May 5, 2003 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 16


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to offer congratulations to Paul Lane, who has been named as Mount Pearl's Citizen of the Year for 2002.

Paul's record of achievement and involvement in Mount Pearl is exemplary and brings into focus the truth of the saying that the heart of any community is its volunteers.

Paul Lane has been a volunteer with Mount Pearl's Parks and Recreation Department for more than five years, has chaired Mount Pearl City Days every year since 2002, is the Secretary to Mount Pearl's Library Board of Directors, and is the current chairperson of St. Peter's Elementary School Council.

He chaired the Terry Fox Run Committee in Mount Pearl in 2000 and in 2002. He has volunteered with the Canadian Cancer Society, has served with the Mount Pearl Frosty Festival as Chairperson of the Programs and Events Committee for the past four years and is the Chairperson and Founder of the Masonic Park Garden of Friendship Foundation.

In addition, Paul Lane has served as Chairperson of the Kenmount Park Neighbourhood Association and also finds time to canvass door to door for the Lung Association's Christmas Seal Campaign.

Mount Pearl is well-served by volunteers like Paul Lane. We are a better community because people like Paul see a community need and try their best to make a difference.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of this hon. House will join with me to offer Paul Lane congratulations on his being named as Mount Pearl's Citizen of the Year for 2002 and, in doing so, give him and all other volunteers every encouragement to continue their exemplary contributions to our communities.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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.

I rise today to congratulate some students from my district who performed extremely well at a recent Regional Science Fair for the Burin Peninsula District at St. Joseph's Academy, Lamaline.

Ninety-five projects from around the Burin Peninsula were displayed at the junior, intermediate, and senior levels in four divisions, life/environmental/biotechnology, earth and physical science, engineering and computer science, and mathematical science.

Placing second overall was Jennifer Graham of Marystown Central High School, with her project, ‘Oh No! My Spaceship is Rotting', in which she studied the effects of simulated micro gravity on the growth of a unique fungus. Jennifer was also nominated for the Regional Biomedical Science Award and will advance to the Canada Wide Competition in Calgary on May 10.

Gaetan Kenway, also a student of Marystown Central High School, was recognized for his design of an innovative flying machine.

Gaetan will be in Cleveland, Ohio, May 11-17, as part of Team Canada, presenting his project, ‘The Future in Flying Low III' at the international level.

Mr. Speaker, I would to congratulate these students in their accomplishments and wish them the best of luck in their future competitions. I would also like to applaud the other students who were involved in this science fair, and thank the teachers and staff of the Burin Peninsula School Board for enabling these students with these opportunities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Tuesday, April 15, I had the pleasure of presenting the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal to two outstanding members of the communities of Labrador City and Wabush.

The first recipient was awarded posthumously to the Late Joseph Roberts. Joe was active throughout the community. He served twenty years as a volunteer with the Wabush Fire Department, during which time he took on the role of Assistant Fire Chief and an executive member of the Newfoundland and Labrador Fire Chief Association. For eleven years with the Boy Scouts of Canada and fourteen years with the Royal Canadian Cadet Corps. Joe devoted time to the youth of Labrador West.

In 1981, he became the founding member of the Labrador West Ground Search and Rescue Team and was active in starting the local chapter of the Canadian Rangers. From 1983 to 1997, Joe was an elected member of the Town of Wabush and served many years as Western Vice-President of the Combined Councils of Labrador. Joe was well-known and respected in Labrador West and indeed, throughout all of Labrador.

The second recipient is a long time resident and active pioneer in the Community of Labrador City, Mr. Norman Peckham. Norm is a retired Royal Air Force World War II Veteran. As a member of the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 47, he served over twenty years on the executive. He is very active in the Roman Catholic Church and is a member of the Knights of Columbus, Reverend Doctor Whelan Council. He was an active member of the sports community in Labrador West with coaching and executive duties with the youth organizations of minor hockey and minor softball. In the early years of educational development he served on the Labrador West School Board. For twelve years he served on the town council for the Town of Labrador City; ten of those were as Deputy Mayor. As one of the pioneers of Labrador West, Norm is also a well respected and known person in the area.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the many schools who participated in the seventh annual Avalon West Theater Arts and Musical Festival held earlier this month. This festival highlighted the best acting ability, talent and dedication of the many students and their coaches.

I am especially proud of all students at Amalgamated Academy and Ascension Collegiate; two schools that participated in this festival from my district.

At the intermediate level, Amalgamated Academy took home the following awards and nominations: Best Play; Best Supporting Actor went to Bradley Mercer, and honourable mention went to Nick Giles; honourable mention for Best Set; honourable mention for Best Female Actor went to Sarabeth Fitzpatrick; Certificate of Merit for Best Ensemble Work; and Director's Certification of Merit went to Corey Morgan.

In the senior level category, Ascension Collegiate received: the Best Male Actor went to Scott Yetman; honourable mention for their play; honourable mention went to Bobby Gushue for Best Actor and Crystal Coombs for Best Female; and Certificate of Merit for Direction.

Mr. Speaker, this festival is a very important event for those students, and it provides them with the opportunity to express themselves, their talents, their hard work and dedication.

I would once again like to congratulate both Amalgamated Academy and Ascension Collegiate on their well-deserved wins. I would also like to commend the efforts and determination of all other schools and students who participated in this festival, and give a special applause to all students who received awards or nominations.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge Voisey's Bay Nickel Company's generous contribution to the construction of a new health facility in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Over the last five years, this company invested $15 million to help construct the Labrador Health Centre for the people of this Province, and we have now received the final installment.

This cost-shared project was first announced in 1996. At that time, government recognized the need to replace the Melville Hospital, a wooden structure built in the 1950s which was becoming increasingly costly to maintain and operate. As a long-term corporate citizen of Labrador, Voisey's Bay Nickel Company also recognized that the area hospital needed to be replaced. A subsidiary of Inco Limited, Voisey's Bay Nickel Company believes it has a social responsibility to improving the quality of life in communities where it is located, whether it is Thompson, Manitoba; Sudbury, Ontario; or Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, as a government, we value the organizations and individuals who partner with us to provide quality health care services to improve the health and well-being of the people of this Province. The Labrador Health Centre opened in the fall of 2000. It has twenty-four beds and provides twenty-four-hour care in the areas of acute, primary and secondary health services to approximately 14,000 residents of Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Northern Labrador communities.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Voisey's Bay Nickel Company for its continued investment in the health needs of the people of Labrador. I am sure that hon. members who have had the opportunity to see the Labrador Health Centre will agree with me that this is a beautiful facility which has significantly improved the health care needs and community services system of this Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House would like to commend Voisey's Bay Nickel and all other corporate partners for their contributions to our Province's health care needs. However, Mr. Speaker, we note with concern on this side of House that our health care boards find it increasingly necessary to rely on corporate partners as sources of funding for essential equipment or for other capital needs.

The underfunding of our health care boards and our health care system in general is a consistent cause of concern to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. So great is the need, Mr. Speaker, that the health care boards in this Province have now hired full-time fundraising persons and fundraising teams to try to find corporate partners or trying to organize various events to purchase needed equipment.

While we recognize, Mr. Speaker, and sincerely congratulate Voisey's Bay Nickel as a corporate partner for their contribution in the new health care facility in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, we also call upon the government to recognize the need to address the underfunding of our health care system in general.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement, and I would agree with the minister that this is a great facility. I have been there many times and it was a facility that was, no doubt, badly needed.

Health services in Labrador, Mr. Speaker, are not at the levels that they should be, and I would like to use this opportunity to say to the minister and the Premier that when the MRI machine is being purchased, the second one for the Province, I hope it is indeed a mobile MRI machine that will be able to go to hospitals like the one in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, like the one in Labrador West and other regions of the Province, to cut down on the huge cost of travel that people have to incur when they have to come out for medical reasons.

Again, I congratulate the minister -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: - on his announcement and I congratulate Voisey's Bay Nickel on their corporate responsibilities to the communities in which they operate.

Thank you.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

Mr. Speaker, many people in the Province today, particularly those involved in community economic development, are telling me, and certainly telling people within their regions - and members in this House, I am sure, are aware of this - that there is a crisis coming in economic development, there is a crisis facing zonal boards in this Province, all because of a lack of a federal-provincial agreement.

For example, Mr. Speaker, from 1994-2002, $341 million was spent in this Province, and 267 of that came from the federal government. On top of that, there was probably another additional $50 million raised through how that money could be leveraged to take advantage of other programs.

The minister has on her desk right now many projects from many zones: the Emerald Zone, Capital Coast Zone, the Avalon Gateway zonal board, and all of them. I would like to ask the minister today: What can she tell people who are involved in community economic development? What can she tell people who have actively pursued and put together strategic plans, who have put together projects that are now on her desk? What does she tell the people that her government's plan is to continue with community economic development in the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we take no pleasure in the fact that there are no longer any cost-shared agreements in place between the Province and the federal government. Yes, it will have a devastating impact on some areas of the Province. We have made the case to the federal government. We continue to make the case to the federal government. We are at the table with our portion of what we would normally have put into these cost-shared agreements.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: We know that there are any number of agencies and organizations out there that are putting together initiatives and submitting them for consideration by both levels of government, but we have made it quite clear to all who will listen - because we are about being open and accountable and telling the truth - that we have the money on the table that we have always had on the table to respond to requests from agencies and organizations throughout the Province. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the federal government has chosen not to be at the table, which is causing us some concern.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, this funding over the last several years has gone into tourism marketing, such as the Cabot celebrations. It has gone into technological innovation in the marine industry. It has gone into Memorial University, which has enabled it to access other research funds. It has gone into skidoo trails, snowmobile trails. It has gone into every sector of our economy.

I would like to ask the minister this question: Mr. Speaker, has the minister and her officials done an analysis of what the economic hit will be? Have they done any analysis in terms of what this lack of an agreement will mean to their own document on the renewal for jobs and growth? One of government's assumptions, Mr. Speaker, on the renewal for jobs and growth was the continuance of the federal-provincial program. What impact will that have on the jobs and growth strategy that government has put forward?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue to promote every opportunity for the people of this Province. We, as I said, have put our money on the table.

The member opposite goes on and on in terms of the types of initiatives that have been approved in the past under community economic development agreements. I share his concern and I appreciate where he is coming from, but, having said that, Mr. Speaker, we are committed, as a government, to doing everything we can, bearing in mind it is not this government that has the surplus, it is the federal government that has the surplus. We are doing the best we can do with the resources that we have. When you keep getting requests, Mr. Speaker, for more to go into health care, more to go into education, we are doing what we can with the resources we have to respond to the organizations and agencies throughout the Province that want to do more, whether it is in tourism, whether it is in small business, whether it is in snowmobile trails or whatever the initiative might be; but, Mr. Speaker, we can only do so much.

Having said that, we are not giving up on the federal government in terms of hoping they will come back to the table, which is precisely why we put forward the proposal of a Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador economic development board. We have written again to Mr. Rock to say we want an opportunity to discuss this. He has yet to get back to say whether it is a go or it is not. Even though Minister Byrne has indicated it is not a go, we hope that Minister Rock will come to the table and work with us, recognizing, just as this document showed, Mr. Speaker, which is why we had it prepared, the impact that having to go without a comprehensive government agreement will have on Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's answer, but maybe she could really answer the question that I asked her, which was, and I will ask it again: Has the minister and the officials in her department done any analysis whatsoever on what the economic impact will be by region and by zone board? If you have, would the minister, Mr. Speaker, be able to share that analysis with the people of the Province, so we can all get an acute understanding of how much of a crisis this situation really is?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we respond to these initiatives as they come in. It is very difficult to do an economic analysis on proposals that have yet to come forward. Clearly, people bring proposals forward based on what the need is out in their various regions. How can we do an economic impact when we do not know the types of proposals or the number of proposals that would be coming forward?

What we have said, Mr. Speaker, is that we are there as a Province to response to what needs to be done in this Province from our perspective. Our 30 per cent dollars are on the table. Don't look to us and say, we are not responding. We are, in fact, responding. The fact that the federal government is not, is not something we can deal with, if they do not want to be at the table. We can continue to bring pressure to bear and we are doing that, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, we are going to continue with our renewal for Jobs and Growth Strategy. Yes, we will do what we are meant to do as a government, and we will be there, and all of the agencies and organizations know that.

Can we bring the federal government to the table? We can only ask. We can continue to put pressure on them, and we are doing that; but, at the end of the day, doing an analysis of what happens if they are not at the table - clearly, if we do not have the proposals in to say: Look if you do not support this, then we are going to be short by this amount of money.

We have made the case to the federal government. This shows the economic impact of what has gone on in this Province as a result of having cost-shared agreements. Clearly, the answer is here -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS FOOTE: - but if we do not have money, and this is the analysis that was done, this is the impact that it will have on Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister now to take her seat.

MS FOOTE: That is why this report was done. That is why it has gone off to the Minister of Industry for Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister says she is unable to, or not in the position to do any analysis because nothing is in. Here is a news flash: Every economic zonal board has on your desk right now proposals on which you can do an analysis, based upon which -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: - the minister knows today, or ought to know today, that the proposals on her desk, which ones will or will not be funded.

I will ask her again: Based upon the proposals that zonal boards have put to you, and are on your desk right now, have you done an analysis of what you can fund and what you cannot fund? And, if you have, can you tell us what that is?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, unlike the members opposite, we have not given up on these proposals.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: We are hopeful that we will get additional funding. We know there will be an impact, which is exactly why this was done, to show the federal government, and all who will listen, exactly what it will mean for Newfoundland and Labrador.

This is the type of analysis that has been done for the federal government and for all of us. It is not that we are not aware. It is not that we do not know. What I have said to the members opposite is that there are proposals coming in daily. With what we have on the table now, we are trying to deal with them in the best manner that we can. In fact, what we are doing with some of those proposals is having discussions with ACOA about the ones that they can support 100 per cent; because it is ACOA, Mr. Speaker, that has the funding to cover off these projects. It is ACOA that saw an increase in its budget. It is ACOA that can do these types of initiatives 100 per cent as long as they are not so-called provincial priorities. So an analysis, Mr. Speaker, we are hopeful that the federal government will fund the majority of these proposals that are on the table 100 per cent, because they can do it if they want to do it. Then we will have our money to do those that are strictly provincially oriented.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

People involved in community economic development through the zonal boards, all of them throughout the Province tell me, and as the minister has indicated, that the federal government is going to continue to fund projects. At what level and to whom remains the question that deserves to be answered.

People in community economic development associations and zonal boards tell me that some of the Province's current models in terms of how they apply for money or how the zonal board process applies for money may not fit the new programs that the federal government will fund.

My question is simply this, Mr. Speaker: Is that true? Is that so? If it is, have you had discussions with the federal minister about what models they may look at the fund, and are you going to put in place such models?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, like the member opposite, we have been having ongoing discussions with all parties, all stakeholders in this process, including the Regional Economic Development Boards, including the Rural Development Associations, including all organizations who come to the table wondering now how they are going to get their initiatives funded.

We have had ongoing discussions with ACOA and, to give the officials at ACOA the respect they deserve, they have been at the table working with us and having discussions with us. It is not the preference of the officials at ACOA to go this route. This has been a political decision that has been taken by the federal government, Mr. Speaker. So, we are trying to deal with Minister Rock, and we are trying to deal with Minister Byrne, to say: It is not working the way that you are proposing it. How can we take provincial priorities into account if, in fact, it is only the federal officials that are getting to do an analysis of the proposals that have been put forward?

So, yes, we have had the discussions. It is precisely why we had said to the federal government: We want to go down the path with you of continuing to have comprehensive partnership, which is why we want to have a Canada- Newfoundland and Labrador Economic Development Board. We want a chance to sit down with the federal minister to show how that can work, which is why we are hopeful that they will come back to the table and work with us in partnership.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Let me see if I can ask the question from a different perspective, because an answer is critical. Many zonal boards and community economic development agencies, and this is the seriousness of the situation, Mr. Speaker, that if sustaining funding is not captured or gotten, that many of these groups may be in jeopardy of closing their doors. The minister knows this, so when I asked the question about what models will the federal government fund, they may not fund economic zonal boards. They may not fund certain groups or organizations like in the past that they have funded, and that poses this serious question: If they are not going to fund the current models for community and economic development in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, then what models do we need, all of us in this Province, to put together so that we can continue to get any and all federal economic development money available to the regions and people in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Let me start, Mr. Speaker, by saying that we have no indication that the federal government will not continue to support Regional Economic Development Boards. In fact, that was one of the entities that they agreed to enter into with us in terms of a three-year agreement. So, to suggest that they will not continue down that path is not really accurate, and we are hopeful that we will be able to continue to get them to realize the importance, since they sit at the table as well, of continuing with the REDBs.

Having said that, we are concerned, too, about other agencies and organizations; but again I will go back and tell you that on some of the industry associations like NATI, and like NEIA, in fact, they have come to the table 100 per cent. So they can do it if they want to do it, Mr. Speaker, leaving the provincial dollars there for us to focus on provincial priorities, things that we consider, as a Province, to be so important that we cannot see them go by the wayside; but, at the end of the day, we are continuing to work with the federal government. We are working with ACOA officials. We are working with anyone who will listen to us, to recognize that we have to have a model different than what existed under the comprehensive development agreements.

I have so say again that the federal government has been there for REDBs; so we do have an example, and within the industry organizations, and will indeed support them to the tune of 100 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is now the twelfth day since the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans of Canada announced the closure of the Northern and Northern Gulf Cod fisheries. In that time there has been extensive protesting, roadblocks, office closures and occupations. This past weekend there were three rallies against this decision.

Mr. Speaker, during the past twelve days everyone in this House have stated their desire to see this decision reversed. While the demonstrations have carried on, what has the government done? What correspondence, either written or verbal, have the ministers of this government had with their federal counterparts, and what have been the results of these discussions if they did take place?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is no doubt the past twelve days have been trying times for many people in our Province as it has been for us, as a government, as we move forward to try and achieve resolution on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, we have been in contact with a number of ministers within the federal government. We have made our case to them quite firmly, quite substantially, in terms of where we think this decision should be. I think we have outlined to the public of the Province, on many occasions, what that position is. We are continuing to make contact with them. We are continuing to ask that they come to the table for further discussions on the decision that has been taken and on measures that could accompany a reversal of the decision to close these fisheries.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I attended a rally at Port au Choix on Saturday, for the information of the Member for Bellevue. At the rally, and certainly from time to time over the past twelve days in this House and outside, the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and others, have stated that government will do everything it can to get Ottawa to reverse their decision. The minister just outlined some of the things that they have done.

Many people in the fishing industry, certainly in Port au Choix on Saturday, want to know: What is government planning to do next? What will they do to see about getting the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to reverse the decision? What are government's plans for the coming days? Are there any meetings planned with Minister Thibault or anybody else in the federal government? Mr. Speaker, the people want to know: What is government planning to do constructively to get this decision overturned in the next couple of days?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, our efforts have been very focused and very directed to having this decision overturned to ensure that fishers in Newfoundland and Labrador are able to go on the water this year to fish for cod in the various regions.

Mr. Speaker, we have been in contact with the federal ministers. We have written. We have phoned. We have put our position forward as a government. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, we have continued to lobby collectively as a government on behalf of the people of this Province. We understand fully the impacts. We understand fully the urgency of having a resolution to this matter. As a government, we will continue to be firm as we move forward with our strategy to deal with this critical issue today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On a related issue, last week the Member for Bonavista South asked the Minister of Human Resources and Employment if he had been in contact with his federal counterpart, Minister Jane Stewart, on the issue of extending EI for fishery workers as a result of this spring's severe ice conditions.

Mr. Speaker, too many people in the fishing industry, who have been without income for several weeks now, would like to know: Have any discussions on this issue taken place over the past couple of days? Are there any discussions planned over the next couple of days? Given the urgency of the matter and the immediate need for this to be resolved, can we expect a decision on this any time soon?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the questions. I know that there are an awful lot of people concerned about exactly what the prospects are. We had to spend some time in the last week, as people have recognized, to make sure first and foremost that our MPs in Ottawa were onside to have the decision reversed, which they clearly are, through the emergency debate and also to focus on the immediate short-term, which is the EI extension. Not only because of this decision that has been taken which we are trying to have reversed with respect to the cod fishery, but also the other issues with respect to other fisheries and ice problems at this time of the year.

Everyone of the federal MPs, who are the ones positioned to be most effective with this because it is their government. It is the government that they got elected to be part of to speak out for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in Ottawa with issues that the Government of Canada has full control over. Everybody here knows that the EI program is not a provincial program. It is a program of the Government of Canada. We can only lobby and put our voice there. Our federal MPs, everyone of them, of all parties, to my understanding, again - and I regret having to say this - except our federal minister, to my knowledge, everybody else is lobbying with us, with our minister, with everybody in this House, the federal Minister for Human Resources Development Canada to have the decision put in place to extend EI as a first necessary step. We are not sure, because we have not heard it said. I don't believe there is one person in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, who can find a quote or a statement, anywhere, from Minister Stewart's colleague in the Cabinet from Newfoundland and Labrador, who says he is working on EI extension, licensed buyout or early retirement. Every statement from our minister, not from everybody else -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Every statement, Mr. Speaker, from our minister is that he wants to talk about economic diversification for the long term, which is a good thing, and we are glad to do that, we have already started the discussions, but also wants to look at make-work projects as being the answer, not an extension of EI -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - not a licensed buyout. Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue to work on it and we hope to have more support soon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to read on the weekend that the Minister of Education will be more than delighted to speak to anybody about the teacher allocation formula. The minister is quoted as saying, Mr. Speaker: If we can come up with a better formula, obviously we will adopt that type of formula.

My question to the minister is this: Whether or not he would be prepared to take the initiative to take the lead, Mr. Speaker, to meet with education stakeholders on this important issue, for example, the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association, the School Boards Federation and the Federation of School Councils, so that this issue can be addressed immediately in a cohesive manner, which will allow for further investigation and review of this very important matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With regard to the teacher allocation and the formula, the Premier and I met - in fact, the Premier addressed the NLTA convention here last week or the week before. He told the group in that room, the president, the executive, members from all across the Province, that he would sit down and talk to them about teacher allocation if they so desired. I met with the school councils on the weekend in Grand Falls and I told them the same thing. I have talked to individual chairs of the school boards and told them that I would gladly discuss the issue with them. What I said in the paper is exactly right and I will do what I said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is fine to offer an invitation and in somewhat of a haphazard manner indicate to groups and individuals that you are prepared to meet. This issue requires leadership, and I ask the minister: Will he take it upon himself to invite all stakeholders to deal with this very important issue, to bring the matter to a head in the interest of what is in the best interests for the students of our Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know where the hon. member is coming from. I just told him that we addressed the various stakeholder groups in the Province. We told them our door is open, we are willing to discuss it, and even went so far as to advertise it in the paper on the weekend, saying, my door is open, come forward, and we will do exactly that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On a related issue, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister is aware that educators within his own department regularly bring to his attention the negative impact that large class sizes have on both effective teaching and effective learning within our classrooms.

The minister often cites examples of instances throughout the Province where there indeed exist small numbers of students in particular grades or in particular classrooms, but the minister knows full well that is not always the case.

Will the minister again take it upon himself to review the concept of maximum number of students per classroom situation in primary, elementary, junior high and high school levels? Has this issue been addressed? If not, what plans does this minister have to see that it is, in fact, addressed?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite talks about teacher allocations. We have not heard where he stands on the issue. He talks about elected school boards. We have not heard from where they stand on the issue. In fact, his colleague from Harbour Main said out in Carbonear, a week or two ago, that they have a policy on education. But, guess what? They are going to hide it until the election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: They are going to hide it until the election.

With regard to allocations, as I have said in this House, and I have said in the media time and time again, we have the best student-teacher ratio in the country, bar none. As for the numbers, yes, there are some classes in the Province that are large, but what the hon. member does not realize is that 69 per cent of the classrooms in our Province, Mr. Speaker, have fewer than twenty students. We have classrooms with fewer than ten and we have classrooms with fewer than five, but we never hear about those classrooms from the members opposite.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that transportation is a challenge in Labrador at the best of times; however, sometimes it creates very inhumane and stressful situations. I am referring to what takes place when a person receives a phone call informing them that a son, daughter, mother, father or some other loved one has just passed away or is critically ill, and they call an airline only to find out they cannot get a flight for one, two, three or more days, sometimes a week. The same applies for serious medical referrals. Air transportation is the only way to travel in these situations, and these situations, I say to the minister, are happening all too often.

I want to ask the minister if his government will work with Provincial Airlines to guarantee two seats for emergencies on each flight from Wabush, that will not be filled until the last hour. These seats, in the vast majority of cases, Mr. Speaker, and I say to the minister, would be filled because most flights are over sold. I want to ask the minister if he would, through Provincial Airlines, the only carrier into Labrador West, guarantee two seats per flight for emergency situations?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not even quite sure how to answer the question. I know what the answer should be. I do know that if a family is going through that kind of a trauma and sadness that they should not be required to do it. I am not sure what the solution is, as I stand here today. It is not often that I will be stuck for words but I think this is one of the times that indeed I am.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I gave the minister the answer to my question, and that is to guarantee two seats per flight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: But I do want to thank the minister for the sincerity in his response, and I want to ask the minister: Given the fact that the Quebec Government, to residents of Fairmont, next door to Labrador City and Wabush, provide a subsidy to all of their residents when they are travelling just for regular reasons, I want to ask the minister, given the fact that other provinces do this, will the minster agree at least to set up a meeting with Provincial Airlines and with representatives from Labrador West, myself included, and particularly the Mayor of Wabush who has given up his seat on a number of occasions to allow people to travel, will the minister at least agree to set up a meeting with Provincial Airlines where we can - and we have some plans - discuss a way of making sure that people who were in a situation like the one this weekend, who had to drive from St. John's to Deer Lake after their husband and father passed away and were still not be guaranteed a flight to Labrador today, will he at least agree to set up a meeting through his office and through representatives from Labrador West, with Provincial Airlines, to put in place a plan whereby people will never be in this situation again?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, the only reason I am at a little stuck for words is knowing and listening that a family who is trying to get home because a loved one had passed away, what they must have gone through, and the pain and the aggravation that they must be feeling all in one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) every week.

MR. WALSH: The member says, it probably happens every other week.

I will say this to the member, based on the representation he has made here today, that with my colleague, the Minister responsible for Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs, that within five days from us standing here now, with you at the table with us, we will meet with both airlines to find out what the solution is, and we will work collectively to find a solution.

If it comes down to the fact that we have to have, in order to make sure families do not go through the kind of trauma that a family went through this weekend, that families do not have to go through the torment of knowing, probably in some cases, they are not going to get home to be with a loved one who is in that situation. I tell you, that is not acceptable here or anywhere, and it is certainly not acceptable in this Province. Within five days we will all be at a table together with both airlines to find out what the solution is. Let's find something that will meet the needs of the people who have gone through the kind of torment that this family has gone through this weekend.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the Government Services Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have approved, without amendments, the estimates of expenditure of the following departments and agencies: Municipal and Provincial Affairs; Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation; Environment; Works, Services and Transportation; Finance; Public Service Commission; and Government Services and Lands.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Cape St. Francis has tabled a report. When shall the report be received? Now, or tomorrow?

MR. LUSH: Tomorrow.

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, when Your Honour asked: When shall the report be received? I said tomorrow. I meant that we possibly would debate it tomorrow. We will receive it now.

MR. SPEAKER: That is fine.

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I have a petition. It reads:

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 library in the downtown area 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 have presented a number of these petitions, as did the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. The reason I have presented these petitions is that in the downtown area of the City of St. John's there is a high number of children who do not have access to transportation. There are families who cannot afford the transportation to get their children to libraries and other areas of the city. There are children in the downtown area, Mr. Speaker, where the illiteracy rates are higher than in other areas of the city.

I have asked that government - I am not demanding, as I have said on other presentations of this petition. I am not demanding that government put a library in the downtown area. What I have asked government to do is to study a library in the downtown area to determine the viability of putting a library in the downtown area. Looking at the Read to Succeed campaign, their literacy campaigns and the cost, the enormous cost to this Province, of illiteracy - whether or not a library in the downtown area, the cost of that, would be viable, considering the cost of illiteracy in the Province. I still say, Mr. Speaker, that I believe it is. I believe that if we were to put a library in the downtown area of St. John's that the benefits to this Province, in terms of literacy, increased literacy - access to the Internet for children in the downtown area would far outweigh the cost of putting a library there.

We heard from the Minister of Education that it would cost, approximately, $100,000 to put the books required in a library in the downtown area. I believe, Mr. Speaker, once that investment is made and with a small investment on an annual basis -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. T. OSBORNE: - to keep those books updated and maintained, that it would far outweigh the cost of illiteracy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure today to rise to present a second petition from the residents of Western Newfoundland concerning the provision of an MRI facility for Western Newfoundland.

As you may recall, last Thursday I presented a petition of some 10,400 names, which had been collected in a period of about seven days in support of a fixed MRI in Western Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, I will not go into the WHEREAS - it is the same as the petition we presented last week - but the resolved section of the petition simply states: Whereupon 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 Regional Hospital, Corner Brook, to serve the greatest good for the largest number of people.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today, since the presentation last Thursday of a 10,000-name petition, I stand in my place today to present 11,000 additional names, for a grand total of 21,000 signatures on the petition for a fixed MRI in Western Newfoundland at Corner Brook. The compelling reasons, Mr. Speaker, there are many, foremost of which is the geography of Western Newfoundland. We are talking about a geographic area which comes from St. Anthony down to Port aux Basques and east as far as Grand Falls. A huge piece of geography.

As well, Mr. Speaker, in Western Newfoundland we, perhaps, have the best cadre of medical practitioners who are in absolute dire need of an MRI piece of equipment. They need it for a proper diagnosis, to be able to practice the various surgeries that they need to do day in and day out.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I present this petition today on behalf of 21,000 residents from the entirety of Western Newfoundland as far north as Happy Valley-Goose Bay and yes, Mr. Speaker, as far east as St. John's. There are a number of signatures on this petition from the great City of St. John's and other locations in Central Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support this particular petition and ensure the residents of Western Newfoundland that I will do whatever is within my power to ensure, at the end of the day, that due consideration is given and final consideration is given for the establishment of a fixed, in- place, MRI in the City of Corner Brook.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker, to move that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government, the Budget Speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible). I am sorry.

MR. SPEAKER: I knew the hon. member has adjourned the debate.

 

MR. E. BYRNE: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I know that on Thursday past the hon. Government House Leader adjourned debate. If he is not finished with his remarks, certainly I will provide the necessary leave so he may be able to finish his remarks. Mr. Speaker, it certainly may even provide some more information and ammunition for what is to follow his closing remarks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when I adjourned the debate on the last day we were debating this issue, at the finish of the Member for Ferryland, after twelve hours and four minutes of speaking in this debate - the rest of us, mercifully, do not have these unlimited times. We speak for twenty minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I was indicating that this government have a plan by which the people of this Province can make a judgement as to who is better to govern this Province: whether it is the present people on this side of the House or whether it is the people on that side of the House.

I was indicating that the plans of this government are clear. They show clearly the vision of this government in many documents, and I pointed out how two major documents would show the plans of this government were the Economic Strategic Plan and the Social Strategic Plan. I pointed out how this Social Strategic Plan was unusual and unique in Canadian politics, and how this government had been praised and lauded all over the country for this great document integrating the social development of the Province with the economic development of the Province.

The Member for St. John's West commented that it was great on paper. Well, Mr. Speaker, all plans have to start on paper. This is where they start; they have to be written first. They must be written first. My question is: Where are the plans of the hon. members opposite? Where is their economic plan? Where is their social policy plan? Where are the plans by which the people of this Province can make a judgement, can make an assessment, and say which group of people are better equipped, have the better vision, have the better objectives, have the better policy for developing this Province?

Mr. Speaker, I challenge hon. members opposite today to talk about their plans. The role of the Opposition, as I understand it - and I spent some time there - as outlined by many political pundits, experienced politicians and political scientists, the role is twofold. One is to oppose, to be critical. These are important, to oppose, because many times there are flaws in government legislation, so to make sure we have good legislation, to make sure that we have good economic policy, that is the role of the Opposition, to point out flaws, but to do so constructively: to be critical but to criticize in a constructive manner.

The second part, Mr. Speaker, and very important, the second part of that role is to offer alternative policies, alternative plans. That part has not been done by the Official Opposition. They have heaped criticism, they have piled criticism on the government, but the second part of their role, the second part of having plans and suggesting alternative policy, they have been very weak in that particular area.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know that they have made one alternative suggestion, so I challenge them today, in the remaining time left in the Budget Speech, to advance their plans, to tell the people of this Province what their plans are. Let's give up the negativity. They have done enough of that, Mr. Speaker. We have had twelve hours of that from the Member for Ferryland. Let's hear the plan for the future.

Maybe, Mr. Speaker, they are not permitted to comment upon it. That is another difference in the government and the Opposition. On this side of the House, we believe in openness and accountability, freedom of speech. All members here are free to comment on the policy of this government. They are free to articulate what the policy of this government is, what its plans are for the future, but I hear no such comments coming from the other side.

Maybe they can drop their negativity, maybe they can drop their cynicism, maybe they can drop their pessimism, and today come out with what their plan of action is, what their alternative policy is, to develop this Province, that is fair and just for the people of this Province. The people of this Province have a right to know what the policy of the Opposition is going to be. They know what they have criticized, they know what they are opposed to, but what are they for? What do they stand for?

We, on this side of the House, know what we stand for. We know what we stand for. It is clearly documented and has been articulated in the Throne Speech and, as I have said, in other documents. It has clearly been documented.

Let me just quote from the Throne Speech, "A Government with a Plan: The hallmark of My Government is a commitment to a plan; a plan that sees a healthy, well educated people prepared to control their own destiny by seizing the opportunities that are now before them. This can occur when clear goals are established, agendas are set and commitments are delivered."

Now, I know the Opposition House Leader believes that, because I have heard him articulate that, that clearly the role of the Opposition is to have an agenda, an agenda for the future, a clear plan, but his leader does not seem to be saying that. His leader has been saying the role of the Opposition is to oppose, to criticize. Well, Mr. Speaker, they have to put these two roles together. They should put these two roles together, but clearly that has not been the case. So maybe when the Opposition House Leader speaks today he will allay the fears of the members on this side, and allay the fears of the people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, by laying out to them what the alternative plans of the Opposition are, what their plans for government are, so that the people will be able to look at what members on this side are advocating and what members on that side are advocating, and make a clear choice. Because that is what democracy is about, making choices, but in order to make a choice, obviously, we have to know what the various political parties in a province, in a country, are advocating, what their stand is, what their policies are.

We have clearly indicated, Mr. Speaker, what our plans are. "Our plan is compelling and focused. It is not grandiose and unrealistic." It pointed out that, "My government strives for: Excellent education for our children. Quality and accessible health care. Jobs to provide for our families. More money in the hands of our people to spend, save and invest. Transportation and technology networks that conquer our geography. A true and equal partnership in the Canadian union." That is where we stand, Mr. Speaker. This is where the government stand. These are our goals. These are our objectives.

Mr. Speaker, I challenge hon. members opposite today, let's fulfill that aspect of the Opposition. Let's fulfill that part of your job, by enunciating, articulating clearly to the people of this Province what are the plans of the Opposition. As I have said, they have heaped criticism. They have piled criticism on top of criticism on this government. Now is the time for them to show what they plan to do.

The page, I say to the hon. member, is page three - page two and flowing over to page three - clearly enunciating what are the plans of this government for the future. So, when members opposite stand, they should clearly articulate what their plans are, and we look forward to it, because we wonder if hon. members opposite are allowed to comment upon the policy, if they are allowed to comment upon the plan. We wonder that, because I remember clearly one member, in a radio interview not too long ago, when he was asked a question, who said that he could not answer the question before he got some further guidance and advice from somebody within the party.

As I have said, as I have indicated, people on this side of the House are permitted to articulate and annunciate upon the policy of this government because it is clear and it is written. People from this Province know what our policy is. What has not been written in two major documents, our Jobs and Growth Strategy, and our Strategic Social Policy - what is not there, Mr. Speaker, is in the Throne Speech. It is clearly written for the people of this Province to be able to make a decision.

I finish by challenging members opposite, for the duration of this Budget Speech, to articulate what their plans are, what their policies are, and demonstrate in this House of Assembly that they have freedom to clearly tell the people what their plans are for the future. What their plans will be as opposed to being continuously prophets of doom and gloom, Madam Speaker. I make that challenge to members today.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER (M. Hodder): The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to have just a few opening remarks first of all generally dealing with - I guess the motion is that we, as members in this House and as members on this side of the House, support and adopt the motion put forward by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, and that is the motion to support the budgetary measures of the government.

I listened with interest and some amusement, Madam Speaker, to be honest with you, to the speech by the Government House Leader. Here is why, today he is challenging us to release our plan. Now, he might have forgotten, and purposely I suppose - but this only happened on Thursday. Here is what he said on Thursday, Madam Speaker. Today he is challenging members opposite to release their plan, but on Thursday, he said: We have a plan maybe, Mr. Speaker. We have a plan. We could wait, and we are going to wait to reveal our plan in time. That is what he said on Thursday. Right out of Hansard. This is what he said: We have a plan. We will get ourselves out of this deficit position of $666 million, but we are not going to tell you now. We are going to wait. Here is what he says: We have a plan to get ourselves out of this deficit position and that will be revealed in time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: On Thursday, Madam Speaker, we had the Government House Leader, who will not tell us how they are going to get the Province out of a $666 million deficit this year on current account, but his answer is: We have a plan that will be revealed in time.

Today he has stood and completely and utterly swallowed himself whole in front of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: That is what he did. That is all he did.

What we are seeing - and I predict that every time a government member gets up, minister or otherwise, what we will continue to see is government challenging the Leader of the Opposition, challenging members opposite for their plan.

Madam Speaker, what the Government House Leader mentioned was a uniqueness in this House. I would like to inform him of how unique that government is. Since the abolition of government during the Second World War by Winston Churchill, this is a Premier who has continued to serve the Province longer than any other premier, any other leader in a parliamentary democracy in the Commonwealth, before going to seek the people of the Province, in history. Since the abolition and the introduction of the War Measures Act, which abolished government for a period of the war, this Premier, right here, has continued to serve the people of the Province as Premier without seeking a mandate. No other government in parliamentary history in the Commonwealth since 1942 has done that for such a long time.

Now, Madam Speaker, I want to talk about the core of the Government House Leader's challenge today to the Opposition, and the continued challenges they make. He fails to reference all of the policies that the Leader of the Opposition, and members on this side, have already articulated publicly. He fails to acknowledge, purposely, I believe - I hope not, but I have to be suspect about it because I know he knows it. I know that every time we have a press conference many of the public relations people who work for government are at it. They take our documents. They feed it to the minister. I know, in his own case, his own public relations director spends a great deal of time on Open Line condemning the Leader of the Opposition, but that is fine. That is fair enough, but he knows that what he is saying is not true.

Maybe what we need to do is just point out the ridiculousness of the argument. Every election, Madam Speaker, since I have been here, since 1993 - which was ten years Saturday past - each party, when the election was called, had always put forward a pretty comprehensive document. As a matter of fact, the government, right now, the Liberal Party, which is the government right now, has a former minister and former people who are working on their policy document. So, maybe what we should do, I say to the Government House Leader, is meet at high noon tomorrow, right outside the Legislature, and exchange documents and then people could really see what we are talking about. Because the fact of the matter is, that what the Government House Leader is talking about is a pure election ploy. It is a pure ploy by the government.

This is the first time in ten years, since I have been elected on three separate occasions, that I have seen the government in such a desperate move and a desperate shape to try to flush out what we are about. People can tune into this channel everyday and see what we are about. They can tune into Question Period. They listen to us. Every press release we put out is our policy. Every statement that our leader makes, or any member of this caucus makes in this Province represents how we feel and what we believe in. We do not need a Government House Leader standing up, or any other member opposite, asking us: Where is your plan? What will you do? - when each and everyday they hear it themselves.

The fact of the matter is that what they are looking for, Madam Speaker, is exactly what they do not have completed themselves. That is exactly what they are looking for. They are looking for a Progressive Conservative policy document that sets out our plan and our vision for the next four years. The very thing they are looking for is the very thing that they do not have completed themselves. Now what nonsense, what utter nonsense.

Madam Speaker, people know, for example, in this Province when the Minister of Finance stands up and talks about how great and fantastic the Newfoundland economy is, that by any measure - she said: Gross Domestic Product, we are leading the nation 13.9 per cent. Yet, every banking institution in the Province or in the country, or in the international monetary markets, while they acknowledge that, they also say that the GDP is not trickling down. Now, I have said in this House before, and I will continue to say it, Gross Domestic Product, for anybody who wants to know, is the sum of all of our wealth that we create in the Province. That is what it measures, it adds it all up, and by any measurement to any other economy, it has to be judged against something and somebody else. So, against every other province in the country, and against the federal government itself, all of the wealth that we are creating is - and we are creating wealth at a larger and a faster pace than any other province. Here is the real story: It is not an accurate or reflective measurement of what is staying here. What we need to do, like Ireland and other places, Scandinavia and Denmark and other countries do, is they measure gross national product. In our case it would be gross provincial product. Do you know what it would do, if we did that measurement? Not only would it measure all of the wealth that we are creating, Madam Speaker, but it would also measure what is staying here. The difference is what we really need to be concentrating on. It is one of the reasons why I will not and cannot support this government's budgetary policy.

For example, growth in our economy by gross domestic product, which the minister stands up and beats her government's chest and says, look how great we are doing, is being led by two factors, primarily, oil and gas. Everyone knows what type of wealth oil and gas is creating. Now, how much of that is staying in the Province?

We saw the article last week. The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, asked a question about it. Terra Nova, I think he said last week, in three months produced $670 million worth of oil and less than $10 million stayed here. Whatever Terra Nova produces is measured and that is included in the minister's thirteen point whatever statistic. Two hundred thousand barrels of oil per day being pumped at Hibernia contributes to the gross domestic product. Ask somebody in Flower's Cove, ask somebody on the Burin Peninsula, ask somebody on the Southwest Coast, what it means to their supper table and family budget tonight. The answer will be real and people in this Province are not surprised by the answer, because that wealth, while we are generating it, is going into someone else's pocket, not our own.

Look at, for example, in the Budget documents this year, Madam Speaker, and look at how much money we are taking in on tobacco tax, how much money we are taking in on lottery taxes, VLT machines, and then look at how much money we are getting from resource rentals. It would shock any person in the Province. The answer is unbelievable. We take in about a hundred times more in consumption taxes on alcohol, on cigarettes and on gambling than we do on our own resource rentals. And you wonder why people in the Province, and we on this side of the House, will not support government's budgetary policy!

We have a plan, he said, to get ourselves out of this deficit - this is what he said on Thursday - and we will reveal it in time. Then he has the audacity and gall to stand up today and say that members on this side of the House are not allowed to speak or that we, as an Opposition, are failing our responsibility. I say to the Government House Leader, words are important, words are extremely important, in this Legislature, and that was demonstrated to the Premier one day when he got on a little bit cocky about how important words were. Then he was reminded of a few of his own. He didn't get on so cocky after that.

The fact of the matter is, when you talk about the role of the Opposition, yes, we have a very important role here, and one of the most important roles we have in this Legislature, in the place that the people of the Province have us at this moment, is to hold your feet, as a government, to the fire on every policy, on every announcement, on every subhead in that Budget. Maybe, just maybe - one never knows, because the people of the Province will be the ultimate arbiters of that - the Government House Leader himself will have a chance to practice on this side of the House again some day; and he understands, he understand clearly, because at one time he was the Finance critic, Madam Speaker, and I have a few interesting quotes from a time when he was Finance critic.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. E. BYRNE: Absolutely.

When Dr. John Collins, who was the Finance Minister at the time, and the Member for St. John's South, delivered a budget in this House, he projected a $110 million deficit for the year. That was everything. That was not on accrual methods or non-accrual methods of accounting; that was everything.

MR. REID: Not true.

MR. E. BYRNE: Absolutely true, I say to the Minister of Education, and you will have your chance to tell the people of the Province why you think what I am saying is not true, but it is true.

Compared to this year, this government, all of what we owe, what we are spending this year and what we are taking in, the difference this year is $666 million. In a budget that was presented when the Government House Leader was Finance critic in this House, his response was pretty telling. He said: This government are spending us and putting us into the abyss. This is an astounding number. This is an outrageous number. This is an unusual number. This is an incredible number, Mr. Speaker. That is what he said at the time.

They introduce a budget, probably twelve or fourteen, longer than that, sixteen or seventeen years later, and the former Finance critic, while he was in Opposition, was part of a government that introduces a budget with a $666 million deficit this year; won't reveal how they are going to get us out of it, saying: We will reveal that in time. We are not going to tell you right now. We are going to reveal that in time.

Yet, fifteen or sixteen years ago, a budget was introduced in this House of $110 million and he said we were into financial abyss. People remember these things and, if they do not, it is our job to remind them. That is the fact of the matter; it is our job to remind them.

Last week in this House, Madam Speaker, the Member for Ferryland asked the Minister of Finance what her plan was to eliminate $300 million from the provincial Budget over the next four years. The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board stated publicly that in the next four years, which will be the next four years of a new government; that her and her government have a plan to demonstrate and eliminate $300 million from this Budget, from what we are going to spend. Where does that come from?

The Member for Ferryland, and our Finance critic, who has done an excellent job in that critic's shadow, asked the Minister of Finance, could she lay out before the people of the Province how she plans to eliminate $300 million.

You will not find anywhere in the record of this House, publicly, outside in newspapers, in any personal addresses that the Minister of Finance has made in her capacity as Minister of Finance, where she, on behalf of the government, has demonstrated and clearly laid out where they are going to get that $300 million, who it is going to affect. Is it coming from tourism, health care, education? Is it coming from increased taxes? Is it coming from the privatization of the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Board, for example? Is it going to come from the privatization of parts of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing? Will it come from the privatization of parts of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? Where will it come from?

They won't answer it. Is it because they won't, or they are afraid to share the information with the people of the Province of where they are going to eliminate that $300 million? That is the question that people have to ask.

Madam Speaker, I will conclude my comments today by saying this: When government begins to be forthright with people, and begins to lay before this Legislature, and through this place to the people of the Province, how they actually plan to deal with the deficit, do not waste your breath to tell me or members on this side of the House that you have a plan to deal with the $666 million deficit but we will reveal it to you at some point in the future. That is not the type of government people want. Do not tell me or waste your breath that you have a plan that you are going to eliminate $300 million from the current Budget over the next four years and then do not speak about how you are going to do it. The very things that you are thinking about doing - things I have just talked about, in terms of privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Board, privatization of aspects of housing - are the very things that you are fearmongering about, trying to tell people that we are going to do. Well, I can tell you, it is not on.

Madam Speaker, let me say this: Unless government lays out those details for all of us to see, which enables us, as an Opposition, to do what we were democratically elected to do, which is to hold every one of you to account for the actions that you take, or fail to take, then I will not be standing in this House and supporting this budgetary motion.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, today I want to spend some time talking about the differences that I have been noting over the last weeks and months between this side of the House and the opposite side of the House.

One of the ones that I have noted more than anything else is the demonstrated lack of knowledge about rural Newfoundland. It occurred to me the first time last summer when I was on the South Coast of Labrador - actually in the Minister of Fisheries district - I was at the bakeapple festival. I was listening to the Leader of the Opposition talk about being in that area of the Province. One of the first things he talked about was the need for a tunnel across The Straits. When he talked about the need for this tunnel across The Straits, he did not bother to ever, ever mention the fact or support the Trans-Labrador Highway. Now, what is the point to a tunnel when you do not have a highway to connect Labrador either with the mainland or with the Island? I think that shows that over the months and over the years while he was there talking about this - now, he was not talking about this in St. John's. Then, a little while later, he was down in Port aux Basques and talking about how this won't affect the Gulf ferry. So, what he said depended on where he was in the Province.

Every single rural community that I have seen the Leader of the Opposition speak in, he immediately goes in and says: My, this is a beautiful community. My, this is really well-kept; like it is the first time he has ever seen rural Newfoundland. Then goes on to talk about: My, there is a strong rural business out here; like it is the only rural business that is succeeding in all of Newfoundland and Labrador, like he is really surprised. Why is he really surprised? Because, on the whole, it has been the first time that he has ever been in many of these communities.

I would also like to comment this afternoon on women in politics. I am proud to be one of seven women in this Legislature; six who are on the government side.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: One in Opposition, but six on the government side.

Some months ago on CBC television, I remember it well, the Leader of the Opposition was commenting about the reason the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador lacks adequate female representation in the House of Assembly. The reporter, I remember, then, very clearly, made a favourable comparison with the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador when she said, "after all, the Liberals have set a high standard of gender balance. Women ministers are among the highest and most powerful in the Grimes cabinet."

Madam Speaker, the Opposition Leader then made a comment which I thought was very, very telling about why his party has only one woman in the House. An exact quote of what he said, "they just didn't have the artillery to win the nomination, they went in - they did not have the support, they did not understand the process and they just got beaten at the nomination level".

Now, you know, here is where words are important. In his inaugural speech on April 7, 2001, the PC Leader said to women in the audience who might be considering a career in politics - this is where words are important, Madam Speaker, "I commit to them that our party will provide the training and support for those that may feel intimidated by the political process."

Now, Madam Speaker, while there may be hurdles for women to overcome, lack of intelligence concerning the actual nomination process is not one of the hurdles that women are facing.

What qualities, I ask you, does a male have that a female does not have that permits him to have a better understanding of the political process? We have six examples on this side of the House that show very clearly that we are not intimidated and we understand the political process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Madam Speaker, I would like to say to the members opposite that this is just another example of the old boys' mentality of the Leader of the Opposition.

Also, I have been hearing a lot in recent weeks about federal-provincial relationships. The Leader of the Opposition says: Well, if I was elected, the first thing I would do is work with them. I would show them respect. I would consult, and if all of that does not work, I will fight them.

Well, what does he think has been happening for the last fifty-four years? Does he think that we have never talked with, consulted with, respected, sat down with, and tried everything under the sun to have Ottawa listen to us? But do we see any new ideas coming forth from the side opposite? None, Madam Speaker, none.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Madam Speaker, this is the government. This is the Premier who put in place the Royal Commission on Strengthening our Place in Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: This is where the new ideas are coming from. Let me tell you, I think it is very timely that the Premier - little did he know seven or eight months ago when he put this Royal Commission in place that yet many other negative decisions would be coming out of Ottawa. Little did he know what would happen with Port Harmon in the Stephenville area. Little did he know what was going to be happening to the Newfoundland forecasting unit in Gander. Little did he know that forecasting would be leaving this Province completely, another area which we still have a lot of fighting to do on; and little did we know that the fishery would again be such a problem for rural Newfoundland in this Province.

Let me tell you, the federal-provincial working relationship is of great concern to this side of the House, but until we see some new ideas from over there, let me tell you, I am looking forward to the Report of the Royal Commission.

I think I would like to speak a little bit now about the difference in the two leaders. You know, it has been said all across this Province that we need bold, creative, innovative and responsible leadership and policies. I think one of the best examples that I can speak to today, given my previous experience, is that we have a bold, creative, innovative, responsible position when it comes to post-secondary education; that this Premier's policy on post-secondary education is the best, bar none, in this country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Our post-secondary education policy includes: taxation cuts; tuition cuts; debt reduction grants; a new student loan program. As a matter of fact, we are leading the country.

I was just looking at some notes I saw recently which said that the Canadian Federation of Students says that our Premier's post-secondary education policy is, bar none, the best in this country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: As a matter of fact, the Canadian Federation of Students said that they want this Province's post-secondary education policy to be the template for every province in this country, for this whole country. They say that we are, by far, the leaders in this country when it comes to post-secondary education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: As a matter of fact, next week our Premier has been invited to speak to the Canadian Federation of Students at their annual meeting so that he can outline to them the progress this Province has made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. TAYLOR: Madam Speaker, it has happened once too often, so I am not going to let it pass today.

The Member for Bellevue just made a reference to the fact that I moved to Mount Pearl. Since the former minister, the Member for Gander, was just talking about women in politics, I would just like to make the point that I moved to Mount Pearl to allow my wife to pursue a nursing career, which she was not able to access in St. Anthony, to go to school at the Centre for Nursing Studies, where she worked very hard over the past number of years, because for the past ten years, since we have been married, I have been running around so much that she has not been able to pursue her own career in nursing.

I would like to know if - and there have been a number of them, the Member for Bellevue, the Minister of Finance, and a number of others over there, who have constantly brought it up over the past six months about my move to St. John's. I would just like to ask if they share the same view as a former member of that government about where women should be. I believe my wife should be allowed to pursue a career if she wants to, irregardless of my life in politics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Quite frankly, Madam Speaker, I am offended by it, she is offended by it, and I think every woman in this Province should be offended by comments like that from the Minister of Labour.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I hope that point of order, which has nothing to do with the points that I have been making, does not interfere with my time here today because I have several other comments that I would like to make.

I would like to finish my comments, Madam Speaker, on the lack of an education policy from the members opposite, by just noting that into today's telegram, after their convention in Corner Brook this weekend, they are talking about four resolutions that passed, and some of them about to construct a long-term care facility. I was really pleased to see this one: to support the continuation of the Gander Weather Office.

Do you know what the very last one was? It says: And to make education a priority for the party. Well, you know, education has been a priority for this party for a long, long time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: I would like to close my comments on education and just speak about a time last fall, I believe it was, when the Leader of the Opposition was at Memorial University, and, of course, many students were interested in hearing what the Leader of the Opposition would have to say about his post-secondary education policy. When they asked what he would do if he was elected Premier, would he keep cutting tuition, would he bring in debt reduction grants or continue them, what other new ideas did he have, do you know what his reply was? He said: I cannot respond. I could not give you an answer to that unless I was Premier and I could see the Province's financial records. Now, you know, all of us can see the Province's financial records whenever we want. If ever there was a lame excuse, this is a time when it was one of the lamest excuses I have ever heard in my life.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: I thought when he said that: oh, well, I cannot comment because I have to see the books. I thought, well, this is a really well thought out post-secondary education policy.

I would like to close my comments today by talking just a little bit about how the members opposite are constantly talking about the need for change. Now, change can be positive but it can be negative too, but never in the political history of this Province have we seen a Premier who has brought in so much change in under two years. It is absolutely phenomenal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: And I have to say that this change was planned. It was bold, creative and innovative, not like the party opposite who have no plan at all. If you just look at the amount of change that has been brought in - Voisey's Bay: for years we have been trying to do a deal on Voisey's Bay. We finally have a fair deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: White Rose: let me tell you, this summer in Marystown when there are 700 to 800 jobs down at the shipyard, we will know what change is all about compared to the last few years. We have seen tuition cuts. We have seen debt reduction grants. New owners in the Marystown Shipyard. The settlement of the boundary dispute which, in the very near future, could have a huge impact on this Province because it is felt by many that there is gas, and lots of it, in that area. The Petroleum Pricing Commissioner: can you imagine how much that has saved for the taxpayers of this Province just in the last two months, having someone who can respond to the fluctuations in the market. Fine enough, when they are negative and the price has to go up, but when they are positive, the price can go down. We do not have to wait months and months for our consumers to get the benefit of a downward price in oil. Televising the House of Assembly: this was inaugurated well over a year ago. This was the government who brought it in. The Citizens' Representative, who has been kept so busy. Fraser March who was appointed in December of 2001. The new Access to Information Act, which will become law this year. The Child and Youth Advocate, which was brought in December of 2001.

MR. MANNING: Are you reading from our policy?

MS KELLY: I say to the hon. member opposite, of course I am not reading from your policy. Go back and look at the brochures that I had when I was running for election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: They certainly did not come from your brochure, I would say.

The Strategic Social Plan, which now, after having a Strategic Economic Plan, we will be the first in this country to integrate the Strategic Social Plan after the social audit is done with our economic plan, because many of us recognize for this Province to work, we have to integrate our economic plan with our social plan, and we will be world leaders in this area. There is no one else in this country who has ever done that. We will be the first.

Our new health care plan, called: Healthier Together, there is no doubt that this needs to be done. Health care is a priority of this government. We just do not talk about spend more money. On the one hand we have members opposite, in almost every single Question Period, standing up and saying: we need more money for these roads, for these hospitals, for this school. Yet, in the very next breath stand up and say: Oh, irresponsible. We are all irresponsible over here. We cannot spend money properly. Well, let me tell you, this is a government that is responsible, that responds to change and has a forward vision. This is a Premier who has already demonstrated that in the last two years, with more change in two years than any period in this Province's history.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Madam Speaker, I would like to close by saying that change can be positive or negative. We have shown that we are a party of change. In the last two years we have brought in more change than any other government in our history and we plan to bring in even more.

They keep talking across there about their Blue Book. Well, I would challenge them to just pay attention because we do not just hold everything close to our chest. We tell the people of this Province what we intend to do. We show them what we intend to do. We have already done so much. When we commit to something we do it. We do not just talk about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: A commitment made is a commitment kept.

I would like to close today by saying that I fully support the Premier of change, the Premier who has brought more change to this Province in the last two years and will continue to do it with the plan he has in place, that is a great vision for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am happy to stand today to take part in this Budget Debate and to use my twenty minutes to talk about some things and to refer to some things that were just brought about by the opposite side.

Madam Speaker, when the Government House Leader stood up, in the few minutes that I listened to him there, he talked about the bold things that they were doing. He challenged people on this side, and our leader here, to come forward with our policy and to tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador what we would do. Somebody shouted out and asked him to bring forward his policy. The Member for Gander referred to it as well. He was very quick to say: our policy is clear. He stated in the Strategic Economic Plan, in the Strategic Social Plan and in the Throne Speech. Madam Speaker, do you know how many elections have been fought by that government on the Strategic Economic Plan? How many elections were brought in by Clyde Wells? There have been three elections fought under the Strategic Economic Plan. Where is the bold initiative in that?

Madam Speaker, then he referred to the Strategic Social Plan. He said that is another one of our bold moves. I ask you, how many elections have been fought on the Strategic Social Plan? That was a plan which was brought forward by Brian Tobin and there has been at least one election already fought on that particular plan. So I say to you, Government House Leader: Where are the bold initiatives that you are putting forward?

Then he referred to the Throne Speech, Madam Speaker. He referred to the bold initiatives in the Throne Speech. I never saw many bold initiatives in the Throne Speech. There was nobody dancing in the street about the bold things that were brought forward by the Lieutenant-Governor in this Throne Speech.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: What we are looking at is a tired old government with no new ideas trying to con the people of this Province into believing that what they are doing is working.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Go down to my district, Madam Speaker, and I think my district is reflective of a lot of rural districts. I can take you to one community where 160 people live and five people get up in the morning and go to work. Five people have the privilege of getting up in the morning and going to work. Is that a bold initiative that is working in rural Newfoundland? Is that a bold initiative where people are happy about the strategic economic plan?

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Gander talked about the wonderful things they were doing. Well, let me tell you about her trip over to China a few short years ago. She came back and she made the big announcement - it was on the radio for a full week - about an agreement that was signed in China, Tuesday, that could result in the start-up of an apple juice concentrate blending facility in Argentia. I say to the Member for Argentia, how many bottles of apple juice or orange juice (inaudible) in Argentia?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: He must have it fenced in with the Inco fence.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, that was for Argentia and that same Member for Gander, when she made that pilgrimage over to be the salvation of Newfoundland and Labrador to bring about economic prosperity, signed another agreement. There were three agreements. I will refer to two of them. Neither of them have worked.

The third agreement was signed in Shanghai and involved Friede Goldman Newfoundland Limited. Where is Friede Goldman Newfoundland Limited now, Madam Speaker, in your district? Here is what the initiative was. They were going to construct, at the Marystown shipyard, Madam Speaker, sixty fishing vessels. The agreement was signed by her trip to China, came back, did the announcement two or three weeks in a row, and led the people in this Province to believe that those projects were going to happen.

Is that the bold initiative that is being brought forward by this government, Madam Speaker? I say to you, if that is the kind of message and the kind of thing that is going to be brought forward by this government, to try to make the people believe what is happening, then it is about time that we had a change in this Province.

Madam Speaker, when the House of Assembly opens for the spring session, normally what happens is your first meeting here is you come forward and the House is prorogued to start a new session of the House of Assembly. The next day we hear the Speech from the Throne which clearly sets out government's intention. It is a direction, I guess, which government is going in. Shortly after that, there might be a few days go by, probably a week, two weeks at the most, when we debate either pieces of legislation that were - well, not left over because it is a new session - but when we probably debate the Throne Speech or Interim Supply. Then, Madam Speaker, the Budget is brought down, and we spend pretty well the entire spring session debating the Budget.

When the Budget is brought down, Estimates Committee meetings take place where committees are structured and they sit with ministers and their departments to ask questions on the appropriations that are brought forward for that government department.

Madam Speaker, I feel betrayed, and I feel that I was less than being honest with, and every member in this House was dealt with in less than an honest way. When you go forward and question ministers and question departments as to the appropriations that are brought forward by a particular budget heading, and you find out, when you get the Auditor General's report, that the money was taken completely out of one department and spent by other ministers for reasons that were not put forward, that is not the way that it should be.

I am going to refer specifically here to the Protocol expenditures, where there were appropriations brought forward and you ask questions to the minister who was directly responsible for the Protocol Office, and you would be given answers only to find out when you get the Auditor General's report that the money was spent in a completely different way and was spent for travel by ministers.

Let me read out to you some of the expenditures that were taken out of the Protocol account and put forward to other ministers' offices wholly and solely for travel. When you ask questions to the minister dealing with the Protocol Office, you are informed that this money was brought forward in order to look after the dignitaries when they come to this Province on government business, and for other things for which the Protocol Office is responsible.

Let me just refer, Madam Speaker, to some of the expenditures transferred from the Protocol account to other government accounts, other government departments, used wholly and solely for travel purposes, for purposes that it was never intended to be used for, but buried in another account.

The Executive Council, Premier's Office: The Premier of this Province, in addition to his own travel, took another $78,833 from the Protocol Office to look after his travel budget - $78,000. You might say he is gone. Yes, he is.

Executive Council, Intergovernmental Affairs: The present Member for Virginia Waters is still here. That member, when he was the Intergovernmental Affairs Minister, reached in and took $14,958 out of the Protocol Office, wholly and solely for travel. An account that we could have asked whatever questions we wanted but would never have been told, and this money should never have been spent for other than what it was intended to be spent.

The Minster of Fisheries and Aquaculture dipped into it for $19,340 for extra travel, taken out of the Protocol account.

The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the present Member for Gander, reached into it for some $6,000.

The present Member for St. George's-Stephenville East, when he was the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, reached into it for $3,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was three years ago.

MR. FITZGERALD: Never mind three years ago, I say to the member. It is facts and figures.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't know what you are talking about.

MR. FITZGERALD: I don't know what I am talking about? Refer to the Auditor General's report and answer to her, I say to you, Sir.

Development and Rural Renewal, $2,000. This is money that was taken out of the Protocol account and spent by government members, government departments.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the member, he can be as mad as he wants; those are not my figures. Those are the figures that are brought forward by the Auditor General, and told the government of the day that this money should never have been spent in this particular way. It should never have been. This money should be spent in the Protocol Office. When you come forward here and you sit with government departments and you question government departments about the appropriations that are brought forward in their budget, then you should be given the answers wholly and solely for what those expenses are. That is the way that some government departments have been able to reach into other offices in order to get money.

If you look at the Labrador Coastal Marine Service and see where there was some $990,000 in refit costs for the Labrador ferries, a million dollars brought forward without even going to public tender. In fact, that particular operator of that particular ferry service got paid for refit service and charges for their labour while that particular ferry was in operation - in excess of $1 million. What a great contract to get! How can you lose money on it? How can you lose money on the Labrador Coastal Service when you have a boat, you are responsible for the operation of that particular boat, the government decides that they are going to sign a contract with you, and that particular contract states that you are going to be given so many dollars a day to operate the service. Then, in addition to that, you charge out refit work while the ferry is operating and you get paid for that as well.

In fact there was over $50,000 paid out there - I think it was $50,000; I do not have it right in front of me, but it was something close to $50,000 - that was paid out to hire another vessel whereby it clearly states in the contract that is the responsibility of that contractor while he is supplying that particular service.

No, it is only government money, it is only taxpayers' dollars. Submit it, we will pay it. It is a business and it is a contract on which you cannot lose. It is unbelievable, the amount of money that is being spent here without going to contract, without going to tender. That is the kind of things that we would do differently, I say to the Member for Bellevue. That is the kind of thing that we would do different.

I will just move away from that now, but I wanted to raise those points because I think they were important points. It was brought forward by the Auditor General. It was discussed in Public Accounts. It was affairs that came from the operation of this House, this Legislature, and that is where it should be debated and this is where it should be brought forward.

I want to refer to roads, the roadwork budget that was brought forward this year, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. This year, we see something like $23 million brought forward for roads upgrading and reconstruction.

I have stood in this Legislature many times and talked about the need for roadwork in my District of Bonavista South. I heard the Member for The Straits & White Bay North last night talking about the need for roadwork and the number of kilometres in his district that need to be not only upgraded but, because it is gravel road, need to be upgraded and paved for the first time. Twenty-three million dollars.

I think the minister indicated at the time there was $300 million worth of applications brought forward for roadwork and then, in his own words: It would take us something like $900 million in order to bring the roads in Newfoundland and Labrador up to today's standards. We know that is never going to happen.

Mr. Speaker, if we are serious about trying to build a tourism industry, and if we are serious about trying to attract industry in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, then we have to provide the basic infrastructure. I guess the basic of the basics is to provide a decent road to drive over. Twenty-three million dollars.

Back in 1989, if I recall correctly, at that particular time, the Budget brought forward in 1989 had something like in access of $49 million for roadwork reconstruction and upgrading in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at just a few short years ago, every depot in this Province was provided with funding where not only could they maintain the shoulders of the roads and the local roads that they were responsible for, without using capital funding for upgrading and paving, they were always awarded and always provided with an amount of money where they could do three or four kilometres of roadwork, paving it, recapping it.

Go and talk to some of those depots today. In their budget if they can manage to scrounge - I use the word scrounge because that is what they have to do - fifteen or twenty tons of asphalt, that is maximum, that is tops. That is all they can get out of their budget.

You look at the shoulders of the road. A few short years ago, we used to put some decent stone on the side of the road. A lot of people walk. We do not have sidewalks out in rural Newfoundland. Mr. Speaker, a lot of people like to be able to go out and walk on the side of the road. I get calls from seniors, I get calls from people who enjoy going out on the side of the road for a walk, to walk through their community, and they cannot do it anymore. Do you know what the department of highways have to use today because of the cutbacks and because of money not being provided for road maintenance and upgrading? The depots have to go into the pit and take what they call pit run. They would take the gravel and rocks that is scooped out of the hills and put it on the sides of the roads. That is what is put there today, and then you see a couple of workers having to go and take the boulders away. They cannot take all the rock away because, if they do, there would be nothing left. They would be right back to where they started before.

That is the kind of maintenance that we are doing on our highways today. Two of the main highways leading into Bonavista, Route 230 and 235, you drive down over them today, Mr. Speaker, two of the main highways leading to the Bonavista Peninsula, major fish plants there, major tourist attractions there, and you see the speed limit, thirty kilometres an hour. Speed limit, thirty kilometres an hour. That is less than twenty miles an hour, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Two main highways leading to the Bonavista Peninsula.

Is that the kind of thing that tourists expect to find when they come and we promote this Province and we promote certain areas of this Province as tourist attractions and we encourage people to come and spend their money and build this industry? Is that the kind of thing that they should see on the side of the road, signs saying, bumps ahead or a bump every - I always said they could put a pump on each end of the Bonavista Highway and just have one sign saying, a bump every hundred feet. That is about what it is. That is the kind of thing that we need to be looking at. That is the kind of thing that we need to do if we are sincere and serious about building industries, allowing industries to succeed in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and allowing our tourism industry to grow, not what we have seen today. We have to have a major infusion of funds in order to upgrade the highways, especially the major highways in this Province.

We are all waiting to see what the minister is going to bring forward. I am a little disappointed as well, Mr. Speaker, because normally before funding is announced we get a chance not only to write to the minister, when they ask for our priorities, but to sit down with him, because we put forward our priorities but nobody ever expects to get everything that they ask for, but it is always nice to be able to go and sit down with the minister and go over what it is they see as a priority when they know how much money they are getting.

The Member for Mount Pearl, when she was the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, afforded members on this side that opportunity to come and sit down, and said: Here is how much money you are getting. Now, you tell me where you want that money spent. Who knows the district better than the member who is driving over the highway every day visiting his district, talking to his constituents, listening to people tell them what they see as a priority and what they would like to see included in this year's capital works budget.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Gander referred to the weather station being taken away, and that is certainly frustrating, I say to the member. Everybody, not only everybody in this Legislature but everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador, there is no other place in this country that depends on the weather and depends on a facility, especially -

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Just by leave to finish up, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Just a minute to clue up.

Mr. Speaker, there is no other province, there is no other area of this country, in this hemisphere, that depends on weather more than this Province. It is not uncommon, when you go into people's houses, to hear them turn the radio on. They do not turn the radio on to listen to the songs, or to find out what is happening in other places in the world. They turn on the radio to find out the weather, to get the local news and to find out the weather. It is not uncommon to go into people's homes and see the weather channel on television. That is how important it is to the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, to see that particular facility leaving this Province shows what contempt the federal government holds us in, and how meaningful we are to fit into the overall picture of our place in Canada, and how we fit in.

Mr. Speaker, there is lots more to talk about but I understand my time is up.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I listened with interest to the comments that the Member for Ferryland made over a period of hours here in this House in the last several weeks.

As pointed out by my colleague from Terra Nova, of course, it is the role of the Opposition to be critical of government and where government stands on certain things, and what they do or do not do, but it is also, as he pointed out, their role to be constructive. To be constructive is, by implication, that you are going to make a contribution, you are going to make a constructive contribution. That is what I find missing here. We had hours and hours of debate, so-called, or commentary, but very, very little of contribution, constructive contribution.

The Member for Bonavista South raised the issue of change, time for a change, time for a change; but, Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province want to know: change to what? Change from what? You cannot change to something if no one has ever taken the time or the effort or had the courage to tell you what it is that they want to change to. That is what has been missing here in the last number of hours and hours of debate. To change to what? There is only one true catalyst and agent for change that this Province has seen in the past two years and that is by way of Premier Roger Grimes and the Liberal Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: That is the agent of change that we have seen here.

I will give you an example, Mr. Speaker, of the people not knowing where somebody stands on an issue. There have been many, but I will only take one for the sake of simplicity and explaining things, just one example, and that is the Mining Tax Act that we had in this House last December. Just one example, Bill 21, passed through this House last December, had certain end purposes, of course, to amend the act, make certain regulations concerning mining operators and owners of mines, but also towards the royalties and the royalty tax. In this particular case, of course, we saw a full page ad in The Telegram from Archean Resources and so on saying that, you could not tax us, it was unfair and everything else.

Now, this government took the position that if you were lucky enough to find a Voisey's Bay, which they did in that case, and you were going to make millions and millions of dollars in royalties from that find, that it was a logical step that you should pay a reasonable, fair share back to the public purse so that you can use it in this Province to do things like health care and education and much needed infrastructure.

By the way, that was there since 1975, the 20 per cent rule. Nobody was talking about changing the 20 per cent rule, but we had the Opposition who were terribly opposed to this bill, terribly opposed to the amendments to the Mining and Tax Act.

Now, they claim to be the blue party, probably, but there is nobody for sure who thinks for a moment that they represent the blue-collar worker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: None whatsoever, because we heard references while that was going on to the millionaires' bill and the millionaires' club, making provisions for the millionaires and so on.

Also at that time, Mr. Speaker, in the course of debating that bill - I give credit to the Member for Labrador West. He probably said it better than anybody throughout the whole debate here because he is a blue-collar man himself. He got up and talked about who makes contributions to this Province. The miners in this Province who pay taxes and the companies that are now no longer going to get a $2 million maximum bill, but who will get a $2 million tax bill a year if they take our resources as they should. I thought he gave an excellent blue-collar speech in support of the legislation. He said it was good because it was good. It was the right thing to do and I applaud him for doing that. That is the kind of initiative you see over here which the Opposition had been opposed to, vehemently opposed to that bill and the amendments that were in it.

Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that you cannot talk out of both sides of your face. The thing is you cannot on the one hand say: We want more money for health care. We have to find a plan to have money for education. We have to have a way to get more money into the coffers to use for needed infrastructure in the Province. You cannot do that. We need roads. People need roads. People need pavement in their areas; always referred to by members on the opposite side. Everybody agrees, you have to have a way to do that. One of those ways was to make sure that the people who use our resources pay something for the use of them and the benefits they get from them. We ought to have an obligation, as a government, to maximum the benefits that we can for this Province, whether it be by royalties, by way of taxation, by way of employment opportunities and so on, but that is not what we seen from the Opposition here.

We saw an Opposition who, when we were trying to maximum these royalties, be opposed to that piece of legislation. That, Mr. Speaker, I would submit, is improper. That is not in the best interest of the Province and that is not where we need to go. If that is the kind of change we are looking towards, where we protect the interest of the rich and forget about the blue-collar man in our society, that is when we do have a problem because that is where we are going down a road where we certainly need not and ought not to go.

I call it the peekaboo platform; peekaboo. They have a peekaboo platform. They will not let anybody in this Province peek because they are afraid we are going to boo if we see what they have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, they will say one thing one day and something else on another day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Did you notice we are not interrupting?

MR. PARSONS: This comes back again to - I will be very short and brief as I say, because I just want to make the point about how inconsistent some people are. The point I would make is, that is one example of an inconsistency, where this party stands for something that is not in the best interest of this Province, and they showed it by way of their answers in the debate in this House on Bill 21. That is a major inconsistency on their part but it shows where they are going. It shows where they are going and it is not where we need to go.

I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, as well, and I am sure the people of this Province would like to know: Where does the Leader of the Official Opposition stand on this issue, and where does he stand on so many important issues? Now, that's not being critical. The people of this Province have a right to know. This is the people's House and this is no better place and no more appropriate place to ask a question. I raise that question here. I have seen the Leader of the Opposition speak from prepared scripts, whether it be Question Period or whether it be questions debating the Freedom of Information. I have never heard or seen the Leader of the Opposition stand in this House and speak to a piece of legislation without having a prepared script and to give a definite answer when he is called upon to do so.

I challenge the Leader of the Opposition - I challenge him like we are constantly being challenged - to have the fortitude to stand when asked in this House, or to stand when asked in the public, to give the answers to these most important questions.

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Some time in 2003 - and contrary to the utterances of my learned friend from The Straits & White Bay, you do not have to be Premier to answer for yourselves in this Province. If you want to be Premier you ought to answer for yourself, too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, anyone who is calling upon the people of this Province to entrust the livelihood and the welfare of the lives of the people in this Province to them, it is not good enough to just say: trust me. They have an obligation to stand in here and, when challenged, say what they stand for because which has been said many times: If you do not stand for something, you can fall for anything.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: That is all I ask, using that one example of the mining tax amendments we saw here. I would like to know, as a concerned citizen of this Province - not only as the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile but as a concerned citizen of this Province - that if we are going to go down any roads and we are going to go for any changes, as have been suggested by the Member for Bonavista South, I would like to know who I am going with and how they plan to get there. So far I have seen nothing of that from the Opposition party. I think the time has come - you cannot hide behind the press releases anymore, you cannot hide behind the scripted answers. You have to tell the people of this Province what you stand for. It does not take an election writ being dropped to do that. You can tell the people of the Province that at any time.

Where there is smoke there is fire they say. When you see so many examples in the last two years of one thing today and another position tomorrow, or: I can't comment on that at all. That is when I get suspicious, because that leads me to believe and conclude that there is only a peekaboo platform in line for the people of this Province. The people of this Province are not intent and certainly will never accept that we just get a peekaboo platform from a peekaboo party.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

I want to say a few words on the Budget Speech. I was listening very intently to the previous speakers. I want to make a couple of comments with respect to the government members who spoke so far today.

The Minister of Justice was up talking about the critic of finance speaking for a number of hours and he had to contribute to the debate. Well, Mr. Speaker, I challenge anybody in this House of Assembly to be as articulate and know the facts and figures as much as the Member for Ferryland, the critic for finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: These people on the other side of the House - what he was doing, he was showing the faults in the Budget, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the members on the other side of the House have a problem in listening to the truth, obviously.

Also, I was quite amazed when the Minister of Justice actually referred to an ad in The Telegram from Archean Resources, that was paid for by the company themselves, whatever the cost may be, Mr. Speaker, when we have this Administration spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on an ad campaign of public taxes to promote the Premier of this Province. Is there any wonder that the Province is in the shape it is in today when we have such an abuse of power, such an abuse of taxpayers' dollars, when he has the face to stand in this House of Assembly and criticize a private company for spending their own money on ad campaigns when they are abusing the taxpayers' dollars? Shameful, Mr. Speaker!

Then we had the Member for Gander stand in her place and actually criticize the Leader of the Opposition for trying to support women in politics. Talk about twisting things, Mr. Speaker. When the Leader of the Opposition actually stood publicly and supported a well-qualified lady for a nomination within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, what kind of catcalls did we get from across this House of Assembly, from that side of the House criticizing him for publicly supporting ladies? She was up trying to twist it. That is what we have been seeing for years in this House of Assembly, twisting, trying to change the facts. They are at it all the time.

Mr. Speaker, also we had the Member for Gander get up and say they have a plan. (Inaudible) the change we have seen in the past two or three or four years. Now we are into the fifth year of a mandate of this Administration; the third year of a Premier who was not elected by the people but by a leadership convention. We are here now in the fifth year and she talks about the changes.

I soon have to get to the Government House Leader's comments, but when she was up the Member for Gander -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I know they have trouble with the truth but these are the facts.

During the last election - and she referred to this - how they changed the payroll tax. Now, if you remember, a Liberal government brought in the payroll tax. During the last election when we had our policy manual up and we wanted to reduce the payroll tax, this Administration said: No, it cannot be done; cannot do it. Right after the election one of the first things they did, Mr. Speaker, was cut the payroll tax. We want to eliminate it altogether.

We wanted to cut income tax in the last election. This Administration, and most of the people on that side of the House, the ministers, said they could not do it. Now it is done. Another plan of ours. We talked about increasing the minimum wage during the last election. They are looking for our plan - and, of course, they said during the last election: It could not be done. Well, it is done today.

When we talk about women candidates, in the last election we had a fair number of qualified women run for us, but right now, today so far, we have seven qualified ladies running in this Province in the next election for the PC Party. I am going to go through them - and we have others in the wings waiting for other nominations to be called. Qualified people. Qualified individuals. Qualified women. We have Beth Marshall who is going to run in Topsail, the former Auditor General, who has the life frightened out of this crowd over here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: I have never seen a person's name, who has not been elected to this House of Assembly, being used so often by government members; a qualified individual.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Dianne Whalen, Conception Bay East & Bell Island, Mr. Speaker, Mayor of Paradise, a qualified individual.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: We have Kathy Dunderdale in Humber Valley, a nurse who is involved in all kinds of -

AN HON. MEMBER: Goudie.

MR. J. BYRNE: Kathy Goudie.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't even know (inaudible) running.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, we have two Kathies running. That will tell you how petty they are, trying to create an issue out of nothing.

We have Kathy Goudie, Mr. Speaker, who is running in Humber Valley, a nurse, a qualified individual, who is taking on the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, who is involved in all kinds of community events in that area, and is going to do a job out there and win that seat for us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, we have Charlene Johnson, Trinity-Bay de Verde, a young individual, twenty-eight years old, qualified, with degrees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: We have Sheila Osborne, the Member for St. John's West today, nominated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Joan Cleary, Mr. Speaker, out in Bellevue. By the way, Mr. Speaker, Joan Cleary who has been knocking on doors - I think she hit every door in the district twice - for the first time she has the Member for Bellevue actually out campaigning today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: When he was Minister of Works, Services and Transportation he was spending money all over the place to try to get himself re-elected.

Of course, we have Kathy Dunderdale in Virginia Waters who is former President of the Federation of Municipalities, a good individual, quite qualified. I think I have covered them. We have others in the wings.

So, to have the Member for Gander, who is a lady herself, up trying to criticize the Leader of the Opposition for pushing and helping and supporting women in politics, is shameful.

Let me get to the Government House Leader, Mr. Speaker, who stood and asked the question: What do they stand for? Meaning us, Mr. Speaker. What do they stand for? Well, let me tell him what we stand for.

He said - and I was keeping some notes - that they have a plan, and he wants to know where is the Opposition's plan. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you this. We heard from the other side of the House a number or times, trying to portray us as not being consistent. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have two documents here now. We have the Throne Speech for this year and we have the Budget Speech for this year.

The Government House Leader himself stood up and quoted from this document, the Throne Speech, which was supposed to give the intent and the plan of the government. Now, I asked him what page he was referring to and he told me page 3. It says here, "A focused and realistic plan. He said, "Our plan is compelling and focused. It is not grandiose and unrealistic. My government strives for:" He talked about, "Excellent education for our children. Quality and accessible health care. Jobs to provide for our families." All motherhood stuff.

Then he says, "These are some of the real benefits for people which my Government plans to achieve." This is the Throne Speech.

Now, we had the Minister of Finance stand in her place, Mr. Speaker, and in the Budget Speech in this House of Assembly this is what she said, "Mr. Speaker, if the consolidated deficit were substantially higher and our outlook not as favourable..." These are the actual words in this House of Assembly by the Minister of Finance talking about a plan. She says, "...a much more detailed plan for deficit reduction could be needed."

Now, here we have the Minister of Finance and the Government House Leader saying they have a plan in the Throne Speech, and then she comes out in the Budget Speech and says, "...a much more detailed plan for deficit reduction could be needed."

Where are the details? The very thing they are accusing us of not doing, they are doing themselves in writing in two speeches in this House of Assembly: the Budget Speech and the Throne Speech.

Mr. Speaker, it goes on. It says here, "We believe revenue growth could account for all the fiscal improvement needed to eliminate the deficit, and more." Now, out there, they are basically saying our plan is that we hope that we are going to get in more revenue to take care of the deficit. It goes on to say, "If we target a modest $75 million reduction in the consolidated deficit each year commencing in 2004-05, this deficit will be eliminated over a four year period...". Now, they are talking about eliminating $75 million a year over the next four years; $300 million they are talking about eliminating. My question is: Where is the plan? What are you going to cut? What are you going to strip from the civil service? Who are you going to lay off? How many jobs are going out the door?

We saw it before. We saw it when this Administration was elected, when Clyde Wells, the former Premier of this Province came in, and 2,000 jobs out the window, and they are trying to portray us as doing this and they have been at it for fourteen years, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: That is the kind of change we want. That is the kind of change. I am being as relevant as I can be, quoting right from the Budget Speech.

Mr. Speaker, it goes on here. It gets interesting all the time. I want to talk about where the wastage is in government, Mr. Speaker. We have seen it time and time and time again with this Administration, over fourteen years, and they are questioning, why would the people want to change a government, and want to look at us instead of the sitting members on the government's side of the House of Assembly, when, as I said earlier, I have had this ad campaign talked about more often in my district, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money to promote the Premier of this Province. It was shameful. I am still hearing it today.

We have talked about, again, the former Auditor General, who is now a candidate for us in Topsail, who talked about over ten years - they are going to try and throw it up that it is politics, but I am sure ten years ago she was not talking about going into politics, or five or four - talking about the Financial Administration Act, and the abuse of the Financial Administration Act, and the circumventing and breaking of the Public Tender Act was up year after year after year, and the present Auditor General is confirming the same thing. We saw the court cases over the years. That is what we want to change. We want the abuse to be taken care of.

They talk about our policies; having none. We, this side of the House, the Opposition, have policy sessions all the time. We have announced them. We have talked about accountability in government. We have talked about lobbyists, and the list goes on and on, but the Administration are trying to grasp a hold of anything, the Liberal government, to try and portray us as having no policies when, in actual fact, they are void of any ideas over there themselves. That was shown in the last election when they used our policies over the past five years, or going on five years, to try and get some credit themselves, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) old, tired government.

MR. J. BYRNE: Old, tired government. It is an old, tired government, there is no doubt about that.

Mr. Speaker, let's look at the Budget Highlights themselves. Now, this is supposed to be and was promoted as the education budget. Well, Mr. Speaker, go talk to the school councils. Talk to the school boards and other individuals and talk about an education budget. Let's look at it. It says here in the K-12 system, "Despite declining enrolment, we are reinvesting a further $12 million in the education system to retain 218 teaching positions...". How many teaching positions are gone out the door this year, Mr. Speaker? How many? A good many.

It was only last week that I referred to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: How many? I referred to some.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, yes, I do.

I will talk about it, Mr. Speaker. "For the fourth consecutive year, an additional $1million has been allocated for the purchase of new library books" The Avalon East School Board, themselves here, thirty-five positions, I think, library resource people going out the door, and they are putting $1 million into library books and the library resource teachers are going out the door. That is the kind of stuff they are up to, Mr. Speaker.

Let's go on here, Payroll Tax. It says, A Future of Jobs and Growth. "Effective January 1, 2003, employers with payroll between $500,000 and $600,000 will be removed from the tax rolls...." Now, Mr. Speaker, we have been trying to get this ended all together, a payroll tax, a tax on jobs in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. When this was first implemented, I think it was on $100,000. If you had a payroll of $100,000 you had to pay a tax on it. Finally, it is getting up there and eventually, hopefully, it will be eliminated. That is something, I suppose, after the next election that hopefully we will be looking at.

Mr. Speaker, another thing here with respect to the deficit - the Minister of Education over there seems to find this quite funny, these very serious issues. He seems to be finding them really quite funny. I don't find them funny. The people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador do not find them funny. They are not laughing at it, Mr. Speaker. They are not laughing, and he might be laughing on the other side of his face in the near future.

Mr. Speaker, they are talking about their plan - their plan. Let's talk about their plan. In three years they have increased the deficit in this Province, they have increased the deficit in this Province by $1 billion. From 1949 up until three years ago the deficit, the total deficit, was $7.9 billion and in three years they have increased the deficit by $1 billion. They are saying, what a great job we are doing here. They want the people of the Province to re-elect them in the upcoming election. Well, hopefully the people of the Province will not buy into their plan over there, basically, Mr. Speaker, which is to try and tell the people of the Province that we have no plan.

We will show in the next election, when the election is called - and we are doing it now, by the way, gradually bringing out our policies. They are choosing to ignore our policies but, Mr. Speaker, I suppose after the next election we will have the opportunity, and hopefully we will. It depends on the people of the Province, of course, and no one can second-guess or prejudge, whatever the case may be, but hopefully after the next election the people will see that fourteen years of Liberal Administration has gotten them nowhere. It is getting them nowhere, other than further and further and further in debt.

The people of the Province will see that we have a plan, that we are putting forth a plan as time goes by, and we are doing it, bringing out policies. Time is getting short now, Mr. Speaker. An election could be called within weeks, or it could be called certainly within months, and we will be ready for that. This Budget we talk about is not what they have tried to portray it to be: an education budget.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about a few things on the history of Newfoundland and Labrador and what has happened to this Province. Let's go back to when we were first discovered 500 years ago, and the old barrel judges giving away our resources over the years, sitting down and saying: Okay, that fish goes here, and that fish goes here, the salt fish, or whatever the case may be. It goes on over the years that we either give away - and it comes back to our management. We gave away our land for the railway to make someone else rich. We gave away our ore on Bell Island, and again it was shipped out of here over the years. We gave away our ore in Labrador. It is only recently that we had the Premier sign the Voisey's Bay deal. The true story on that, time will tell. My humble opinion is that ore, once it is shipped out of here, will never come back. For the Premier of the Province to stand here and to say that it will come back is living in a fool's paradise to even consider it.

We have our fish being used over the years, especially since 1949, as a bartering system for other countries. Again, our resource is shipped out of here. Our Hydro deal - again, we saw the Premier of this Province - and our biggest problem over the years, and the point I am trying to make on all of this, is that politicians, there have been good and bad, but, I am telling you, in my opinion, the state that we are in, in this Province today, is because of politicians trying to get re-elected and to sign anything to get re-elected. We have now an election year on. Only last year or the year before the Minister of Finance said the word deficit was a bad, negative word, and could not use. All of a sudden, this year is an election year and $286 million in cash deficit alone is okay this year. It is okay to have a major, major deficit this year. Why? Because it is an election year. It goes back to the point that I am making with respect to our resources. Over the years - and this was before Confederation and what have you.

MR. SPEAKER (Butler): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: Just in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I just want to finish this point, and that is this. Over the years politicians, as I said, have been good and bad, but especially around election time - and this is an election year - some politicians will sign their souls away to get re-elected. That is half the reason why, or most of the reason why, this Province is in the poor fiscal condition that it is in today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before we continue, I would like to make a ruling on a point of order that was brought forth by the Opposition House Leader on April 8, 2003. On that particular date, the hon. the Opposition House Leader raised a point of order concerning comments made during the debate by the hon. the Minister of Education. The Chair took the matter under advisement to review the transcript and the precedents. The words of the Minister of Education, to which exception was taken were, "That is something I can say that that crowd opposite never had the guts to do." That is in Hansard, page 527, on April 8.

Upon reviewing our precedents we find that this expression has been ruled unparliamentary in the past and, for example, on November 19, 1999, the member who used the expression at that time was asked to withdraw, which he did.

On another occasion, April 11, 2001, a similar point of order was raised. Although the Speaker had not heard the expression used on that occasion he cautioned against the use of such language in the House.

In the opinion of the Chair, this language is not appropriate for use in Parliamentary debate and I would now ask the hon. the minister to withdraw the remark.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will always be guided by your wisdom and judgement. I therefore withdraw the remark.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to pick up where the Member for Cape St. Francis left off, speaking about the highlights of the Budget. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we are very proud, as a government, with some of the highlights, some of the things that we have done as a government especially with respect to small business.

I want to speak today a little bit about this government and small business, and how we believe in small business, and the difference in the position taken by the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the government.

If you look at what we have done as a government with respect to small business, we have made tremendous strides in terms of supporting small business in Newfoundland and Labrador. Just to mention a couple of the highlights from Budget 2003, if you look at the payroll tax, for example, "Effective January 1, 2003, employers with payroll between $500,000 and $600,000 will be removed from the tax rolls and employers whose payroll is between $600,000 and $700,000 will receive a reduction in their payroll tax burden."

That is a significant change, Mr. Speaker, and one that we are very proud of as a government, but I have to say that is the position of this government and it still begs a question what the position of the members opposite would be with respect to the payroll tax. Clearly, there is no clarity when the different members opposite speak to the issue of the payroll tax.

For instance, let me speak about the Blue Book back in 1999, which said that they would eliminate the payroll tax. That is one thing for the Blue Book to say that, but now there is a new leader there, Mr. Speaker, and the Leader of the Opposition has said he will not make a commitment on the tax until I find out exactly what the fiscal state of our Province is.

We are getting two different stories coming from the members opposite with respect to the payroll tax. We are clearly on record as doing everything we can to eliminate the payroll tax, especially for small business. We are doing that and we will get to that before the end of our next term. We intend on being here and fully expect to be here for another term.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting when you look at what this government has done with respect to small business and what the members opposite are suggesting they would do.

In fact, we have a Premier who has great respect for the people who serve with him in government; so much so that he ensures that when he looks at his Cabinet he knows that they can take responsibility for different areas of government. What does the Leader of the Opposition do? The Leader of the Opposition intends to have another arm of government responsible for small business, reporting to the Premier. I am not sure what that says when he looks around at the members opposite, when he cannot look one of them in the face and say: I would like for you to take responsibility for small business.

No, Mr. Speaker, the process here for the Leader of the Opposition is, he wants to take responsibility for small business. He and only he can take care of small business in this Province - and the irony when we talk about small business in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, here is a man, the Leader of the Opposition, who talks about, that the best thing he can do for government is bring to government his experience, his business experience. Well, I guess you can bring your experience if you think running a monopoly is good experience in a Province like Newfoundland and Labrador. I am sure with the cable company it could not be very difficult to be successful in business.

There are other opportunities, though, to speak to here in terms of where they stand on business and what the Leader of the Opposition's record has been with respect to small business. One case in particular brings to mind a company called Firewood Experts International Limited. I just question, if that is an example of what would work in terms of small business, I have to question that, because the question would be: Where is that company now? A company which they worked very closely with and which he was one of the key owners.

Having said that, of course, one of the other things that the Opposition is on record as saying, is their whole idea behind grants and subsidies for businesses, and the fact that if they were in government there would not no grants or subsidies. In fact, in the 1999 Blue Book, the Opposition House Leader, who is no longer the Leader of the Opposition, clearly stated that a PC government would end the practice of providing loans or grants to businesses.

That is an interesting position to be taken by the former Leader of the Opposition, who is now the House Leader of the Opposition, when you consider that his leader, the now Leader of the Opposition, took advantage of small loans and grants and subsidies from the government. In fact, it was interesting to note that the very same company, Firewood Experts International, which was owned by Mr. Williams, the Leader of the Opposition, availed of $750,000 from Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador. Guess what, Mr. Speaker? Over $675,000 of that $750,000 was actually written off by the government of the day because that particular company went under.

So, if we want to talk about Mr. Williams bringing his experience in business, that is his best asset that he is bringing to government, well, that is questionable, Mr. Speaker. Questionable indeed. And the different stories we are getting from what the Opposition Leader says versus what the Opposition House Leader said when he was Opposition Leader, the two stories just do not jell.

We are not quite sure where they stand with respect to small businesses. We do know that the Leader of the Opposition has determined that when he become leader, heaven forbid, if he ever becomes leader, he would be responsible for small business.

Having said, responsible for small business, obviously he is questioning whether or not any of the gentlemen or the lady opposite would, in fact, be considered to be competent to take care of small business if he were to form the government. But we do not have to worry about that, Mr. Speaker, because we know that is not going to happen.

Something else that the Opposition House Leader said he would do in the 1999 Blue Book, and we have not heard from the Opposition Leader on this, Mr. Speaker, is he would get rid of EDGE. He would get rid of EDGE, the program that we have which really supports investment attraction. The program we have that points out how important it is to recognize business and to attract it, do everything we can to attract business to this Province. EDGE makes this Province the most competitive jurisdiction in Canada for encouraging new business investment.

We have enhanced business benefits for anyone starting up or expanding. In rural areas - I am not sure what they say opposite. I know what the 1999 position was of the then Leader of the Opposition, who is now the Opposition House Leader, and it was to get rid of EDGE. Well, what would companies like Rutter Technologies, LoTek Wireless, Guigné Technologies, (inaudible) and Terra Nova Shoes, where would they be today without EDGE? These are the companies that have been benefitting from EDGE. We believe in those companies and, obviously, they saw an opportunity here. They knew that if they had access to programs like EDGE, like loans and grants that, in fact, it would enable them to grow their businesses to take advantage of these opportunities. Of course, in growing these businesses they are able to employ more people. Clearly, the members opposite, should they form the government, would do away with EDGE. They would do away with loans and grants to businesses. In fact, I am not sure how many businesses we would have here. Certainly, not to be able to expand in the manner which they have been able to do because this government has made a point of working with them and being partners with them.

The position which we have taken, Mr. Speaker, we want to continue to support small business and we have done this through any number of measures. Certainly, by decreasing or eliminating the payroll tax is clearly something that we are doing and we are doing a good job of that. In fact, as a result of the measure that we took in the Budget, which saw the elimination of the payroll tax for small businesses with payrolls between $500,000 and $600,000, as a result of that measure 160 employers will be removed from the payroll tax and 120 employers will pay less tax. We believe in eliminating the payroll tax but the members opposite, while one says: Yes they do. The other one says: Well, I am not quite sure. I need to see the books first. So two totally different stories coming out of the members opposite.

We also have put in place, as a result of Budget 2003, a corporate income tax holiday for new small businesses in growth sectors of the economy. The tax holiday will provide a provincial corporate income tax exemption to allow eligible new small businesses incorporated between April 1, 2003, and March 31, 2006. We have gone a step further than that, Mr. Speaker, because we believe in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and we know that we have to do everything we can to attract business to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We know that rural Newfoundland and Labrador has a lot to offer but sometimes they need a hand up - not a handout but a hand up - to try and make sure that companies who want to relocate also recognize what rural Newfoundland and Labrador has to offer.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things we did in Budget 2003 was to make sure that we gave every opportunity to rural Newfoundland and Labrador to realize in opportunities for businesses that want to relocate to Newfoundland and Labrador or expand in Newfoundland and Labrador. For businesses located on the Northeast Avalon, the tax holiday will be provided for the new company's first three fiscal years. The tax holiday will apply for five years for those companies located outside the Northeast Avalon. Clearly, we recognize the importance of doing everything we can, as a government, to make sure that rural Newfoundland has every opportunity to attract business, thereby finding employment opportunities for people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

We also increased the small business corporate income tax threshold, Mr. Speaker, from $200,000 to $300,000 over four years, in $25,000 increments annually. This move alone will benefit over 3,000 companies in Newfoundland and Labrador when fully implemented. Again, these are initiatives of this government led by Premier Grimes who recognizes the importance of rural Newfoundland and Labrador and who has taken the leadership role to do everything we can to support rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Relief from provincial corporate income tax during the early years of operation will allow new companies to invest more resources and increase their chances of long-term success.

Other initiatives that we have taken, Mr. Speaker, our direct equity tax program is being enhanced to provide a tax credit to arms-length corporations that make investments in eligible businesses. Also announced in the Budget was the labour sponsored Venture Capital Corporation which we are establishing in the Province, or a suitable alternative. We are also looking at reducing unnecessary Red Tape, Mr. Speaker. Again, as a way to help businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, all of this is being done through a Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development; a department that is headed up by a minister. It has always been headed up by a minister because the premiers on this side, Mr. Speaker, and certainly Premier Grimes, has always recognized the talent that he has in his government. He has no qualms at all about relying on his ministers to get the job done. Opposite to what we are hearing from the Leader of the Opposition - and I sometimes wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether or not any of the members opposite will have Cabinet positions if they should ever form a government or, if in fact, the Leader of the Opposition would do it all. You may have a number of parliamentary assistants over there, Mr. Speaker, but hardly ministers. I would be a little concerned if I were on the opposite side.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of other things that we have done that we are very proud of as a government is that we have created two programs to assist small business to take advantage of new growth opportunities in our economy. We have a $2 million small business Seed Capital Equity Program and a $500,000 small business Market Development Program. Those are initiatives, Mr. Speaker, of this government, things that clearly would not sit well with the members opposite. I can see that they couldn't possibly support it because they are on record as saying they would do away with loans and grants.

This is from the 1999 Blue Book, "A PC government will end the practice of providing loans or grants to businesses. A PC government will eliminate the EDGE Program, which provides subsidies to some companies at the expense of other existing local companies." So, clearly the position of the members opposite - and some of them are still there. In fact, the person who is being quoted here is now the Opposition House Leader; very pointed, very clear in his position. I would expect, unless he has gone against his own leader, that we have differing views here in terms of what they would or would not do with respect to small business.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition House Leader, when he was, in fact, the leader - it is hard to keep track of all the leaders here - he said: For fifty years governments have tried, without great success, to subsidize our way to economic prosperity. Government intervention, he said, Mr. Speaker, destroys opportunity. Well, maybe we need to be saying that to companies like Rutter Technologies, Guigne International and Lotek Wireless. Tell them that government intervention destroys opportunity.

On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, they will tell you that they appreciate and they welcome the partnership with government, because they know that it can be difficult to deal with the banks, it can be difficult to find other sources of revenue to help them grow their businesses. They look to government, Mr. Speaker, to partner with them, recognizing that in a Province like Newfoundland and Labrador there are only 530,000 people here, we are spread out around 10,000 miles of coastline, and if we do not help each other and work with each other then we do not have a very bright future at all.

It is indeed very important for us to recognize the competent businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador. They are not coming to us because they want to, Mr. Speaker. They are coming to us because they know that we are quite willing to work with them, to partner with them.

Through our Seed Equity and Business Market Development Programs we make equity contributions available on a matching basis to new entrepreneurs or existing small businesses seeking expansion opportunities in areas of the economy that offer significant growth potential.

What is wrong with that? What is wrong with working with a company, to help them grow, to help them expand, to help them compete on a national and international scene, Mr. Speaker? We have an obligation to do that, and we have done that by putting these programs in place, because as a government we believe in opportunities in Newfoundland and Labrador. We believe there are opportunities there and we certainly believe in our businesses.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about small business, 95 per cent of our businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador are small businesses, and they employ over 80 per cent of the people who are employed in Newfoundland and Labrador. When you talk about small business, we have to realize that small business is indeed the backbone of our Province and we need to do everything we can to support them, recognizing, of course, that there are limitations, but it is important for us to recognize how valuable and what a tremendous contribution small businesses make to Newfoundland and Labrador.

The programs that I have talked about, Mr. Speaker, assist a number of companies Province-wide. In fact, I had the pleasure a couple of weeks ago of visiting Bell Island with my colleague, the member, the hon. Jim Walsh, to visit a new galvanizing plant on Bell Island. It is a wonderful opportunity. It is the only galvanizing plant in the Province, established on Bell Island, and will eventually employ fifteen people. Over there now, the five people who have been hired on are people who worked seasonal prior to this. They are now hired on, on a permanent basis, and this government put in $40,000 to help that business relocate to Newfoundland and Labrador, and we did it under the Small Business Seed Capital Equity Program. Our money helped them, in fact, to construct the new manufacturing plant over there and make some changes to the building that existed.

We are very pleased about that initiative and we look at that as just one example of what we can do in rural Newfoundland and Labrador to make sure that the small business sector survives.. I can tell you, there was great feeling on Bell Island when we were there that day because they recognize they can do this. They can do this. There is nothing interfering with that business opportunity because they are located on Bell Island. When people say - they express amazement of what is happening in the rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, I heard the Leader of the Opposition on the Open Line program one morning calling in and talking about these couple of business he had a chance to visit in rural parts of our Province, and he was amazed. He was absolutely amazed at how well they were doing. My response at the time - of course, I end up talking to the radio half of the time when I am driving - was to say: Why? Why not rural Newfoundland and Labrador? Why would anyone be amazed or surprised that we could have -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS FOOTE: By leave to finish up, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we know there are tremendous opportunities in Newfoundland and Labrador, especially in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and this government has made a point of bringing in initiatives to ensure that rural Newfoundland and Labrador will continue to exist and thrive.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I was certainly willing to give the member some more time if she wants to clue up some of her remarks, but I think she got to her points, or most of her points, especially once she got serious. For the first part of her twenty minutes or so, she was not that serious. I was starting to wonder why and take a few notes as to why she was not so serious. Then, of course, I still remember looking back at what this is all about. We look at this Budget 2003, and we see the front cover, The New Newfoundland and Labrador. Not The Newfoundland and Labrador. The New Newfoundland and Labrador.

Make no wonder, Mr. Speaker, that time after time today as each member rose in their place, they all had this theme: Let's forget about the last fourteen years. Let's not talk about that. Let's be forthright. Look to the future. Let's not think about it.

Make no wonder, Mr. Speaker, they want to talk about the new Newfoundland and Labrador, and what is going to happen past 2003. Maybe, Mr. Speaker, that is why the minister was not so serious in her comments in the beginning and could not keep a straight face, because she knows the difference. We have stood here, myself and some of the members, some now for ten years - there was an anniversary just a few days ago, that we have been here - some other members for four and five and three years, and the leader for over two years now. Make no wonder, Mr. Speaker, the minister started to smile a little bit as she talked about some of those. Like the payroll tax, just think about it. The payroll tax. The minister gets up and talks about reducing and getting rid of the payroll tax and how they are moving in that direction. What has this party said for the last number of years? I do not know exactly how many years, but how many years have we talked about the payroll tax and how it hinders jobs in this Province? Make no wonder she is ashamed of that policy, because they were the ones who stuck to it. Now they are starting to reduce it, Mr. Speaker. Now they are starting to reduce it.

Then they got up with such things earlier today and talked about the education. This is the education budget, Mr. Speaker. This is the great education budget. Now you go around this Province today and talk to students and teachers, in both high school and post-secondary, and ask them how impressed they are with the education budget of this Province. You will get a big yawn, Mr. Speaker, because the truth is such things as - again, why the minister was smiling today. When she talks about decreased tuition and post-secondary, 25 per cent - they can correct me maybe later, but over the last two or three years a 25 per cent reduction. Yes, that is true, a 25 per cent reduction.

The minister was smiling because she knows - I do not have the exact numbers here but they are talking about a 25 per cent reduction in the last three or four years and praising themselves for it but at the same time forgetting - again, because it is the new budget. They do not want to look back, but this government raised tuition by over 300 per cent since 1989. But lets forget about that, we do not want to talk about the last fourteen years and that they increased tuition by over 300 per cent. Some say as high as 350 per cent, but they say they decreased it by 25 per cent. Math will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there is still a great problem when it comes to tuition hikes in this Province and we all know that.

Then also what was blatant today, Mr. Speaker, time after time - and it is so obvious to anybody who is listening to this debate, because when you get up in Budget Debate you get a chance to talk about a variety of issues throughout. But, Mr. Speaker, one by one it was a direct aim at the Leader of the Opposition. Not on his stand on - because they say we have no position - Voisey's Bay, a major issue in this Province; not on his stand on what we have done as an Opposition in our jobs, and the Leader - especially on our position with the Lower Churchill deal, which is about to be signed by this government. No, they did not attack him on any of those issues. It was personal attacks.

Lets see the first attack, Mr. Speaker. The first attack was by the Member for Gander. Try to get this now. They did not attack him on stands like Voisey's Bay or the Lower Churchill. They did not attack him on our position on accountability, which was just released a while ago in our policy; and many, many other continuous news conferences. No, the Member for Gander was going to attack him because he said he thought it was beautiful in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. When he went to a certain community he said it was beautiful there. Well, I live in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and every time I go into one of my communities I say how beautiful it is. I do not think that is such a bad thing. By the way, Mr. Speaker, there are over 600 communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. I have been to many of them and I am still travelling around. We can still go out today and go to a new one, one that we have not been to ourselves. You always see something different and unique about rural Newfoundland and Labrador. So that was the first attack from the Member for Gander who talked about it was so beautiful.

All I can think about from the Minister of Justice - I tried to take some notes while he was up talking about it. All I could think about is that the Minister of Justice got up and talked about peekaboo. Now where that line is coming from and where he is going with it we have no idea, but that was his major criticism of the member.

Then the Minister of Industry and Trade gets up and her biggest criticism of our leader - no, it was not about Voisey's Bay, Lower Churchill, accountability; no, no not issues - that he was successful in business in Newfoundland and Labrador. Imagine, what a bad thing! He should be ashamed of himself, that a Newfoundlander and Labradorian was successful in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. What a shame! Do you think that Cable Atlantic was the business that it is today when he first took it over? Do you think he should hang his head in shame that he was successful, that a Newfoundlander and Labradorian in this Province, a person in business in this Province, was successful and very good at it? I do not think it is anything to be ashamed of.

Mr. Speaker, it was very obvious today, as members across the way got up and one by one did not attack an issue, did not attack a policy statement, it was personal attacks on the Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to change a little bit here now and thank the members opposite. The Minister of Education got up today and talked about twenty-one days. You are going to let it all out in twenty-one days. No, we have been letting it out all along. Our main platform for an election is the same as theirs is going to be, which is not revealed yet according to the Government House Leader. It has not been revealed yet. Our plan, like theirs - I want to thank them today in a roundabout way for giving us so much time, for giving the new leader of our party so much time over the last two years. By dragging out this election, which the Premier is still running from, it has given us more experience and more insight and more vision into where this Province should be going.

I will quote from the Minister of Justice. I took a few notes. I will quote him - and he can correct me if I am wrong. After he said peekaboo, he said: Change from what? That is the question people are going to be asking themselves. That is exactly what the people are going to be asking themselves. He hit the nail right on the head. What he cannot hide from is that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are going to say: Yes, okay, I saw your new Newfoundland and Labrador and your vision and your Budget, but I am going to have to remind you of a few things.

I remember standing in this House when the Member for Kilbride was the leader and we were talking about Marystown and what was happening down there. He brought forward reams of questions day after day. I remember him being laughed at by the Minister of Industry, the former Premier Tobin; a big laugh. I remember the day they were saying: You know, do not worry about the agreement. Do not worry about the agreement with Marystown. It is well protected. We can guarantee you, as a government, that it is well protected. You do not need to see the agreement. Trust us. Believe us. When we sell that for $1 everything is intact. Mr. Speaker, I do not need to say anything more about that issue because we know exactly what happened about Marystown being sold for $1.

Those are the types of things, Mr. Speaker, in this Province where the people of this Province are going to make a choice. That is what people in this Province are going to be turning around to make a choice.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, they are going to say: Change from what? They are going to start the review process. Yes, memories are short with some people. Some people will forget some issues but after fourteen years of an Administration of a regime there is going to be lots for people to look back over, and they are going to say: Do we still want some of the same or do we need a change? That is what people ask when they go to the polls when an election is called.

Mr. Speaker, being one of the members who has been here probably the longest now, next to the Member for Ferryland, over the last number of years, we do not forget, especially when you stand in this House for so long. We do not forget the pomp and pageantry of budgets past, when all the cameras were in here and all the lights were on. The current Premier, even many times now, of course, ridicules his former Premier who was here. But he did not do it then when there were standing ovations and one by one they would stand up. I remember the days of the budgets, stand up time after time to go over and shake the hand of the premier, Premier Tobin, and how wonderful everything was.

There will come a day, and it has to come sooner or later, whether it is weeks or months, when the people of the Province will get a chance to decide, through democracy, who governs this Province. Yes, Mr. Speaker, our positions will continue - for another few weeks, or if it is a few months - to be articulated by our leader, by different members of our caucus, on our position on many, many things. A platform for the election and for the vision that we want to see for the Province will be spelled out and the people will decide which plan they think is the best one. Will it be the one the Government House Leader talked about today that will be revealed down the road or will it be our plan? So, Mr. Speaker, it was obvious today when we started this debate, and from some members opposite, where they were going with this; not to talk about issues but to take personal attacks on the Leader of the Opposition and members of our caucus and, I think, people will see that for what it is.

Mr. Speaker, those are just a few comments made from people opposite. When I stand in this House of Assembly, especially on Budget Debate, it gives you a chance to talk about your district and issues. Now, I was glad that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology started to talk about small businesses. I want to just talk about that for a few minutes, because I believe she is right in some of the things she said today, that, in fact, it is true, especially in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and when it comes to small business in this Province it is the key, it is no doubt the key. A lot of people say, in many instances, that small business has the solutions if we would just let them go ahead with their plans. Too often, Mr. Speaker, in this last fourteen years, in the regime of this Party, too many small businesses, too many young entrepreneurs, have given up or left the Province because they were tired of the red tape and trying to move ahead in small business in Newfoundland and Labrador today.

The minister talks about incentives. Yes, there are some incentives, Mr. Speaker, but too often young people especially, have had good ideas. I have talked to people in my own district and I have talked to colleagues of mine who have had young people come in and sit down with them, who have had sound business ideas, sound business plans, but time after time - I know the government members hear it also. I am not just saying it is provincial bureaucracy, there is federal bureaucracy also, that has turned people away from a good business idea because it got choked by the red tape and they had to throw down the gauntlet and leave. There are a lot of good ideas that went out the window.

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons that many of these young people have left is because they did not see a vision as to where this Province was going. They did not know if we were going with a five-year plan or a ten-year plan. It always seems to be - and Mr. Speaker, I am going to relate to Works, Services and Transportation and roads in a second because of it - a long-term plan, longer than going from April to April, rushing at the last minute when you see a budget come into this House of Assembly. It seems like it is printed at the last minute. All of a sudden we go from one year to the next. There has never been a two-year plan, a three-year plan or a five-year plan.

I will just use an example and tie it to this, Mr. Speaker - it is something I wanted to talk about today in my own district and I know it relates to many districts throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is roads. The infrastructure in this Province has, so many times, been spoken about. I know I raised it many times. Many members on both sides of the House have raised it. There is no monopoly on concerns on roads. As I travel the Province I see it throughout this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, that unless we get something controlled, when it comes to the transportation, the roads, throughout this Province we are going to be in a sad state for young entrepreneurs, for new business or for anybody to invest in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Simply put, if you do not have a decent road transportation system who is going to invest, Mr. Speaker?

When you talk about tourists, who is going to turn down a gravel road, such as in Harry's Harbour or Nippers Harbour in my district, which have the longest gravel roads of some seventeen kilometres? I was told the same thing this summer. There are beautiful trails out through both of those communities. Harry's Harbour has a beautiful trail out there. Some tourists went down and saw it. It has been promoted. There were many at the Springdale Junction who found out there was a gravel road, went over and saw it and turned around and came back and said: We are not bringing our machines down over those roads. They just would not stand the punishment.

That is what is turning away tourism. That is one example of business being turned away. What investor, or who is going to promote or build a business in a small community, when they see highways like La Scie highway, or Little Bay Road highway? The Member for Bay of Islands is shaking his head because he knows the highway, he knows what I am talking about. As I said, this is not a monopoly on any member. There are the same examples in my district as there are throughout the Province.

I will give you examples, specifically, of the roads that I just mentioned, as an example of it, the La Scie highway, Mr. Speaker, how it is connected to business. Here we have the La Scie plant that did very well last year; trucks going up and down there, which is as it is supposed to be. Last year they were losing contracts to truckers for the La Scie plant, because the roads were so bad and their trucks were being damaged so much, they were pulling out of it. That is how that was directly impacted in La Scie. They had problems. The truckers were saying: It is not worth my contract to beat up my truck so I cannot go down over it. We had a little bit of improvement on it last year, and hopefully some more this year.

In Little Bay: The same thing, Mr. Speaker, the road that leads out to Little Bay Islands and Beachside and so on. Unbelievable road conditions! It is as bad or worse than La Scie highway. That is the comparison, because they are both, by the way, thirty years old, thirty year old pavement. People said to me last week: It is just as well to come out and take up the pavement and go back to gravel roads. It would be better. Can you imagine that statement. Just think what that means. In this Province today, in 2003, people are asking for the pavement to be pulled up so that, at least, they will be able to grade the roads and it would be better than what is there.

Here was Little Bay last year, another good news story to be attached to that. Little Bay Islands plant did really well last year and looks like it is going to do really good this year. Do you know the biggest complaint again? Trucks going out over the road picking up the product would not stand for it, the roads were so bad.

The third one in my district - this is all in my district. King's Point: Another good news story. The mine, Hammerdown, the same thing. Those trucks, because they are commuting back and forth to the mill in Nugget Pond on the Baie Verte Peninsula, are over that road day after day, continuous go with those trucks. Again, back to transportation. The point that I am making is that the basic infrastructure in this province, like roads, unless we have a major investment in that infrastructure, then small business in rural Newfoundland hurts. You cannot talk people into investing in rural Newfoundland and Labrador if you haven't got a decent road to drive over.

So, Mr. Speaker, yes, that is what we believe, that you have to put some priority back on basic infrastructure, like roads. Again, with the La Scie Highway, as I just mentioned, besides the plant and how well they did and the big trucks going back and forth - the same thing with Nugget Pond which is on the La Scie Highway, with the ore trucks. Then, Mr. Speaker, to add to all the rest of it, the forestry, the logging trucks are going up and down all the time. We have the three main industries, fishing, mining and forestry, all with big trucks; good transportation needed, not there. What a shameful thing.

Two years ago, Mr. Speaker, I remember standing in this House, and the fact that Nugget Pond might have had to close down at one point because of the condition of the road. That a gold mine in this Province would have to shut down - it was doing great, markets were good, the numbers were good, there were people working there, but they would have had to shut down because of the condition of the La Scie Highway. Now, that is a pretty desperate statement to make in this Province in 2003. Here we are trying to promote all of our other industries and we don't have the basic infrastructure.

We have got to attack the real problem here. It has been out of control for too long and that is why I wanted to use most of my time today on that very important issue, because it is critical. If rural Newfoundland and Labrador is going to have any chance at all, if they are going to have any chance, they have to have the basic infrastructure of roads and water and sewer. If these small communities had decent water to drink - we have complaints of over 200 boil orders throughout Newfoundland and Labrador - and a decent road to drive over, then they would have a chance. Without that, Mr. Speaker, they don't have a chance. I talk to mayors, councillors and other people throughout my district day after day and it is the same complaint over and over.

The minister has got to deal with that again this year, Mr. Speaker. I have talked to the Minister of Transportation about it. As a matter of fact, usually he has asked for written responses. In my nine years here I have never written the minister, I have always talked to him and I find that, on a personal basis, you can talk back and forth and tell him exactly what the district is like. In all fairness to the minister, look at what he has to work with this year. All members opposite know the same thing. He is going to go to a minister who has $340 million in requests on his desk for roadwork and he has $20 million. Well, it is $23 million but it works out to about $18 million, actually, for road work. This minister has to work with all of us in here, with all the problems we are talking about of $340 million and he has $20 million. Mr. Speaker, you don't need to be a financial wizard to know that that is not going to work.

The problem is this, this has been happening for the last five years. Mr. Speaker, he has $300 million in requests and he has only been getting $20 million to answer to it. Obviously, the problem has grown and grown and grown. I can say it again now, I have said it publicly over the last few days, it is probably the worse situation we have been in when it comes to road conditions in Newfoundland and Labrador, today. It is simple, the pavement is getting older. I just mentioned Little Bay, La Scie and the King's Point road, all are thirty years and over. On top of all of that, we still have 900 kilometres of gravel road on the Island portion of the Province, not even talking about the Labrador Highway and all of that, so we have got a major problem to catch up on.

I know I only have a couple of minutes left, but I want to use most of my time on the transportation issue today. We need a long-term plan, number one, more than a year-to-year where we all run to the minister and try to squawk for a few crumbs. There is going to be fighting again this year because nobody is going to get near what they want. That is the reality of it. We need the long-term plan, but we have to have a federal-provincial agreement. We just have to have it. If we don't, we will not get it. We will not address this problem the way it should be addressed.

Unless there is a federal agreement, and unless that plan calls for a five- and ten-year outlook on what roads we are going to address, because we are going to take some time to catch up, if that does not happen, then lots of parts of rural Newfoundland and Labrador do not have a chance for the investment that the minister was talking about. They do not have a chance with the small business that we are talking about. They are not going to look to rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador to invest or to start a small business when we do not have a decent road and we do not have decent water to drink.

Mr. Speaker, that is what we have talked about. That is what this party has talked about many times. That is what our leader has talked about. I know I have mentioned it many times in this Legislature, and publicly, that we have to get our priorities straight when it comes to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. If rural Newfoundland and Labrador does no rejuvenate and rebound - and there are some good stories out there but there are some tough stories out there too. Until rural Newfoundland and Labrador rebounds and starts to come back, this Province is not coming back. That is the heart and soul of Newfoundland and Labrador, the rural areas and, yes, the beautiful places that the Member for Gander talked about.

Mr. Speaker, it is not good enough to stand in this House and not talk about issues dead on instead of personal attacks on people, whether it be the Leader of the Opposition or members in this House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: I think we should be dealing with the issues and what people in Newfoundland and Labrador want to talk about.

Mr. Speaker, I know my time is up, but when the times comes, and the time is coming, you can run from it but you cannot hide from it - an election. Thank God for democracy and thank God for mandates running out, because the time is going to come in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador where the people will have a clear, clear choice, either to go with the same old last fourteen years regime, the same old status quo, or to look to a new vision, a vision that is going to look forward with a plan of five and ten years to move this Province in the right direction, where I think it can go if the right decisions are made in the next little while.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand that the House may be rising at 5:00 p.m. Depending on what I say, we could be here until midnight.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to begin from the premise that I have heard throughout the afternoon, and that is the talk of change. My big concern is, it is not change from but change what to. What is it that we will actually be moving to, should change become the reality that the Opposition would so much like to see happen?

For example, Mr. Speaker, when I look at the House of Assembly today in terms of change, I believe that there are probably only one or two members in the Opposition who were elected prior to 1993. When I look at this side of the House of Assembly, and I remember when I came to the House myself, there were some fifty-two members and I think there are only eight of us left from the class of 1989. As I said, in Opposition, I do not believe there is anyone except maybe one or two prior to the class of 1993. I think there were a couple elected in by-elections. One, and then, of course, the Member for Lewisporte area. The question is, a change to what?

One of the things that I fear most in terms of any talk of change is when we look at what we would expect. We know the plan of this government. It has been laid out; we can see it. We know exactly what our position is. We just had a Throne Speech and a Budget and we know the direction that this government is moving. The big concern I have when we talk about change is when I hear the comments that we will begin to run government like a business. We will begin to treat government like a business and we will administer it like a business. Most businesses that I know today operate on the bottom line. They operate to either, one, make profit and money for the owner of the company, or to make sure that the shareholders have a return.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WALSH: That is not in my speech.

Running it like a business also means that the kinds of decisions that the Leader of the Opposition said in his speech to the Board of Trade, are very reminiscent of the speech made by a former premier, the second-last premier of the PC Party, the tough decisions will have to be made. That particular premier at the time did not want to face the tough decisions, but the man who would like to be premier says that tough decisions will have to be made.

When you think like a businessman, and he spends most of his time telling us all about his tremendous business prowess, telling us how successful he has been, well, indeed, he has been successful. He has been successful when it comes to running a monopoly. I heard him also say in the House of Assembly that, well, it is not an monopoly because there are other sources out there and there are other groups that you could get a cable service from. Yes, and most of those have come in the last two years and that is when he decided to flip the company and move out.

I often wonder how much of the success that he has had has actually come from government. The cable licence, one would think, at that time, was not a gift directly to him from John Crosbie, who was a federal minister at the time, but it was probably a gift to him and about eight or ten others. I think some thirteen people were required at the time, to get a cable licence. Slowly, they were bought out and eliminated, and it came down to one. The same one who, while negotiating with the provincial government for 50 per cent of the telephone contract, which we gladly gave him because it was going to stay in this city, it was going to stay in this Province, only to find out that while the negotiations were on for us to give the 50 per cent of the telephone contract to this company, negotiations were taking place somewhere else in Canada to sell the same 50 per cent for some $50 million.

Now, I understand that was a good business deal as well. It was a good business deal, Mr. Speaker, because when the deal was made, half, I understand, of the money was taken in cash and the other half was in shares. A good business deal that one would think a person knew what they were doing. The only problem is that within six months the company that agreed to transfer the shares was virtually no more. I guess that $25 million was managed down to maybe $250,000 in value.

Running it like a business means also that you can make mistakes, and it is obviously on that one that the Leader of the Opposition made about a $20 million mistake. Beyond that, any of us who were in government at the time when we needed information and we wanted to get a number for someone in Joe Batt's Arm, the Louisiana operator said to us: Could y'all tell us what state that's in? Could y'all tell us where that is? When we said Newfoundland, she said: I don't think we have that state yet. And, she was right.

If we are going to run government like a business, and if we are going to ensure, as I have heard -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) call centre for Aliant, where (inaudible)?

MR. WALSH: The call centre for Aliant is probably somewhere else now because 50 per cent of the contract was given to someone else. It was diluted to the point that it had to go somewhere else.

One of the policies that they have in terms of looking to the future can also mean, how do you manage the resources that are in our Province? How do you manage what we have at our fingertips?

I can say to you that if our intention is to manage them in such a way that we have a belief in small business, that we have a belief that small business can flourish, I can tell you that in rural Newfoundland small business has a greater chance of flourishing if we are willing to participate and help them, if we are willing to help them get off the ground.

Coming out of the tourism sector, where I spent a good part of my life, at least in that industry, I remember when there was half-a-dozen bed and breakfasts in Newfoundland. They came to a hospitality convention and I was able to convince that half-a-dozen or so to form an association, to work with each other and help each other. Today there are some 300 of them and all of them, somewhere along the way, received help from government. It is not the normal business that you would want to be involved in, and that is where I become concerned when someone has been a sole proprietor in a lot of cases, whether or not they will think in terms of reaching out to help that smaller group, or if they will focus their energies and focus their concentration on the big things.

Tough decisions are made by all of us. I stand here today, having sat here for the last number of weeks, listening to petition after petition looking for yet more roadwork. I stand here today having heard petition after petition requiring more in health care. If we were to add them all up, we could probably do one item right: take the entire budget and roll it into one item, whether it is roads, as discussed on the Baie Verte Peninsula or other places, and I have stood here in the House and readily admitted that in terms of roads I wish I had $50 million to $60 million because we would probably need $50 million a year just to try to stay ahead of it. This year we are $1 million ahead of where we were; we are running at $23 million.

At least the people of Newfoundland and Labrador know exactly what it is that we intend to spend on roads. To ask the question of where is the extra money for it, I would like to know and I would think, from listening to the Member for Baie Verte, I would like to assume that he is telling us that his policy with respect to roads and the policy of his party with respect to roads will be much higher in its expenditure on an annual basis than we have been doing on provincial roads. Would it be another $30 million a year, $40 million, $20 million? I am just wondering what the number would be. It was $23 million this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WALSH: No, no, the provincial roads; never mind the federal government. Are you telling me that the $23 million that we are spending, you would make that $43 million? Are you nodding?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, (inaudible).

MR. WALSH: You are telling me that your party would spend $43 million a year. Is that what you are saying?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, (inaudible).

MR. WALSH: Oh, you are not saying that? You are saying that you would do something different but you will not tell us what it is.

I guess that is a good business approach. A good business approach is to slip in the back door, make a deal the best you can, sweeten the deal if you have to, but never, never stand and say what it would be.

When it comes to meeting the health needs of Newfoundland and Labrador, let's ask exactly what we expect the other people to do but let's not tell anyone what our own plan would be. Tough decisions.

Lana Payne wrote in an article in The Telegram, it says: Williams has repeatedly complained about the deficit but he has not offered one suggestion how he might eliminate it. Instead, he said, people should just trust me. People should just trust me. I am saying, trust me. I am saying that I think I would be a better fiscal manager of this Province than Roger Grimes. I want you to trust me.

I would believe that is the exact same trust that we showed when we offered a company that was owned by the Leader of the Opposition a telephone contract. A telephone contract that was worth $50 million a year, that would stay not only in the Province, that would stay in the City of St. John's but it would stay in the Province.

The strength of having that contract was based on: Trust me, it will stay here, we will do it here. It was within a very short period of time that we realized that the operators in Louisiana were answering the telephones. The trust me on that one disappeared before the ink was dry. Before the contract had a chance to be filed, it was being negotiated for a resale to yet another company in Canada. A handsome profit, $50 million, for a contract that you never had to implement. Not a bad way to go if you are going for a person and not for the people.

Running a government like a business, it cannot work. It cannot work in this Province. It could probably work in Alberta. It can work in Alberta, where the funds that are pouring into you on a daily basis just keep coming and coming and coming. It cannot work in a Province like Newfoundland because your social conscience has to be much stronger than your desire for profitability, than your desire to balance the books, than your desire to meet what a banker would say is the year-end financial statement.

I listened to complaints, for example, about the exemptions to the Public Tender Act. I wonder how the truckers would have felt on the West Coast when we had the landslide, if I had called for tenders and the roads were going to be closed for up to two weeks, and instead of calling for tenders we simply hired the available equipment and said: Get the job done.

When we opened up the road, within twenty-four hours we had another calamity and another catastrophe and that being that the bridge had collapsed. I guess we should have gone to tender then to see if we should. I guess a good business approach would have been to call a public tender. Well, we did not. We hired the best people available to get the highway opened.

I can tell you that if your sole platform and if your sole program is to decide that government will operate like a business, I feel not for the people on the Avalon Peninsula where the economy is doing well, but I feel in my heart for the people in rural Newfoundland. I feel for the people on the Northern Peninsula and on the South Coast, and I feel for the people in the areas of Twillingate, New World Island, and areas like that, because you cannot sustain those communities strictly with a business approach. They need help and they need help, in most cases, from the provincial Treasury.

Mr. Speaker, I know I will get another opportunity to speak during debate on this particular issue, but I guess I will take leave now based on the clock. I understand we are closing in two minutes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, with the House's consent, I give notice that on tomorrow I will make a motion that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, before making a motion of adjournment for the day, I want to remind hon. members about a couple of Estimates Committee meetings.

The Resource Committee will meet this evening at 7:00 to review the Estimates of Expenditure of the Department of Fisheries, and the Social Services Committee will meet tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. to review the Estimates of Expenditure of the Department of Justice.

Mr. Speaker, I move that this House do now adjourn.

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