big reasons, Madam Speaker, is because of our offshore oil. Our offshore oil is generating tremendous revenues but they are going to the Eastern Seaboard of the United States, and Canada is a beneficiary and the United States.

We are not the principal beneficiaries of the Gross Domestic Product growth that is occurring because of offshore oil and gas. We have not done our job in developing it. I remember back at the initial stages saying, if we do not fight at the early stages we will not get the spinoffs. Halifax is starting to take over in areas from us. I remember at one point this government sat back - even the engineers from Leatherhead, England were doing engineering, design work there when it should have been demanded that the work be done here and we build a base of skills here in our Province to employ people, and from that, fight for others each step of the way. We are not seeing it. We are seeing a deterioration.

In 2002, for example, it shows our personal disposable income was $9.5 billion and our GDP at market prices was $15.6 billion. If you look at that, that is only 61 per cent and now it is 59 per cent. Can you imagine, in just fourteen years with this government, we have seen when the GDP goes up that we could count on 80-some per cent of personal disposable income for each dollar generated on Gross Domestic Product.

What is happening today? Only 60 per cent - 59 per cent forecasted for this year, for 2003, the year just ended, is going to go as disposable income. The personal disposable income means individuals, collectively in this Province, have more money in their pockets to spend on goods and services to create jobs, whether it is in supermarkets, in stores, at car garages, car dealerships, in regular clothing stores, you name it, all over, it is creating jobs. People are spending in these places and we employ more people.

No doubt about it, the minister does stand up and talk about Gross Domestic Product, but she hides the real message behind that. We have a very strong message behind that. We have allowed our economy to falter. We have been asleep at the switch while economic activity is taking on a whole new direction, and we are not getting in on the ground level and getting benefits generated from that. That is pretty sad here. We are having to see people from our Province go out to other areas to work at jobs that are created by our resources here in our Province. We have people who have had to leave this Province to go to the United States, and other parts of the country, to work in areas that are operating on raw materials produced here in our very own Province. That is not the way it should be.

We have seen a lack, I would say, of vision, a lack of commitment to growing the economy here by our Province, and all they spew out is a few positive good note GDP things, and we will take them any day, no doubt about it. We will take GDP growth. It is good to have it.

Look, in good times we cannot even grow the economy in any proportion to it. What are we going to do in bad times? If we have a downturn, what is going to happen? In good times, our deficit is climbing. We are told we have the greatest - we led the country three out of five years - the next two years, and our deficit is increasing. Is there something wrong when we are leading the country at a phenomenal 13.4 per cent - that is phenomenal growth in GDP - and our deficit goes up by hundreds of millions of dollars? There is something not right. There is something not right when we are growing the economy in GDP, and the only thing growing faster than GDP is our debt. There is something wrong. There is something wrong, and we know what is wrong. The people of this Province know what is wrong. The people at control are not using our resources wisely. They are not managing our economy properly. They are not managing the finances of this Province in a fiscally prudent manner. They are not doing it. They are reacting instead of being proactive and setting the seeds for sustained growth. They are dealing with hot spots, trouble spots when it happens, trying to deal with these. What is going to be the next one? How do we deal with that? That is going on and on and on.

If things are growing and it is so great, what is happening? Six years ago our federal and provincial revenues that we take in here were 36 per cent of our GDP. Last year, they were only 24 per cent of our GDP. Our GDP is going up and our provincial revenues are not going up nearly as fast. They are losing ground. What does that tell us? That the growth that occurred from this industry, from the oil and gas primarily, is not equating into corresponding improvements in revenues, both provincially or federally, particularly provincially is our concern because that is our own provincial source of revenues and they are not going up accordingly. We are not getting the return into the coffers of our Province because of this GDP growth. We are not getting it back in taxation, in HST and income tax. We are not getting it back in all the other levels of taxes at a rate that is even close to the rate of growth in our Gross Domestic Product.

What is wrong? Why isn't there? Why, since the early 1980s - I did not research prior to that, but back since the 1980s - we have had a healthy percentage of personal disposable income in comparison to GDP. It went through the 1980s and I would assume it existed in the 1970s and back. I have not researched beyond a twenty-three year period, but over that period we have seen a healthy spread and a healthy growth in that. When did we see a downturn? We started to see a downturn after this government came into power. That is when we started to see it, and I am saying it is not coincidental. It is not coincidental that happened. If it was, after fourteen years we should have seen a marked improvement in that ratio and we have not seen an improvement in that ratio. We have seen a reduction in that ratio. We have seen the situation get worse.

Today, only 24 per cent of our revenue sources now - it is 24 per cent of GDP, one-quarter, less than one-quarter of the GDP, when it is was 36 per cent just six years ago. That tells us something that we are not doing here in our Province. We are not doing something right here because it does not make sense. How is the average Newfoundlander and Labradorian supposed to believe that our economy is so great, we are outstripping everybody in the country, the banks and everybody are telling us our GDP growth is phenomenal, the best in the country, and people are still seeing their families leave this Province, get on an airplane or in a car and leave this Province. People do not see that. Why are there more hardships today in rural Newfoundland and Labrador? Why are there less people in communities in Newfoundland and Labrador today if things are so great? Because we only get one little aspect of the economy, and that is only thing that this government could hang its hat on. I can tell you, that is not growth originated by this government and under no control of this government.

The offshore oil and gas was done by previous governments. It was discovered by oil companies, the exploration. The gas out there was not a product of government exploration. It was done from private industry. The private industry job is: find it, explore, produce it, and market it. What is our job? Our job as a government is to ensure that the jobs - that we get our share here, that we participate in the profits, in other words, that we have a part in getting the maximum from the exploitation of our resource. That is our job, and that is where we failed, and that is why personal disposable income is not there; it is going down in comparison to GDP. That is why provincial revenues are going down as a per cent of GDP. We have not done our job.

Companies have done their job, in their exploration and development of the fields, and there have been agreements, of course, and the Province played a role in that back in the 1980s, but we have done nothing; we have done absolutely nothing. We just sit back and we talk about: the good times are here. Well, people have not seen them, I can tell you. They have not seen the good times from that. There are people out looking for jobs every day.

A person walked in today, I think, off the street, came to my office, not a constituent, and was frustrated. Since 5:30 - I am frustrated that I cannot get work, he indicated. He has just about had it,; and he has seen all this industry and growth we are talking about. People have a job to comprehend and understand why that is happening when we are being told in statements every day how great things are.

We have enough here to half fill a library, with statements given by governments over the past few years, since I have been Finance critic and I have been in this House, trying to paint a bright story. They are not true. They are absolutely, these stories, not true. The twist that government puts on them is not true. They have to look a bit further.

What is our debt today? Our accrual budget shows a $666 million deficit just in this fiscal year. Just a deficit in this fiscal year alone on an accrual basis is projected to be this year $666 million. On a consolidated cash basis, almost $300 million. It was on a cash basis only a quarter of that, less than a quarter of that last year - a fifth of that, roughly. It is from about $280-some million down to $60-some million. So we are looking at four-and-a-half times anyway what it was last year on a cash basis. On an accrual basis, who knows? We have not gotten the accrual basis yet from 2003 just ended; we do not know that. We will get that, we hope, in September. It was complied last year in September and it was not put into this House here until two months later. It was audited, it was done through the Comptroller General's Office, audited by the Auditor General, and we did not receive it. We would like to receive it, and the people should receive it when it is ready and done, not when it is politically expedient to put it in under the eve of Christmas or under some other big issue to throw it out there, that will not get the attention it deserves. The manipulation of releases to time around events so people will not tune into it. People will get to tune into it because we will make sure that people are made aware of those things.

That is one complied by her own department, by the minister's own department, those public accounts. It was $450 million last year. The year before, it was in the $300 millions. I think it was about $379 million, and $170 million or so the year before that. We have gone on this basis. We have hundreds of millions of dollars more that we are spending than we are taking in each year. Our debt is going up at an enormous rate, a tremendous rate. Our debt is going up a lot faster than our GDP. I have always said that there is nothing wrong with carrying a deficit, provided our economy is improving and we have a plan to produce a balanced budget over a period of time. When an economy grows an amount of revenue is generated, GDP is generated, and our debt can even hold. It becomes less significant as time goes on, it becomes a smaller percent.

If you owed $20,000 today on a house and you owe $20,000 in twenty years time, it will be a lot less. You won't owe as much in twenty years time as if you owed $20,000 today. Twenty years ago if you owed $20,000 it was a lot of money. Today if you owe $20,000, it is not as much money if you own a house. That is why maintaining and controlling a debt is important. You don't have to wipe out the debt, but I think we need to have a plan to get rid of deficits, because if we can get rid of deficits, the debt level is not going to increase, because the debt is an accumulation of deficits year after year.

It is rather disheartening and rather disappointing when we haven't seen any improvement, a stagnation actually, and we have seen a stagnation in our personal disposable income, very little improvement on a dollar basis. We have seen a drastic deterioration as a percentage of our GDP.

They are the figures the minister should be standing in this House and talking about, the personal disposable income, because that is how much money people have at their disposal, to spend. What is the point of having $3,000 more if it is taken back? We don't have the income. The only thing that relates to people in terms of their standard of living is how much money they have at their disposal. It doesn't matter what the GDP is. The GDP could hit the sky, but if their personal disposable income does not increase they are no better off. In fact, they will end up worse off. Those are the relative things we should be talking about.

There are other factors in the economy to look at. Economic performance, productivity in the work place and what is the productivity per unit in the work place, are factors. There are numerous factors to look at. Employment is another factor, the employment rate is another important factor in looking at how we are performing. We are still the highest in unemployed people in the country, the highest unemployment rate. Now, we are told that our GDP per capita surpasses New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. Our GDP per capita surpassed these other three provinces. We have higher now than the rest of the Atlantic Provinces, but we are still going head over heels in debt and our disposable incomes are not going up proportionately.

We have a problem here, we have a major problem. Banks are cognizant of that. Bond rating agencies are cognizant of that. We got one increase last year because the federal government made a commitment to put some stability into social transfers, health, post-secondary education and so on, and it created a little bit of stability and vaguely bumped us up with one of the rating agencies a notch. They gave a warning, on the other hand. It wasn't because of our fiscal performance, as the minister said, how strong we are doing. In fact, it took some shots at it and talked about the tentative position we are in and the unsustainability of what we are doing. The Bank of Montreal said the same thing, in spite of that improved credit rating by one agency last year. They said what we were doing is not sustainable, and they have a lot of concerns. So we are not managing and we are being good trustees of the people's money. We are not being good managers in taking care of people. I mean, that tells us, Madam Speaker, what kind of economic diversification is going on in our Province today.

Major financial institutions are expressing concern about it. I made reference to money in people's pockets, it is going down (inaudible). When you think that the GDP went up - the GDP went up by a billion dollars back in 1989 under a previous PC government. If it went up by a billion dollars, personal disposable income went up by $800 million. Today, if GDP goes up by $1 billion, personal disposable income only goes up by $590 million. That is $210 million less in disposable income with the same basic increase in GDP compared at 1989 to today.

Where has the money gone? The money is gone in the pockets of people in the United States and other parts of this country, not in the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That is the role that we have to play. Our role here should be to maximize the return from every industry to people. We have to play tough to get our share. We should not be giving multinational, multibillion dollar giants $20 million tax breaks, like we gave Inco. We should not be giving them a $20 million tax break. Where is that money going? Where is that $20 million going? Not in the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. What percent of Inco is owned by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? A minuscule, if any, of a minuscule little fraction of a thousand of 1 per cent at the most. Maybe nothing, practically; not even registered. Does not even show up on the radar.

Where is it going? It is going in the pockets of people in other parts of this country and outside this country, and all over the world. That is where it is going, that $20 million. We are allowing the gap to get so wide now between personal disposable income and Gross Domestic Product, that we are getting close now to the point where fifty cents out of every single dollar now that is garnered in GDP is going to go outside this country and not even reflect on the personal disposable income sheets of our Province. That is a sad commentary.

I say to the people here, back in 1989 we could expect 81 per cent - before government changed - of GDP went in as personal disposal income. That is a significant amount. Today, that equates on every billion dollars, $210 million less going into the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as personal disposable income after forty years of Liberal government. The reason for that - and I will say it again - is because we did not fight at the ground level to generate the economic activity that is associated with those economic growth adventures out there.

I only spoke with an individual yesterday, and I will pass casually to it, there are industries here in this Province - the individual I spoke with employs over 100 people who are involved with doing business outside of this country, who are going to be severely affected because of Canada's role in Iraq. I will not get into all the details because I do not want to identify and get involved with any particular companies. Because of the federal government's lack of attitude and the damage was done - and our leader said today, when some of the remarks were made here around the provincial fishery issues, when the federal people made the remarks, when Dhaliwal made the remark on the United States and when this other minister made the remark, I think she called - No, a member of the PMO, the Prime Minister's Office, made the remark about Bush being a moron. Was that the word? Or an idiot, I am not sure.

AN HON. MEMBER: Moron.

MR. SULLIVAN: Moron was the word. This word and nothing basically done. Dhaliwal making a statement and nothing basically done.

MR. E. BYRNE: Another backbencher.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, another backbencher.

These things damage and hurt the Canadian economy. People making decisions on contracts and so on, on a worldwide scale are impacted by this type of behaviour. That is one of the reasons our leader was kind of disturbed when the Premier our Province - and people make strong remarks, whether the Prime Minister is a disaster, whatever the remarks to that extent. Those types of remarks are personal. They show a lack of respect. It is hard to garner a positive working relationship. You can attack them on policy. You can go after them on policy. You can go after them on all of these areas, but do not render a judgement on their mental ability or what ability they can do or perform. Do it upon their stance on particular issues. That is why those things have an impact. Those things hurt relationships and make them more difficult for us. We need to work hard, be tough with the federal government, fight them every step of the way, tooth and nail, on issues we believe are important, but keep it on a professional level and one that has some merit and substance to it, not on an individual basis.

Now the minister's statement - if you read that statement. When I read it and I listened to her yesterday in this House, she said: The provincial government has been aggressive in pursuing economic development opportunities for our Province. Our plan is clear for the people to see. We have been successful to the point where we now generate the majority of our provincial revenues here at home. In other words, they are telling us we have been so successful that we now take in more provincial revenues basically than we get from the federal government. Well, that is another way to look at that, too. The federal government has reduced revenues to our Province. They have come back in their contribution. That is why we have moved ahead. That is one of the reasons. I will not say it is the only reason. That is one of the reasons. Those statements - some of them are not worth the paper they are written on because they do not portray the real truth and the real facts about the economy of our Province.

I asked the minister a simple question today, a very simple question today in the House. I asked her - when she said in her Budget Speech, on page 12, that they would eliminate over a four-year period that $300 million consolidated deficit. Since then, I have heard the minister say that they have an effective plan to do it. The Toronto-Dominion Group have said - and here is what they said. I will take the exact words of them. They said, "The government indicated that it would aim to eliminate its deficit gradually between fiscal years 2004-05 and 2007-08 by targeting a modest $75 million per year, although it provided no clear plan on how that goal could be achieved."

 

In other words, $75 million this year, next year it is another $75 million, which is $150 million. Another $75 million then becomes $225 million, and the last year there would be $300 million closed in that deficit then what it was the previous years. That is $300 million.

I asked the minister: Would the minister tell us where that four-year plan is to meet her commitment of a $300 million deficit reduction? She could not answer it. She could not answer. All she said was increase revenue growth. Well, I can tell you we have had increased revenue growth for the last number of years. We have had increased revenue growth and we have had increased deficits. So, that is not an answer. That is a wrong answer. That is not an answer that should be in practice. We have been generating more revenue and we have been increasing our deficit. So, that is not an answer, and the minister cannot provide it. The minister does not want to provide it because they have a secret plan for the people of this Province, on how to take $300 million out. She will not stand in this House and backup her statement on page 12 of the Budget Speech. She will not back it up and do it.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank says: Where is the plan? They have not seen it. Where is the plan to take the $300 million out? I am waiting for it. I have asked for it. I have said in the public and in debate here on this budget many times. I asked in Question Period today, but we do not have any answers. Any questions I have asked on this budget I have not gotten an answer, Mr. Speaker. I have not gotten an answer.

When we moved to an accrual basis for our budget, I asked the minister: How did you arrive at a $666 million deficit? Tell us. Your net additions to capital assets depreciated. What did you depreciate on net additions? She could not tell us. The minister could not answer questions on her own budget to explain to the people how she arrived at it. What happens when they cannot do that? Number one, they either do not know it, or they do not want to do it. I say it is one of two things, they do not know the answer or they do not want to tell us. I am not going to prejudge which one it is. Either one to me is as equally disturbing, I say, Mr. Speaker. Either one is equally disturbing and equally frustrating. It is not wanting to tell the people the truth or the minister not knowing the truth, and I do not know which one is worse. I do not know. That is for everybody to judge accordingly on their own. I cannot see all these economists, those financial experts, all being wrong. Expert after expert comment on this situation.

Here we have the CIBC, here is what they said - and this was March 28, after the budget. "Although an enlarged deficit will put upward pressure on the province's borrowing requirements, this will be moderated by a reduction in projected maturities and calls." They are saying that this deficit is going to put upward pressure on the Province's borrowing requirements. That is what they are saying this year. We are going to have added pressure because of it. The CIBC, March 28. That statement is telling.

The one by the BMO Financial Group, here is what they said, "The budgeted headline deficit for 2003-04 is $287 million, but the true deficit is $666 million. A deficit of this size, combined with already high debt levels, is not sustainable."

The Bank of Montreal said what this government is doing with the high debt level they have, and I will use their exact words, "A deficit of this size, combined with already high debt levels, is not sustainable." That is what they said, it is not sustainable what this Province is doing. So every bank, one after the other, people who know business, who deal with companies, they look at the bottom line of companies, they look at what is happening, what is a good investment, are they on the right track?

Well, we only need to go back, again - and this one, the BMO, they were making reference to Newfoundland's Budget. This was back on March 27, 1998, and it went on to say, and I will just make reference to this because it is interesting, "In his 1998-99 budget unveiled yesterday, Newfoundland Finance Minister, Paul Dicks, held to the three-year plan he announced last year to balance the budget by 1999-2000."

So, we were told that this government was going to balance the budget by 1999-2000. It goes on to say, "Newfoundland returned to deficits in 1996-97 as the Province suffered the effects of the moratorium on cod fishing, changes to unemployment insurance, declining federal transfers and the winding down of construction on the Hibernia oil project. The three year plan included the elimination of 1100 civil service positions and deficit targets of $20 million in 1997-98, $10 million in 1998-1999, and zero in 1999-2000. Yesterday's budget held to that plan, though the optimistic revenue forecast may result in a larger deficit...."

The same story we are hearing, Mr. Speaker, year after year after year. We are hearing optimistic predictions on bottom lines. We are talking about we are going to balance it next year. Now, she is telling us we are going to balance it in 2007-2008, and this goes on and on forever. I am sick and tired of listening to and reading statements that are rhetoric. They have no fundamental plan to achieve it. It makes great news, great discussion on Budget day when we go out and we talk about balancing the budget and say we have a plan. We never see the plan.

If someone is going to balance a budget in four years' time, what do you need to show? You need to show the projected revenues over that period. You need to show your projected expenditures over that period, and you need to show how you are reducing that gap to get to that point. This minister has not done it. This government has no fiscal plan. It does not have a fiscal plan. They told us we were going to get one back on March 27, 1998; they had a three-year plan to balance it. What happened? It went the other way.

The minister said today, we are going to reduce that today, that $300 million deficit. She said today, we are going to reduce it by increasing revenues. The minister does not realize that revenues have gone up every year, and the deficit has gone up faster, gone up more. Increase revenues and the deficit goes up more and more. Now she is going to tell us they are going to do it differently. They to start doing something different. What are they going to do? Revenues are going up. They have to do something. Revenues go up and you spend more. You do not reduce the deficit. If revenues go up and you spend less, you can increase the deficit. So, the minister has to stand in this House, in due course, and answer to the people what is her plan. I would like to see it. She said it is an effective plan. If she has the plan, I would like to see it. I have not seen it yet. We have asked for it several times. I asked for it in this House on numerous occasions, and outside in interviews and so on. I have asked today and I have not received it.

They are kind of nervous over there. I tell you, they are kind of worried. They are kind of worried, I might add. They are kind of worried, Mr. Speaker. Now they are getting uneasy over there because they know they do not have a plan. Every single one who sits around that Cabinet table and on that side of the House know they have no plan for the people of this Province. We are on automatic pilot. We are on automatic pilot, that is what I would say, here in this Province. We are sailing out on the sea on automatic pilot and we are going to stop when we run out of fuel or the winds die down, whatever the case may be, whichever one. That is what is going to happen. This government does not have a plan.

There are interesting things, some colorful things, I guess, happening in this Province today. I will not get into all the specific things there at all. I would not do that, but I want to talk about an interesting paper, an interesting submission to the pre-Budget consultation process here that was submitted. It was a very interesting one. When I read through it, it was submitted by the Capital Coast Development Alliance on a pre-Budget consultation session. There were some very interesting things here in this that would make you think and plan so we can be the recipients of that job market that is happening out there, not allowing it to slip away somewhere else. They said in their presentation, "It is our believe that the economic consequences to this Province of not investing in early intervention/prevention measures far outweigh the costs involved."

One of the points they are trying to make, basically, is that: Look, we have to get in early. We have to invest in prevention because it far outweighs the costs we might need down the road.

They go on to talk about a few interesting things here, just factual things. They said, "Construction companies have been turning down work due to a lack of labour. There are few new entrants into many occupations, yet we know that significant percentages of skilled tradespeople will retire in the next few years. For example, based on 1996 census, 31.7 % of all skilled tradespeople (including plumbers, carpenters, bricklayers, roofers and electricians) are over the age of 45, with only 7.6 % in the 15-24 age category."

It goes on to mention the marine industry, for example, and we have a lot of people in this Province involved in the marine industry. If you look at the marine industry, we are not talking about just fishing out there, and fishing enterprises. Basically, the marine industry takes in numerous aspects of it. There are boats, ships, vessels that bring oil from the offshore. They bring freight in numerous other areas.

It said, " The Marine Industry is experiencing a world wide shortage of marine officers. The Baltic and International Maritime Council projects a shortage of ships officers to be 42,000 by 2005, up from a shortage of 18,000 in 1995."

I know we have a Marine Institute here, a tremendous facility here in our Province, that is training people in a lot of areas. There are, I must say, some very positive results in programs offered here. It is tremendous. We have to build on our strengths around the ocean, around the sea.

It says, "Employment from a number of programs at the Marine Institute is virtually guaranteed." There are certain programs you go into, you are guaranteed to get work when you come out - and we are going to have a shortage.

"For example, of the graduation class of 2000, 100% of the graduates from Marine Engineering Systems Design and 93 % of graduates from the Nautical Science programs was employed." That is very interesting. "Yet, there is a negative perception towards employment in the marine industry...."

People do not look upon many people being employed in the marine industry as a positive aspect. There are so many positive aspects. I know you are away from home, that is the way of life, and people around our Province have had to grow up - they grew up, the inshore fishermen, many of them, and then in the winter they left and went away to work. They did not get EI when they were growing up. They could not feed their families on what they made in the summer. They went away and worked the winter. Then they were gone and came back home in the next year and contributed. It said there was, "...only about 4 % of 2001 provincial high school graduates entering the Marine Institute." - and there is going to be a tremendous shortage.

I know a fair number in my district have gone into the Marine Institute and are doing programs there. A lot of them, I must say, are finishing up and getting jobs, and I am sure all over. There is a demand for it.

It says, "In the Avalon East School District (AESD), of the 1800 new matriculants, just 22 students or 1% enrolled in marine programs at the Marine Institute." One per cent enrolled at the Marine Institute, out of the Avalon East School Board. Four per cent in the Province, which means outside the City of St. John's we are getting more people involved, but still not enough to meet the demands in some of these markets there. I know some of the people who graduated have gone down to the U.S. and they have taken jobs in different parts of the world. It is unfortunate that the availability was not here, but the skills - we have to have the skills. People will gravitate to where the work is. If we cannot provide it and do the job, people are just not going to stick around.

The skills gap in the oil and gas industry, for example, is generally the result of insufficient work experience, they indicated, followed by institutional training gaps. That is one of the aspects too, because people are in many of the industries looking for people with a degree of experience.

If we just go back a little ways, and go back to when Hibernia came on stream, and the gravity base structure there and people looking for work, obviously everybody could not expect to hire every single person with no experience. You have to draw an experience base. The companies are in business to make money, and there has to be a fair way. You cannot expect companies to hire people without basic skills or with no experience in these particular skills areas. There has to be a mix, and it is up to us to ensure that they have the skills here, the training programs are available and so on.

Prior to Hibernia, I know many people around our Province - I know I can speak from my district - left here and I even advised people who said: Look, we are going to Alberta. I said: Get experience. They were up there a year or two years, some of them, and they became

motormen on derricks and numerous jobs on the platform. They worked in Alberta. When they came here, many of them got in there because they had experience. Obviously you cannot hire, you will work people in, but you have to have an experience base. You have to have production levels. You have to get a job done. I mean, industry is based upon performance; it is based on results driven.

Government does not have plans. The department does not have plans. Our party has tabled our policy on this. We would have performance objectives and plans for each department. They would have to report annually how they meet these objectives. We have to have more efficiency in the operating, more goals, and more reporting on those particular goals, to see and make sure that we are doing an effective job. Businesses do that today. Businesses have to do it to stay competitive. They are continuously training their people, educating them, training them and having certain expectations out there today. You want to be productive, because a business that is not productive and competing out there today is going to lose the battle for their share of the market because they cannot put the product on the market as cheaply, cannot compete, and are going to fall by the wayside. That is going to happen. Productivity is important, and that is a very important characteristic today in our Province's performance. It is productivity, it is output and so on for each unit, basic unit, the measurement of labour productivity.

The IT industry, for example, some companies are facing recruiting difficulties in a number of areas, the Capital Coast Development Alliance has indicated. This is information that they referenced. There are some very interesting things here in this presentation. They "...are facing recruitment difficulties in a number of areas including computer programming, project management, business management, engineering and computer networking and sales. Similar to the oil and gas industry, the problem within this industry is not so much demographic as the industry is characterized by a youthful workforce but again, the lack of job experience."

Many people say to me: If we do not get a job, how do we get the experience? We cannot legislate that companies are going to hire all junior people. That cannot be done. That is not practical. The less interference government has in business, the more effectively businesses run, generally, but we have to protect resources, our resources that are there. We have to maximize our employment there. We can do that without interfering in their practices.

We have to be able to ensure that at least we train people with the skills. If we train them and they have a job in Nova Scotia or the United States, or wherever it is, the more likely they are to come back after a year or two. Once they are away for so long, they are less likely to come back because they usually settle down, have families, and they get settled in the workplace where they are. The most likely chance to get them back is when they are young, when they are single or they do not have too many attachments in terms of housing in the areas where they live. We are more likely to get them back. That is where you have to have a focus.

It says, "Newfoundland and Labrador manufacturers can expect to lose 75 % of the skills and expertise in their workforce based on an average retirement age of 60. ...the Province's manufacturing sector succeeds in attracting only 680 (or 8.5 %) of the 8000 high school graduates." That is how many they basically attract. There, once again, it shows us that we have to do a better job.

It says, "...in a May 2001 survey conducted by Vision research on behalf of CCDA, 76 % of employers within the Northeast Avalon believe the Province will face a shortage of skilled workers within the next 3-5 years."

There are demographics of an aging population and out-migration too, the aging population, out-migration; our basis to draw the conclusion that skilled workers out there are becoming very similar to these other trends.

For example, "...only 62 % of schools in this Province offered Career Exploration 1101 in 2001, and only 27 % of high school graduates in 2001 had completed this course. Only 19% of schools in this Province offered a program in cooperative education."

Do we need to be training people and looking in the schools to train people to be better able to be employed? To do a better job of getting a workforce that is ready? That is a role of government. That is not just a role of business. Businesses want to have employees who have the skills and so on, but we have a role in our public institutions to ensure that there is availability to be able to do those particular courses.

The Avalon East School Board said, "... of the 327 night school students surveyed from 2001/02, 79 % did not know of one place to get help with a career decision." They did not know where to go. So have we done a good job in communicating to people how they can go about and make a career decision, and what is available there?

I know when we went to school, if you remember, I think people can reflect back and when we went to school there were not too many options. There were very few options then. We did not hear of a lot of the skills out there today. It is unbelievable. They have just gone up astronomically. There was a handful of choices that we would make then, when we went to school, and that was all you heard of it. Today, it is almost unlimited out there.

"The combined graduation rates in four/five year programs at Memorial University of Newfoundland has fluctuated between 50 % to 58 % over the 1990/91 to 1995/96 period, with the most current rate at 56.5 %; College of the North Atlantic's graduation rate for most three year programs is less than 50 %. Wait lists continue to be an issue with 16.3 % of 1995 high school graduates citing waiting lists as a concern for a delay in their post-secondary education."

What people are finding today out there is that it is expensive to get a post-secondary education. Some do not have the means. Some of their parents come into that middle income bracket where they are expected to contribute and the students do not qualify to get any student loan. So they are finding it difficult. Waiting lists is certainly a big factor. They have to wait because they cannot afford to do it. They want to get into the College of the North Atlantic where it would be cheaper on them than going to a private college. The publicly-funded College of the North Atlantic is cheaper than going to a private school. We all know that. That is not in the public forum.

So there are some of the factors why people delay. What happens when you delay a year or delay two years out of school? Sometimes people do not get back until much later. Therefore, the rate of completing programs is diminished accordingly.

It says, "Based on a 1998 OECD report..." - Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development - "...only 17 % of high school students in this Province had obtained work experience in school." In other words, 83 per cent of the people did not have any work experience in school, so these people have never witnessed what it is like to be out there in society working.

"In a May 2001 survey completed for CCDA, 72 % of employers within the Northeast Avalon believe career development programs in the K-12 system would help to resolve predicted skill shortages."

I think it is important. We have seen cutbacks in numbers, like counsellors in schools today. The counsellors in schools have hundreds and hundreds of students to ratio that they have to deal with in cases. We just heard announcements - I know it is not related to this - we look education-wise, with cutbacks this year with 160 teachers, I think. I think there are 160 teachers less in the system this year. I know in my district there are cutbacks. Teacher units are cut. The librarian, who used to be in the library, what does that person do now? There are resources that we can help enhance someone's education and so on. They are being cut back.

I do not think it is really a way to go. We have to look at ways that we can, you know, tailor and produce a student there, that will get him certain skills and at least the availability of what is there, and better direction and so on through our systems. It is hard to do that with diminishing numbers because we do need to carry programs. With declining enrollments, it has been more difficult. You cannot take teachers out in the same ratio that students come out, obviously, because, if you do that, it hurts the system.

We have seen this year, they are going to have to find, I think, Avalon East Board, the one that falls in my district, thirty-six teachers. You are going to have to try to find, where do we take thirty-six teachers out of a system and expect to turn out a better product? Because there is probably one gone out of each class, or two out of some. We do not see any classes eliminated, basically. We do not see a whole level eliminated. They are all one out of here and two out of there, when you look a the new enrollments that come in. You may have fifty going out and probably forty-two coming in, in a class at the other end. We see the enrollments there are gradually going down.

MR. HEDDERSON: It wasn't education (inaudible). They took a lot.

MR. SULLIVAN: It wasn't an education budget, my colleague said, the critic for Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education. He says they took a lot. I am certainly going to get to another one a little later. I want to do a comparison on what tuition used to be, but I will leave that for a little later.

It said, "Even more alarming is the number of young people who fail to complete high school. In particular: In 2000/01, 16 % of students in the Avalon East School District who were eligible to graduate did not graduate. This does not include the number of students who dropped out before starting Level III." So, that is only including those who were there. When you look at that beforehand, how many dropped out before that?

"Based on correspondence with the Department of Education, we have numbers to indicate that potentially upwards of 18 % of students who start Level I do not finish...." That is a fair number. You get up to Level I, you get past Grade 9 into high school, eighteen out of every 100, really, between one in five, one in six, one in every 5.7, roughly, students do not graduate. "This, in spite of the fact that ‘over the next five years, occupations that require less than high school education will account for less than 6 % of new job opportunities.' " So, six out of every 100 jobs that are going to come up, new opportunities, are going to come, basically, only for people who do not have those skills. That do not mean the people without the skills are going to get those jobs. People who have a high school education could get those jobs. What is their chance? Only six in the mix, six out of 100; 6 per cent really, can get a job if you have less than high school.

Do you think if someone has a high school education, and someone does not, that they would not necessarily get the job over them? Usually that does not happen. It may happen, but the chance of getting a job then out of a new opportunity, if you are not a high school graduate, is going to be a lot less than six out of 100. It is probably a 3 per cent chance of getting that job as opposed - only 3 per cent, assuming others will go, the ones who are already there, because there are people out there with degrees today working at fast food chains. There are people with degrees. There are people with extra degrees, post-graduate degrees, working out there at low paying jobs because they cannot get anything else now. They are looking and they have to take anything they can in the interim. That is unfortunate but it is all a part of the economy market and how successful we are in preparing people for the work force and how successful we are in preparing the work place for the people. That is important. We must ensure that we are maximizing the spinoffs on our resources, things that are under our control, to create the jobs here in Newfoundland and Labrador for our people. That is important. That is part of a government's responsibility. GDP happens many times without any government intervention. The biggest part of GDP basically is the retail trade anyway, retail sales and so on. They are a big part of it.

In our Province, oil has been significant. There are significant gas reserves out there too. Sometime, sooner we hope rather than later, we will see the benefits coming from the gas that is available off our shores.

It says, "An informal survey of five adolescent therapists working with youth and their families in the St. John's region indicated that approximately 50 per cent of the accumulated caseloads are comprised of youth who are experiencing serious challenges in their relationship with education." In other words, the biggest problem with the youth that adolescent therapists are dealing with is not with other aspects out in society, other problems we can encounter - we won't get into the potential problems that can be encountered - but it is with education, in the majority of people. I think that is a significant statistic.

It says, "...parents of youth with learning disabilities who are not and have not received appropriate learning opportunities through our school system..." Another one was mentioned to me recently and it is just as important. There used to be officers to ensure there was compliance with attending school. We don't have them anymore. In fact, keeping young kids, before they are the legal age to be out of school - there are kids out of school, thirteen and fourteen years of age, not going to school regularly, and we don't have an enforcement system, somebody like an officer who would be responsible for that years ago. That was eliminated from the system. We have regulations and so on and there are follow-up procedures, but not the stronger arm of enforcement that was there before.

Something needs to be done to ensure that our young people stay in school, that they get this opportunity. They are not old enough to formulate their own opinions. There has to be more than a regulation, there has to be more than a law, to see that this is followed. It is important that that must be dealt with.

"In 2001/2, there were 1114 students in the Province, 440 in the Avalon East School District alone, in Level IV." Why are people in high school not graduating and getting diplomas, a significant number, within the prescribed three-year period? The ones that graduate within the required three years has significantly changed. Mr. Speaker, why is that happening? Why is it, for instance, that there are thirty-eight students under the Avalon East School District today who are over the age of twenty? Why is this happening? What is the reason for it?

It says, "Equally disturbing is the fact that in 2000, of all entrants accessing the social assistance program for the first time, 40% were youth aged 18-24." Can you imagine, why our young people today at that age going to income support lines.

AN HON. MEMBER: The economy is so good.

MR. SULLIVAN: They said because the economy is so good. If the economy is so great, why is this happening? Why is it happening if we are in the most prosperous time? Our GDP is now higher than the other three Atlantic provinces. We have reached a new milestone now. We are ahead of all these in per capita GDP, and still a lot of problems.

I do not hear government offering solutions on all of the various areas referenced here in this report. I do not know where their plan is. I honestly do not know, but there are problems that need to be addressed. There is a lot of work that needs to be done in our Province, not only in this area of education we are talking about, but I could talk about the failing infrastructure. There is going to be hundreds of millions of dollars needed because we neglected some of the most vital aspects that produce economic development in our Province. Roads and bridges and ferries, were we need ferries to transport our people back and forth; a business to get back and forth, whether it is Bell Island or Fogo or whatever. There are numerous other isolated communities around our coastlines. So, that is important.

We have seen a total lack of necessary resources there and we are going to have a major, major problem to deal with these in the future. There are some interesting - I am not going to relate - there are some numerous things here. There are a few other pertinent things I want to touch on. The Capital Coast Development Alliance talks about: just consider, what are the economic costs to a society of a failure to have the right number of people with the right skills, to take advantage of - what happens if we do not have enough people out there? What happens if people come into our Province to work here and go back home - they are offshore, lets say anybody who works offshore from another Province or elsewhere, they go back and file their income tax in Nova Scotia or wherever they are, whatever country they file it in. We get none of this revenue; we get none of this. It all goes to the province, the place where they file their income tax. We pay a price.

"The fallout from gaps between people's skills and workforce needs includes enormous costs on social spending, on education, health care, social services, protection and correctional services and more. Equally staggering is the loss of revenue to employers and governments." All of these are a product of a failure to be able to put our people to work, put our people through our education system and have an economy that is waiting for them. Then we look at the loss of productivity out there, the waste of human capital. This equates into a tremendous cost on a national basis.

I will make a reference. If you had a 1 per cent increase in productivity associated with a better match in skills, could generate as much as $10 billion annually in increased Gross Domestic Product. That is a tremendous figure. A 1 per cent increase in productivity. "A 1% increase in the efficiencies in the education system by reducing the gaps between people's skills and workforce, results in a saving of $600 million annually." That is a significant number. That is based on and calculated from "...based on the $64.1 billion invested by all levels of government in past year on primary, secondary and post-secondary in 2001." That is based on those figures.

"If one out of every 100 people now using health care services directly or indirectly as a result of an inability to find and maintain work...". It is nearly $800 million annually. How much do we incur in the health care system because people cannot find work? People are frustrated. The pressures on people today, a lot of them come from the inability to get a job.

I saw one example today, came to my office today, just walked in off the street and was frustrated with not getting a job. A person who lives in the St. John's area. Just the frustration! Other people, many people today, by not getting a job, the cost on our health system. The mental anguish of many people having to get medical intervention to deal with this. This cost on our system, one in 100 costs $800 million annually. These are costs that we do not realize. The costs get minimized with a healthy economy. These are some of the factors.

"A modest 1% savings on expenditures on social services by assisting recipients to locate and maintain suitable work and learning opportunities would save over $1 billion annually; and a 1% increase in the number of Canadians working and paying taxes could generate over $4 billion annually in government revenues."

These are just some interesting statistics and areas that show us that our failure to realize - to have the finger on the button, or on the pulse, of our education system and our ability to understand what makes the economy tick. What we need to accept work in the workforce, what type of skills we need. The ability of governments to be proactive in having the training programs developed in anticipation and ahead of the requirements for those skills in the workplace. That is a role of government, Mr. Speaker. That is a role of government. That is a role of education, of industry; Industry, Trade and Rural Development Department. It is a role of government departments to do these. A role of several government departments - Human Resources and Employment. You can tie in many departments under this whole umbrella here. They have a role to play in planning and setting out a course for the future of our Province. We are not seeing that done. We are seeing a dismal performance, sugar-coated ministerial statements, glossing over and hitting points, exaggerating them because there is a little bit of positive news there, downplaying the negatives and not putting forth the real truth to people so they know what is happening.

If it requires hiring people who have the intelligence and the foresight and the ability to be able to give advice and to set out and assist - we do not expect everybody to have the solutions, or the skills to get it, but we do expect a government to be able to seek out and find people who have those abilities, to be able to put together a team to be able to set a course of action that is going to change the path we are on now, and that is a path of dealing with today tomorrow and dealing with tomorrow two days later. That is the path we are on now.

We want to see a direction where we are going to deal with tomorrow months ago, we are going to deal with that. We are going to be proactive. We are going to have the foresight to plan ahead. It is not going to be easy, but it takes time to put good plans in place. Once they are in place and direction is set, it makes it a lot easier for implementation and getting a result.

What we saw here tabled in this House - I read through - the department submits their annual report. I have several there under Finance and Treasury Board. I have one for Treasury Board. I have one for Finance, that I looked at. The Liquor Commission comes under them. There are numerous ones that come under them. There are a few others anyway. The Lottery Corporation is one that is subject, two. They file their own on an annual basis. Some of the new ones we are seeing for the first time are Finance and Treasury Board. The other government departments are just tabling annual reports.

What does that do to change the course of action and improve it? What we want is what we had set out in January or February of 2002. We want to see a plan that sets a goal. We want to see a plan that puts a certain goal out there, certain objectives that we want to accomplish, and we want to see a monitoring of these specific goals and objectives for each department. We want to see a reporting on the progress tabled in this House before a budget is tabled in the ensuing year. We want to see how they are shaping up.

They are some of the things we want to see. We want to see not only laying out specific ones, not just filing an annual report. I mean, you take data from departments and throw it together, pull down statistics here and there, and say: Here is how many we employed and here is what we did here. I read through the ones in Finance and Treasury Board and so on. It is fine to have an annual report. I am not knocking an annual report. In fact, I think it is helpful, it is informative. We like to read it, how many employees, what is happening in departments and some of the other things. That is good, but we need to take it a step further.

The status quo: We don't accept the status quo. If you are doing something the same way that you have been doing it for the last ten years, in all probability you have been doing it wrong, because over a period of time things change, the whole dynamics out there change. We have had drastic changes in this Province in the last ten years. We have seen changes all around the world. There are more changes occurring and more things happening and more knowledge. The world is changing by the minute. It was only a minuscule, the total information that was out there twenty years ago, as it here today, and even ten years ago, and in the next few years we will see even more. There are many things that we can do as a government to better the plight of ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and that is important.

There are numerous other things I want to talk about, and I am going to move away from direct ones on the economy. I want to touch, for a few minutes, on education before I move off that topic. We have talked about tuition here. I know the minister was up and down like a yo-yo on this topic before. I hope I won't aggravate her enough to get too much interference. I will just make a couple of points on it, and she will have her turn to get up here and tell us what good things are happening in post-secondary education.

We have seen a reduction in tuition at Memorial University and we are pleased to see that. A reduction in tuition is important. I went back, in my records. I was education critic when I was first elected in 1992, and I had compiled some information here that showed what tuition was at Memorial University back then, back in 1984-1985 actually. There weren't huge changes but right up to - let's take 1988-1989. That is the year when the government changed. Tuition, when government changed in 1989, was $582. That is basically what it was, I am assuming, a semester. Yes, it would have to be per semester based on a five course; $582.

In 1990, the first thing the Liberal government basically did - because they fund Memorial University to a great extent - it jumped to $640. Then it went to $672. Then tuition jumped, from 1991-1992, $100 - from $672 to $772. Then it jumped the next year in 1992-1993 to $850. Then it went up over $1,000 and way up to - what is the maximum it hit? About $360 per course, I think. I think it is roughly that. It is about $1,800 a year, from where? When this government took over from $582. A 350 per cent increase in tuition at Memorial University under this government.

They did roll it back 25 per cent over a three-year period. It is good to see it back, but we are not near what it was, not close. We are not close to what Quebec offers its people. We are not even in the ballpark with what Quebec offers its citizens who want to attend university there. So, we jumped it up 350 per cent and then we cut it back. That is like taking an article that you were thinking about selling for $100, and you said I will sell it for $160, but then I will mark it down to $110 and we will get 50 per cent off. The 50 per cent off was higher than you probably would have sold it for in the beginning, if you did that. So that is similar. Jack it up right through the ceiling, three-and-a-half times what it was, and then take it down by a quarter. It is still significantly high.

I have said before, and I will not belabour the point, but I will make quick reference to it. There is a difference between the cost incurred by a person in rural Newfoundland today to get an education as opposed to a person living at home in the City of St. John's, or wherever the site of the university may be. That is why it is good to see a campus on the West Coast of this Province. People on the West Coast, or even from the East Coast, can visit and travel there - attend there. Generally, a fair number of people who attend would be in reasonable proximity there - the same course offerings, of course. There is a certain specialization in courses that you do not get at either one. Generally speaking, the general courses and so on - it is a lot cheaper to live at home in the Corner Brook area and drive in, or live in the St. John's area and commute to university from within the city then it is to come in and take out an apartment. You pay your light and heat, your telephone and cable, and other costs that run up to, in the vicinity - with your tuition costs it is running in the vicinity of $5,000 per semester, over a four month semester. To live at home, basically, you would have costs that are considerably less, probably only in the vicinity of a third of those costs. If you look at it semester-wise it would be significantly less.

So, you can see that there is several thousand dollars more, probably $7,000 more a year to attend university, or any institution, the College of the North Atlantic or anywhere, than it would be - the reason I mentioned the university is because the costs are a bit higher than it is to attend if you are living here in the city. The costs are significantly higher, probably $7,000 a year. If you spend four years you have $28,000 more, $30,000, over some five years because you have an initial year before you get into degree programs. So that is five years. The extra costs between a person attending university from St. John's or someone coming into St. John's to attend is about $35,000. When you put that on a student loan that puts you back a long ways.

People get jobs. If they do get a job they need to get transportation, if they can afford it. They may need a car. Put that on top of loans, an extra $35,000, that would probably have them up to $50,000 or more - a car on top of that, another $70,000. Then they have to try to pay these off over a period of time. How do they get into the position then where a few years down the road, if they get married or they have a family, the cost of paying for a house, accommodations, along with all of these costs? It is pretty burdensome when you have a high debt. That is why it is important that we look at student debt, because student debt is a big negative in trying to keep people here in our Province.

If you are paid significantly more to go to the U.S., you get some signing bonuses in certain areas, you are paid in U.S. dollars, you can pay the student loan back in Canadian dollars where you are getting an extra fifty cents on the dollar, basically, back on that to help pay it off quickly. People do that. That is why people go away. They may have the skills, they may want to stay here but they just really cannot afford it. They would be no further ahead. They get out when they are young before they get roots down in an area and, hopefully, with the skills they will come back here and work again in our Province. I think all these are important.

When you look at, in the aspect of teaching, government's headlines this year. In their news release on education in the budget the headlines read, "Government to retain 218 teachers " It is unusual the way they word these. Actually, there are 160 teachers less in the Province. Why wasn't the headline: Province loses 160 teachers?

We have 160 less teachers next year. Why put the other side, and say: Government retains 218 teachers. The teachers are gone, adjustments have to be made in programs. There are going to be cuts. I am hearing there were cuts in music and areas. I am hearing there were cuts in library resources, in learning resource teachers and so on. There are cuts all over the system and less people. I heard some comments today, I think, with reference only on the news today regarding it, this morning I believe, or yesterday - yesterday it was - regarding this particular impact that it is going to have on education in our schools in our Province today.

We always seem to get the twist on it that sounds better in the public, like GDP. If people do not tie into the GDP growth, they want to know: What does that mean for me? Does that mean that I will be better off next year? Will my income be higher? Will I have more income in my pocket? Generally you could have said, in 1989 there was a 21 per cent greater chance, or twenty one on fifty-nine, which is even a higher percent than that, because twenty-one on fifty-nine is about 40-some per cent great chance that you would have more money in your pocket.

Today, economic growth, GDP, is not equating into significant improvements in personal disposable incomes. The personal disposable income gap is widening as a percentage of GDP, widening rapidly, and that is not good news.

The board also in education, although it just does not relate to units, it relates to improved cleanliness and support staff in our school system - secretarial, janitorial, maintenance staff and so on - we were promised, I think, in the vicinity of, I believe, around $8 million. I am not sure of the commitment the Premier made, but $2.5 million was addressed in this budget. It is not what was promised or what was anticipated. Once again, what we are led to believe does not always happen.

An area that I have raised before, and I have raised this issue and talked about it on occasions, is that our Province's tax system now - we used to have ten brackets in our tax system. There used to be ten different brackets. At ten different income levels, you paid a different rate. They decided we are going to collapse that and we are going to have a more streamlined system for people. It is not going to be as complicated any more. People could understand the tax system. So, we move to three tax brackets. The lowest bracket was $29,590. The next tax bracket was $59,160, and the third bracket was over $59,160.

What do we have now? Well, the federal put in another bracket, over $100,000, and people pay more on that level, which creates the fourth bracket, but what did our Province do? The Province has three more brackets entirely separate from those three brackets. So what do we have now on your tax forms? We have seven different tax brackets right now. There are seven different tax brackets. We are almost back to where we were with ten before. Why do we have it? We have complicated the system again and people are having difficulty trying to complete a form now, to fill out a tax form, and find it much more difficult. They fill out a separate Newfoundland tax form and a separate form.

There is nothing wrong with the principle of separating our income tax from the federal government. There is nothing at all wrong with that. I feel that we should have control over our own taxation. When the federal government raises or reduces taxes, whatever it does, it should not have an impact on our provincial tax, because we should be the controllers of our taxes and we are. We could always change our rate then. When the feds increased theirs, or dropped it, we could say: The feds dropped it. We could up it accordingly, to get the same tax base.

We could have used that route. It is better to have consistency and have our own tax rate, but different tax brackets than the federal government. I think there should be a little more co-operation and a little more balancing there. It is another tax grab, really. It is not what we were led to believe initially, that there would be a streamlining of the tax system.

We were told also that personal income tax would be reduced down in three stages. The minister last year decided that was not going to happen a year ago, and this year she did not implement it again and so on, the personal income tax, the last step. So they have not lived up to the commitment they made way back in the last election, way back four years ago. I do not know but it was before the last election. It just did not happen. That has not happened.

If you are going to make a commitment or you are going to talk about it, you should do it. If not, you should give a strong reason why you did not do it. We have not heard that. We have not heard from the minister on that particular one. I know I have asked questions on it before. I got unsatisfactory answers to that particular question.

One other area I raised on taxes was: The provincial government, when they separated it, they also gouge now and claw back on students and the disabled. They did make an announcement this year that we called for last year dealing with disabilities, and they have increased it from $4,233; effective for the 2003 tax year, it will be $5,000. Federally, it is up to sixty-some hundred. Yes, $6,000 or $7,000 federally. I think it is over $7,000. It is seventy-some hundred federally. I do not know but it is closer to $8,000. I have the tax forms there. I can easily check it, but it is in that tax range. It is in that particular bracket. So, at least it gives some break to people with disabilities.

There are other areas that they are clawing on every other area. When they separated the tax federally, they kept it down at the lower levels, those incentives for people with disabilities, and education deductions, and those, and did not move along like the federal government was doing. So, that is another way to nickel and dime people to death.

Of course, I referenced earlier, and I will not belabour that point but I did make reference to it, and I think the Minister of Justice was not excited with it, was his news release. When I indicated that we are only getting, I think I said, six new RNC officers. There were nine hired, and I checked my sources and found that they have people working there since last year. So, from a public point of view, they are only seeing six new officers out there. We were led to believe there were fifteen. While they are permanent, fine, but from the public perception - now, from the employment point of view, yes, from people employed in a job by them, or the security of a permanent thing, yes, but policing is about protection of the public. Jobs occur because of protection of the public. Services are put there and we have people who are there to deliver the service, but the goal of health care is to deliver health care to people, not to create jobs.

Jobs are created because the need is there and, just like policing, the public are not going to be better served - we would hope not - if you have nine permanent officers or you have nine temporary officers. We hope that if someone is on the job - but it is nice, from the job perspective, to have the permanency, and I really think if the need is there, it should be permanent. That is not the point I am saying. The public does not ask, when they call and they want a police officer to come to a scene, or there is an incident, is that police officer a permanent one now or is he a temporary one? Is he a full-time temporary? Do they ask that? No, they do not. The public does not get involved. The public want the service. How it is provided is another matter. It is a human resource matter, that aspect of it. The public does not ask that.

We got the impression there were fifteen new officers, fifteen extra officers over what we had, when it was not that at all. There were already nine of them working since last year. It was only six. So, that is the type of thing we find in news releases, that try to put out one thing when it is not entirely accurate. Trying to put the best spin on something, to tell you that one thing is the case when it is not entirely so.

Now, I want to touch on personal care homes and just make a few references to them. I made some reference to areas. I want to just touch on a few points that I did not touch on before in the Budget Debate because this is an area there was an allocation in this Budget for personal care homes again this year. The amount, I think, is $1.2 million. I am taking it from memory now. It is in that ballpark, about the same as last year. Just a few statistics and things on personal care homes. As of April 1, 2003, those personal care home owners are paid about $1.51 per hour, that is $1,098.71 per monthly rate, for board and lodging for a resident. That is what they get if you look at it broken down. A resident who receives the basic OAS, Old Age Supplement, and GIS, Guaranteed Income Supplement, their monthly pension is around $998.11. They would pay $1.37 per hour of this amount and the government pays 13.8 cents per hour. That is basically what government pays, a very small amount.

Let's look at wage subsidy for night security. That is factored into those homes, an amount of about $28,762 a year. If there are ten residents in that home, you would average it out to about 32.8 cents per hour, per resident. If there are twenty residents, it is 16.4 cents. If there are thirty residents, it is 10.9 cents. If there are more, well obviously it is less, less cents per hour. If you combine what government pays for board and lodging subsidy, and take the wage subsidy for night security, here is what government costs for a personal care home. If there are ten residents in the home, it costs about 46.6 cents per hour, per resident, or it costs $340 a month. If you have ten residents in a home, it is costing government $340 a month if you are getting OAS and GIS. If there are twenty residents there, it is costing them only $220 a month. If it has thirty residents or more, it is costing $180 a month. Where can you provide an environment for people cheaper than you get in a personal care home? Can anyone tell me? I have not seen it. I have been in public life here in this position as an MHA for the last eleven years and I have monitored it. You cannot come close to providing that particular type of care, a place for people to live, for anywhere close to that - not close to it.

I will just make reference on how many are around our Province here. I will just make quick reference. In personal care homes, licensed subsidized beds, there are fifty-nine homes and there are twenty-six non-subsidized, and there are another seven we will call unlicensed, for ninety-two. With subsidized beds, there are1,081. That is in personal care homes. There are 1,327 unsubsidized. There are 2,408 beds. So, if you look at subsidized beds, 1,081, the non-subsidized they are not paying for. If you look at community care homes, in that subsidized combined total there is 26.5, a combined total of 1,346 basically overall of subsidized.

If you look at the rate that they are paying in these particular ones, it is very, very difficult to survive. I know businesses and people in there are going over the edge, are on the edge of bankruptcy. They cannot make their payments. They are working almost around the clock themselves, practically, and putting every ounce of energy and time into their operation to keep it alive today and to provide care, the cheapest you are possibly going to get it anywhere in our Province.

There is a whole array of things. I could go on and talk for days, Mr. Speaker. I have a dozen things. I am going to talk about a few things in my district. Maybe the Government House Leader might be delighted. I think I will wrap up my opinions for today. I will conclude today. I am sure he could take back that petition or that speakathon thing he circulated there.

I want to touch on a few other items, though, that I think are important. I just want to recap very quickly a financial end before I move into a few things. This year we did not get the true picture in the Budget. If you look at the bottom line of this budget, you have to keep in mind that we carried forward deferred revenue, almost $60 million. We carried over from Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, when we saw the budget figure, revenue that they could have taken last year. They didn't, they brought it into this year, $10 million. They took $10 million from the Liquor Commission that was budgeted last year. They didn't take it until this year.

That changes our picture. They took from the Gull Island power project. They took $3 million on that one. They took, in sinking fund revenues, another $37 million. That is $60 million in revenues they are counting this year that would have put the deficit that much higher if they didn't count these revenues this year and had taken them last year when they were supposed to, when they budgeted them. They didn't want to show that in last year's statement. They wanted to carry it over this year to paint a bit different picture, a little bit better picture than they really have.

If they didn't do that, we wouldn't have a cash deficit showing on a consolidated cash basis of two hundred and eighty some million dollars. We would have $345 million, that much extra. We would have that much shortage. That is a little bit of manipulation, stuff that Auditor Generals have talked about in the past, manipulating funds to get whatever desired results they want. That is not an appropriate way.

Another thing they did to enhance it: The Canada Health and Social Transfer we got, this three-year period, this supplementary $42.5 million for three years, for this year, next year and the year after, they took it all this year and plugged it all into the Budget. They should have plugged in a third of it, $14 million, and they put in over $28 million, $28.3 million. They shouldn't have. That is $88.3 million. Our deficit would be almost $100 million worse if they didn't do these little bits of trickery that we found in the Budget.

We have seen our deficit reach the highest point in a decade, even on a cash basis, not counting on an accrual basis. On an accrual basis it is gone through the roof. It is unbelievable where it has gone. We have had health care concerns ignored in our Province. I have touched on it a lot before and I don't want to reiterate. There are so many areas I could talk about, that I didn't, but I will. I will spend a considerable amount of time talking about this particular area in our Budget and what is not happening that should be happening, basically, and where a lot of the concerns are in our Province.

We can talk about roads and infrastructure that is falling down around our ears in places, places where they would sooner see the pavement hauled up and drive on dirt roads because they are not going to break something off in their car by going down into a rut, almost a ravine. Imagine, driving your car! We thought we would only see ravines when we go off the highway. Now you are almost seeing them if you stay on the highway, they are so deep.

There are a lot of opportunities but this budget does not address a lot of the concerns. There are many areas that we can build and promote in our Province. I am just going to wrap it up by talking on -

MR. LUSH: What did you say?

MR. SULLIVAN: The Government House Leader is wondering what I said.

I said I have gotten about, I would say less than halfway through my notes, basically, and there are many areas - I know I have spoken fairly lengthy on this. I would not want to disappoint the Government House Leader. If he wants that speakathon to continue, I have no problem whatsoever. I can go on until July but I said I was going to wrap it up today. In all fairness, because we have so many people here, Mr. Speaker, who did not get a chance to get on their feet yet and tell what is happening in their specific critic areas here, that they want to tell people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: They want to enlighten the respective ministers what they are doing wrong in their departments and solutions to have better functioning and more efficient departments and people running this Province, Mr. Speaker. That is what they want to hear. If he is disappointed, I can tell you, I can go on. If you are going to be disappointed I can go on and on and on.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I can tell you why. It moved pretty fast on this side of the House. It is not moving fast on their side because they do not want to hear anymore. They do not want to hear the truth. They are having a job to come to grips with the truth, I would say. That must be why they want me to finish my comments, Mr. Speaker. I will not give them that ultimate pleasure right at this moment yet. I have a few little other things I want to say.

There are opportunities in this Province in the tourism sector, for example. I just want to touch on a few areas here in tourism. I mentioned this in the House last year, and I will just say it again, briefly. Last year I was in - I guess a year ago, I do not know but it will be two years in August coming. It will be two years in August coming. I was in Nova Scotia, and I had never been to Peggy's Cove before. I heard about it, read about it. I said I have a bit of time, I have to go down to Peggy's Cove. I have to see it. I left and drove down around, got out, spent some time, and walked around and looked at the area. This is all that is to Peggy's Cove? I was really taken back. I said you can drive into our Province to places all over the place - I went down into Salvage. I have driven down. I have driven to Brigus, out to the top of the hill and looked down. You look in those communities all over, nestled areas, all over the place. There are seventy Peggy's Coves in this Province and far more beautiful than a few rocks with a sea beating up against them. You can see them all over Newfoundland and Labrador.

What they have in Peggy's Cove is a commercialization of a product that has been promoted and driven and is close to a major centre. If people come on conventions they can get out there without too much difficulty. Around this Province, how many are there? In Petty Harbour, for example, they have produced a master plan. They got approved through the first phase to have a model fishing village in Petty Harbour. Along the waterfront, hopefully, there will be stores, restaurants, old flakes, and Bidgood's property was donated. A whole master plan that will not happen overnight, but work has started that will see an area - look in Petty Harbour, down the hills on the side, the rocky area and the ocean. There are so many areas all over.

I know in my district I have seen it so often, back and forth, and I tell you I still picture the beauty. To drive up there in the fall of the year, the spring, or anytime, and just see the beauty of the geography, the communities and the islands. It is not just in my district. I just happen to be there more than in other districts. I have seen it in other parts of this Province.

I have had an opportunity to visit, not every part but a tremendous part of this Province, the areas of this Province - almost all over, in Labrador, Southern Labrador, down the South Coast and west, and numerous areas, as most politicians have. I have seen the potential. I have seen in my area it is starting to grow, from Petty Harbour and Maddox Cove area, right on up. We know in tourism they have done a tremendous marketing job from the Witless Bay, the Bay Bulls area, to bird islands and the boat tours in those areas. They have a tremendous number of visitors who come to see icebergs, whales and get out on the ocean.

We had a conference here a year ago. We hosted the Public Accounts Committee and the Auditor Generals across the country. They went out on one of these tours. They were marveled. It was late in the year but still they marveled. It was the highlight of the trip, from outside a convention point of view, outside the business aspect. I am sure the business probably was not as exciting as the activities planned.

People see what we have to offer, and it is important. To do that we need a network of roads, we need improvements in infrastructure. Right along the Southern Shore - the East Coast Trail, if anybody has not walked the East Coast Trail they should. There are some beautiful areas of scenery. You can leave Fort Amherst here on the Southside of St. John's Harbour and you can walk on the East Coast Trail right to Cappahayden, all the way to Cappahayden. That is long ways. You can get maps of the East Coast Trail - their Web site. You can buy maps. You can go to the Web site. There are sections done. They give the degree of whether it is moderate walking or it is more difficult. You can pick out sections and distances. They are all clearly articulated for somebody. You can see the whole shoreline as it runs south of here.

Of course, we have historic Cape Race. We have Mistaken Point with fossils, and caribou on the Southern Avalon. In the Ferryland area, for example, we have seen the Colony of Avalon, and anyone who has visited there, what that has to offer. We have a folk arts council developing premises there in an historic fashion with dinner theatres. So, we see a numerous influx of tourism coming. Kayaking in the areas of Bay Bulls and Cape Broyle, and other areas now are getting into kayaking. There is so much potential. Bed and breakfasts springing up, and certain times of the year you cannot get accommodations.

So, there is an example of potential, but we have to continue to promote the tourism potential in our Province. It is important that we keep investing in the marketing of tourism because you can only benefit. We have to insure that the geographical barriers between here and Nova Scotia that the ferry service - we need an uninterrupted ferry service to bring tourism in because people are reluctant. I have talked to people on the Cabot Trail in Cape Breton. Some turn around on Cape Breton Island because of making that trek. Especially if there are talks of labour unrest there, it scares people away worst than the threat of an invasion almost when they hear that, because people want to get to their destination in a fixed period of time on their vacation. So, we have a lot to offer. The district has a lot to offer. There are growing areas we are seeing developing now - all over the areas along districts in parts of the Province. We need to promote that because tourism is a growing area. It is one that has tremendous potential. We have not come close to reaching our potential in that particular area.

I just want to conclude by indicating that I cannot endorse the budgetary policy of this government. I think the policy of this government is an atrocious one that is putting us on a road to disaster without vision, without foresight, and without the commitment by ministers in the government here to accomplish what is best for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We are not seeing it here. We cannot support it. I am not going to support it. I could talk forever on this topic but I am going to give my colleagues an opportunity to express their view -

AN HON. MEMBER: You have.

MR. SULLIVAN: One member said I have talked forever on it, but I feel that it is a $4 billion budget. When some people get up - I will not point fingers, Mr. Speaker. When some people get up, I can tell you, it will sound like forever. They only have twenty minutes. It might sound like forever.

With that, I want to indicate that it is not the fiscal path, it is not the direction. It is something we will not support. I am sure, I can say to my colleagues here, we are not going to support this because it is not the right solution for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed to hear the hon. Member for Ferryland and the Opposition official spokesman on Finance, that he was not going to support the budgetary plan of the government. I just want to try and point out to him, I do not know if I can convince him over the next fifteen minutes, why he should support the budget policy of the government, but I doubt that very much. I do not think he is approaching this with a very open mind. I think he has his mind made up that he is not supporting the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side believe that it is a good Budget presented by the government, that it is a solid Budget, and that it is a Budget that is going to advance the economic and social growth of the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we were not pleased that we had to enter into a deficit position. We are not pleased about that, but it was necessary in order to be able to maintain the public services in this Province. It was necessary in order to be able to maintain our health services in the Province. It was necessary in order to be able to maintain the education services in this Province. It was necessary in order to be able to improve our transportation system in the Province, and we are not going to be able to improve upon that in the manner in which we would like, in the manner in which maybe we should, particularly to upgrade and pave the local roads in the Province that members opposite have presented so many petitions for, and for which I myself could be presenting petitions. Mr. Speaker, we are making progress. We have made great progress, but if we were to budget, if we were to balance the Budget, we would not have been able to do any of the road work this year in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In order to provide the level of services that our people need and require, we had to get into this deficit position, in order to pay the salaries to the people who work providing the services in government: the people in health, the people in education, and the people who work in all levels of services with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why we had to get into this deficit position, but, Mr. Speaker, we have a plan. We have a plan to get ourselves out of this deficit position, that will be revealed in time, Mr. Speaker. It will be revealed in time, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LUSH: We have a plan, Mr. Speaker. Maybe we could do like the hon. members opposite are doing. Maybe we could do that. Maybe we could wait to reveal our plan during an election time. Maybe we could do that. If they can wait to reveal their plan, Mr. Speaker, I do not see any reason why the government members on this side cannot have some time to reveal their plan.

Now, Mr. Speaker, here is an Opposition, and the Opposition purport themselves to be the government in waiting. They are the alternative to the government on this side, and they expect the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to vote for them when they do not know what their plan is. They have not seen their plan. We have been displaying our plan for the past number of years, and in this Budget we gave the culmination of the plan that we have been developing for the past ten years: the economic plan integrated with the social plan. Now, what a great plan. It is the first time in the history of the Province that we have had an economic plan integrated with a social plan.

Honourable members opposite know of which I talk. They know that this social strategy, this social plan that we introduced this year, is one of the leading plans in Canada. They know. They know it because they have talked to people who have worked in developing this Strategic Social Plan, and it is something revolutionary. It is absolute revolutionary in governments today, this social plan and this economic plan. Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what a difference in government. Here we have come out with this revolutionary plan of the social plan integrated with the economic plan, and here are the people of Newfoundland and Labrador looking towards the alternative government and cannot get a basic plan from them. Not a basic plan. They have been waiting and waiting, but they think that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are going to be able to make a decision on whether members opposite can become the government in twenty-one days; giving them a plan in twenty-one days.

If they think the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are not more serious about their government than that, to have a plan released during the election, what time is there going to be to study that plan? What is their plan, Mr. Speaker? What is their plan on education? What is their health plan? I hear them make a lot of criticism, and it is so easy to criticize. How easy it is to criticize.

They talk about the long waiting lists in our health system. It is so easy to talk about that. The hon. member spent such a long time making a comparison of the student tuition fees in Quebec, I do not know what the point was. He made absolutely no point in the world and did nothing to enhance the cause of his own party, talking all the time about the fact that tuition fees in Quebec could be lower than in Newfoundland. The only thing about it is, you have to be from Quebec to get the benefit of that tuition fee. The people of Newfoundland, our students, have a Canadian-made solution.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: They have a Canadian rate.

MR. LUSH: That is right, a Canadian rate, and it is one of the lowest in the country; one of the lowest tuition fees in the country, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: It is the lowest Canadian rate.

MR. LUSH: It is the lowest. Now, whether it is - in the meantime, I do not know to what degree the Opposition would expect to gain anything by saying whether it is the lowest or whether it is one of the lowest, because whatever it is, if it is one of the lowest, it is still very advantageous and beneficial to students in this Province to know that they are receiving among the lowest tuitions in the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: If I were student going to Memorial University, this is my home and it would be very satisfying to me to know that I was receiving a tuition fee that was among the lowest in Canada. I would not be interested in the verbiage of whether or not it was the lowest, as long as it was among one of the lowest. That would satisfy me very, very much, to know that I was in an area getting a tuition fee that was among the lowest in Canada.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what is the position of hon. members opposite? Do they plan to have a tuition fee that is the lowest in the country? That is the lowest in the country, absolutely the lowest in the country?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: That is what do they plan to do? Well, we are getting - the hon. Member for St. John's West says, yes, that is the plan of the PCs, to give the lowest tuition fees in the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Well, we have one piece of information for their policy. Maybe we can extract some more, Mr. Speaker. Maybe we can extract some more.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) to tell the truth.

MR. LUSH: Do what?

AN HON. MEMBER: To tell the truth.

MR. LUSH: Well, the hon. gentleman might realize that his side does not have a monopoly on truth, I am afraid. He said to tell the truth, when I thought that was what I was here doing. I thought that was what I was doing. I do not engage in any other activity. That is my job, to engage in telling the truth. I have never done otherwise, and I do not know whether he is assuming or accusing me of doing otherwise, which is not permitted in the House, but I want to say that I have never engaged in any other activity in this House other than telling the truth. That is all I have ever engaged in, and I do not intend to engage in any other activity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I think on that point I might suggest to hon. members that I adjourn the debate until Monday.

MR. SULLIVAN: You haven't changed my mind.

MR. LUSH: Oh, I did not expect I would do it in that short period.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to advise hon. members that the Government Services Committee will meet this evening at 7:00 to review the Estimates of the Department of Finance and the Public Service Commission.

The Resource Committee will meet on Monday, May 5, at 9:00 a.m. to continue their review of the Estimates of the Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

Also on Monday morning, the Social Services Committee will meet at 10:00 to continue the review of the Estimates of the Department of Education.

On Monday evening at 7:00, the Resource Committee will review the Estimates of the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

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

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