April 29, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 25


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Before we begin the afternoon's proceedings, the Chair would like to recognize the Skills Link Group of Robert's Arm, District of Windsor-Springdale. They are visiting our House this afternoon, four young men and young women with their instructor, Kirsti Collins and their chaperon, Joy Bingle.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon, as well, we have member's statements from the following members: the hon. Member for Exploits, the hon. Member for St. John's Centre, the hon. Member for Port de Grave and the hon. Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

The hon. the Member for Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a well-known broadcaster and former Liberal member and minister of the Crown of this House of Assembly who passed away yesterday morning. Mr. John Nolan was born in St. John's and made a name for himself as a broadcaster and a politician.

Following a successful start in broadcasting, Mr. Nolan was elected to the House of Assembly for the first time in 1966 as the Member of the House of Assembly for the District of St. John's South. He was also elected to serve the constituents of Conception Bay South in 1975.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Nolan entered the Cabinet of then Premier Smallwood in 1968 and served in several portfolios, including Municipal Affairs, Supply and Services, Economic Development, and President of Treasury Board.

Following his political career, Mr. Nolan was a citizenship court judge and returned for a period of time to broadcasting, as well. As a volunteer in the community, Mr. Nolan was a founding director of Big Brothers, a well recognized organization in the Province, in Newfoundland and Labrador, and he also worked very closely with Lieutenant-Governor Jim McGrath at the time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join with me in sending condolensces to the family and in paying tribute to a very honourable former member of this House and former Cabinet Minister, Mr. John Nolan.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I join in the comments with the Leader of the Opposition. John Nolan was an absolutely wonderful individual, a man who crossed partisan lines and I must say, I watched with some great nostalgia last night at the clips that were on one of our local TV stations. It showed him in all his glory when he was a broadcaster, and that very distinct voice and personality. I knew him as a personal friend. I appreciated his advice from time to time and counsel that he gave me when I first entered politics. That is why I made the opening statement, that he certainly crossed all partisan lines. He was also a good friend of the father of a very good friend of mine. So there was also an even closer relationship there.

I join with the Leader of the Opposition, and of course all members of the House, in extending our condolences but also to pay tribute to a very fine gentleman and a wonderful Newfoundlander and Labradorian.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to join in expressing my condolences on the passing of John Nolan. He was a very fine Newfoundlander who had a deep and abiding interest in the Province, even into his retirement, Mr. Speaker, and throughout various illnesses that were challenged him. The last time I saw him was at Christmastime at a shopping mall and he took the time to ensure we had a lengthy conversation about the politics of the day, which he was always extremely interested in of course. He served this Province in the House of Assembly and as a broadcaster well known to many throughout the Province. We all are saddened by his passing as a consummate Newfoundlander, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to inform the House and hon. members of the House of the 50th anniversary of the Vera Perlin Society here in St. John's. This anniversary recognizes and celebrates the delivery of fifty years of services to individuals with developmental disabilities and their families.

The Vera Perlin Society was founded by Mrs. Vera Crosbie Perlin with the help of the United Church back in 1954. Through Mrs. Perlin's efforts, she persuaded the United Church Orphanage to donate a room in their church basement in their building on Hamilton Avenue, and she also persuaded Ms Molly Dingle to take on the responsibility of teaching the first class of students with developmental disabilities.

Mrs. Perlin received many of her ideas for instructing children with developmental disabilities through her visits to schools in Great Britain. I n later years, her teachers were sent there for training. Today, the Vera Perlin Society continues to provide services to the developmentally disabled community, following in its founder's wishes.

There are many events planned for this 50th Anniversary Year, but one that all members can help with is the Capital Campaign to upgrade and modernize their teaching facility here in St. John's.

I ask all hon. members to recognize the contribution of Mrs. Vera Crosbie Perlin and to support the Capital Campaign of the Society once it is more formally announced.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today to congratulate the Town of Bay Roberts and the Special Events Committee in announcing the lineup for the ninth annual and the fourth major Bay Roberts Klondyke Concert scheduled for July 31 this year. The three previous major concerts have brought an estimated $6 million to the local economy.

The lineup for this year's concert include: The Neal O'Leary Band; The Wilkinsons, Prism, Treble Charger, Blue Rodeo, Kim Mitchell, Air Supply, and BTO.

I would like to extend an invitation to all my colleagues in the House of Assembly and to all members of the general public to visit Bay Roberts and attend this family event. As in previous years, I would like to extend a very special invitation to our Premier, who visits each and every year, to come along and hear BTO sing their popular rendition of, "You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet".

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the great contributions of the residents of Harbour Breton who recently contributed to the Harbour Breton Volunteer Fire Department in a recent telethon. The televised fundraiser was hosted by Fire Chief Reg Bennett and firefighter Junior Lambert. The event contained many local performances gathered for the occasion.

Volunteer firettes manned the phones and firefighters helped in many ways, including collecting pledges around town. As the phones continued to ring, the total continued to climb on the display board. At the end of the day, $13,600 was raised from pledges and the firemen's TV bingo.

Fire Chief Bennett said the money raised would be used to make the new fast rescue truck fully operational.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in commending all residents of the Harbour Breton area for their generous contributions to ensure the volunteer fire department of Harbour Breton remains strong and ready to handle the many emergency situations in the area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The total allocated time for members' statements has now expired; however, with the leave of the House we could hear more statements if it is agreeable to the members. We have more statements than we have time in the six minutes allocated today. With leave?

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, at 2 o'clock this afternoon in the community of North West River, people from all across Labrador will gather to say goodbye to a woman, an Aboriginal woman, Beatrice Watts, who was born on the North Coast of Labrador and moved to North West River.

Mr. Speaker, Beatrice Watts raised a family who she loved very much, and not just her own children but the whole of Labrador was her family. She worked very hard toward education and she fought very hard for the children on the North Coast of Labrador. She believed that the children on the North Coast of Labrador did not deserve any more than what the children in the rest of the Province had, but she believed that they were entitled to what every child in other parts of this Province had the opportunity to enjoy in the education program.

Mr. Speaker, they say that memory is one gift of God that death cannot destroy. The memory of Beatrice Watts, like the true history, the culture and heritage of Labrador, will live in the hearts of many people, for a wonderful woman who gave so much. I am sure today that Labrador and many individuals are a lot better off because of people like Beatrice Watts.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to rise today and acknowledge a group of Level II and III students who are visiting St. John's from my district, from the community of Mary's Harbour. They are in the gallery today as well.

Mr. Speaker, it is on a very rare occasion that people from any part of my district have the opportunity to come to St. John's and to sit through a session of the Legislature of the House of Assembly. The real purpose of their trip is to look at post-secondary institutions in the Province. They have had an opportunity to visit the College of the North Atlantic, Memorial University, and the Marine Institute, so I wanted to take this opportunity to certainly wish them well as they look at their future endeavours, look at a career that will allow them to live in Newfoundland and Labrador and participate in growing this great Province of ours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to take a moment to acknowledge the efforts of an expatriate Newfoundlander, who is a member of the Ontario Legislature,for her quick action in restoring to the shelves of the Ontario liquor stores the product known as Screech.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, Marilyn Churley was born in old Perlican, was raised in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and has been a member of the Ontario Provincial Parliament for a number of years, and is Deputy Leader of the New Democratic Party.

She awoke to the sobering news, she says, of finding that Screech was no longer to be stocked on the Ontario liquor store shelves, and she took very quick action, Mr. Speaker, and by the end of the day had a change of heart for the Ontario Liquor Board who are now restocking Screech so that Newfoundlanders, and people who would like to be, will have an opportunity to partake of that beverage in Ontario.

As an ex-patriot Newfoundlander, I think we are pleased to know that they are doing their work elsewhere to promote Newfoundland culture, knowledge and understanding.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to ask a series of questions of the government, through the Premier or whomever chooses to answer, and I think it is important that the Premier give direct answers and deal seriously with this matter of creating a brand new law to force employees back to work who are already working.

The question, Mr. Speaker, for the Premier is this: Will the Premier finally acknowledge that there is no need to order workers back to work, who are already working, for health and safety reasons? Will he acknowledge that there is no need for health or safety issues to be addressed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, all hon. members are under the impression that as of today this matter will have come to a conclusion and this legislation will pass in the House of Assembly. I would just like to inform members that I instructed the House Leader yesterday, in consultation with caucus and members of the Cabinet, that we will not be proceeding with this legislation today. We have decided that we are going to postpone this until Monday, because we are in the process of continuing negotiations, that will continue on, hopefully, throughout the weekend and we can see where it goes. We are not going to try and negotiate with union leaders with a gun to their head, on the basis that it was rolling down to legislation being finalized this evening. We decided, collectively, that the appropriate and the right thing to do was to continue on with the negotiations.

If I may, I can elaborate on that or, if the Leader of the Opposition -

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: As well, what I did last night, again in consultation with my fellow members of Cabinet, and in particular the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board, I made contact with Mr. Puddister. I asked Mr. Puddister to personally meet me and have a chat with a view to making a suggestion to him with regard to a creative sick leave proposal that we felt was a reasonable proposal. I contacted him. He happened to be at home in Bay Bulls, and I was at the Confederation Building, so we talked about meeting. He said he was at home. I said: If you like, we can wait until tomorrow. He said: No, we can get together. I said: Look, the easiest thing for me to do is to come to you. He said: No, I will come.

We decided to meet halfway, which I thought was really interesting, when you are trying to reach this negotiated settlement. To come halfway on the highway was pretty good. We met in Mount Pearl, a district which I am sure you are very familiar with, Mr. Speaker, and the Member for Mount Pearl as well is very, very familiar with. We sat on the parking lot of a service station and we had a chat. At that particular point what I did was, I made a presentation to Mr. Puddister to deal with the sick leave, which we felt was a very, very fair, a very reasonable, compromise on sick leave, and asked him to consider that overnight.

I am not free to disclose that, on the basis that I indicated to Mr. Puddister that would not be disclosed to the House of Assembly today. We did meet, we did talk, and talks are going on. At that time I did indicate to him exactly what I am indicating to this House today, that we would not be trying to close this today, to put a gun to his head. He could consider that, and even that would then give us Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday to try and reach a settlement in this matter.

We have done everything we can to try and reach a conclusion to this, to try and negotiate a settlement, and we will continue to do everything in our power to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, we did give leave to the Premier to give the lengthy answer, which was important, but we would have appreciated, if he wanted to give that information, if he could have done it as a statement to the House.

Mr. Speaker, again the questions are still pertinent and relevant because Bill 18, the back-to-work legislation, still hangs over the heads of the people for completely unnecessary reasons, except the deadline, the hanging time, has been postponed now until Monday instead of today.

Again, the first question which he did not answer, he is acknowledging, obviously, by extending to Monday now, that there are no health and safety concerns. Is that a yes or a no?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in fact, there is not the same urgency that was there before. I certainly fully acknowledge that, and I want to take this opportunity to thank the public service workers for coming back to work and taking out that critical, urgent situation that we had, and the possible crisis that we were facing. There is absolutely no doubt about that, but I must remind the Leader of the Opposition that we have indicated that we do have to proceed with this legislation. This is now just about back-to-work legislation. This is also about reaching an agreement; and, because the public sector workers have given us some time here, we are now serving them the courtesy of giving them time back in order to try and reach an agreement. That is exactly what we are doing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The questions that I am going to continue to ask are still very relevant, Mr. Speaker. Will the Premier finally acknowledge that there is no need today or Monday, or ever, to legislate a contract since there is already an agreement in place, as confirmed by the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board? Yes or no, does he acknowledge, will he finally acknowledge, that there is in fact an agreement in place and the people who are working today are covered by an existing collective agreement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if we were to follow that line of reasoning we never would have entered into any discussions in the first place. There would have been no need to negotiate a new collective agreement. We could have just continued on with the old one. So, the several hundred amendments that are contained in Schedule C and Schedule B that are for the benefit of the unions, which have been negotiated favorably through the unions, which you actually voted against in this House, against Schedule B and Schedule C, they would be off the table. A negotiation is there so that a new agreement could, in fact, be reached, and that is why we have done it.

Mr. Speaker, one final point I want to make. As we speak, a Liberal government in British Columbia is legislating 15 per cent rollbacks when they have a balanced budget. We have an $800-odd million deficit, we are giving our workers 2 per cent and 3 per cent, we are trying to reach an agreement on all major issues, and a Liberal government is legislating back, rolling back, 15 per cent cuts to their workers and their wages. We refuse to do that!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, the Premier did acknowledge that there is a current agreement in place and the workers are covered by it, so there is no urgency and no need to legislate a new one.

Mr. Speaker, if he wants to answer for what is happening in British Columbia, maybe he will move out there along with Brian Peckford, his good buddy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, will the Premier acknowledge there is no need to legislate a two-year wage freeze since the current agreement, which is in place and continues in place unless it is replaced by a new one, provides for no increases for the next two years in salary?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the workers in our Province, the public sector workers, asked us for a four-year agreement. They asked us to guarantee them that there would not be a wage freeze in year one, in year two, in year three and in year four. When we made our offer on March 31, we were prepared to give them an agreement whereby there would be wages in year three, wages in year four, and wages in year five; guaranteed wages. That is what the negotiation is all about. You were a union leader, you know what the negotiation is all about. That is what we did, Mr. Speaker. We are prepared to give them security and the comfort of a guarantee.

In addition, another point that I should indicate, I think the public should know here, is the day of the Budget - I was in the lobby and I spoke with Mr. Puddister - I indicated that we were also prepared to negotiate a possible settlement of the pay equity issue; a huge issue for workers. We actually offered to negotiate a settlement -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier to finish his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I certainly will, Mr. Speaker.

We subsequently contacted the solicitor. We had subsequent contact with the Department of Justice, and we have been told by the unions themselves, they do not even want to negotiate pay equity so that we can provide money for their members and get a settlement of that. They do not want an agreement. We are doing absolutely everything we can to reach a settlement. We can do no more.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue with my line of questioning, which the Premier obviously does not see important enough to answer, but we know the answers.

This question: Will the Premier acknowledge that there is no need to legislate anything with respect to the hours of work, the so-called Warren Report, since the public reports are that they have already worked out an agreement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is no agreement on the final three issues: the Warren Report, sick leave and wages. I have stated here we were making progress, the minister has not said that. We are trying to reach an agreement on all three issues. We have not reached agreement on all three issues. That is the package we are negotiating. That is what we are dealing with. We are trying to focus on the most contentious issue, which is sick leave. That is the most contentious. That is where our focus is, but there is no settlement on all three issues. If there was, we would certainly be advised of that.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, will the Premier acknowledge that there is no need to legislate sick leave changes since there are no changes planned for the current employees - and I am sure he will say that is agreed to anyway - and there will be such a minuscule number of new employees hired in the next few years, as they slash the public service by 4,000 positions, that there are only minimal savings, if any at all, possible for the government over the next two to four years?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There will, in fact, be new hires in this government, probably starting as early as a couple of weeks. We will always be making new hires in this government. There is no doubt about that.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) since November.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: And we have been doing so, actually, since November, the hon. minister tells me.

The issue of sick leave is an issue of a systemic problem that we have in our Province, a structural deficit problem that we have in our Province. Mr. Lucas, in a meeting with Minister Sullivan, myself and Mr. Puddister, acknowledged - actually, no, I am sorry, Mr. Puddister was not at that meeting. That was his own meeting - that we have a financial house of cards. That is the exact words Mr. Lucas used when he talked to us about our desperate financial situation. Everybody else is acknowledging we have a huge problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: That problem rests with you, Sir, because it was your government that created that problem when you were a Premier of this Province and when you were a minister of the Tobin government, a minister of the Tulk government and you were also a minister of the Wells government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: You were privy to it. You were privy to rollbacks, cutbacks, wage freezes. You were privy to it all and you can stand here so hypocritical and get on with your nonsense.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Could I ask the Premier a very direct, short question: Has he been in contact with Mr. Puddister today before he came to this Legislature?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was in contact with Mr. Puddister, I would think, at about - probably about 10:00, 10:30 this morning when he called me, and he indicated that the proposal we put to him last evening was not acceptable. That was the conversation which we had. We are continuing to pursue it. Our doors are still open. We have Thursday, Friday, Saturday -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Would the hon. members prefer that we pass the bill today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

When the Chair is standing all members should be silent. When the Chair stands it is the signal that people should be silent. However, I do understand that this is a very difficult situation.

The hon. the Premier was giving an answer, I assume that he is now finished. If that is the case, we will go back to the Leader of the Opposition.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Again, Mr. Speaker, if I can get this straight, the parking lot proposal was rejected prior to coming here today.

I am glad to see it happening, by the way, the commitment. It is no good for the Premier now to threaten us that, if you ask a few questions, we will change the commitment he gave a few minutes ago about not debating Bill 18 today. He just threatened us, Mr. Speaker. We know what happened. He said: What do you want me to do now, go ahead and pass Bill 18 today? Everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador heard it, Mr. Speaker. We know the kind of bully tactics that he gets on with. They might work somewhere else, but they are not going to work in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker. We are not going to put up with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: He can yell and scream all he likes. It might work somewhere else, but it is not going to work in here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

If we cannot have relative order in the House, the Chair has no choice but to recess the House, consult with the House Leaders, and then we can continue Question Period after order has been restored and after consultations.

Any further disruptions, the Chair will have to consider recessing the House until the Chair can be assured that we can proceed in an orderly manner.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me ask the question - and I apologize for responding to the threat from the Premier, because he will not and cannot threaten us. Let me say it again, Mr. Speaker.

Would he now like to stand up with the microphone on and say what he just said while sitting in his seat?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I said: Ed, did he finish his question yet?

MR. BARRETT: You lie. You are lying.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair clearly heard the Member for Bellevue issue - and I understand he has now withdrawn the comment.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me ask again another serious question, because we are not getting very many answers from the Premier today. Would he now acknowledge that because there are no concerns with respect to the questions I asked earlier, that he stop playing this game of slackening the noose around the necks for a day, an hour, a few minutes, and just admit that there is no reason whatsoever for us to ever debate Bill 18 again. Why won't he not defer it until Monday, and move the hanging date, but just take it off the table all together and get back to the real world?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows, as a former Premier, and from the other side of the table as a former union leader, that we have to have an agreement in this Province. We have to have stability. We have to have an agreement to go forward. If we had an agreement that could go on forever, we would never have negotiated in the first place. The old agreement cannot stand forever. The unions want changes to that agreement. We want changes to that agreement. We have negotiated changes to that agreement. We have to move forward, and we will move forward.

The reason the hon. member is so upset today is that we have given time for more negotiations, because he does not want to see us get an agreement, and he maybe successful. If he is, he will have accomplished exactly what he wants, but we are going to leave no stone unturned, believe me, to try and get an agreement. If I have to meet them on a parking lot or in a pasture or on a fish flake or on the side of the road, I will go there and I will talk to them and I will try to work out an agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me return to this issue one more time, for clarification. The Premier said in his statement to the House, in answer to my first question, which we gave leave for because we thought it was a serious statement, that because of the parking lot discussion, that was the reason he was deferring the bill today, because there was an ongoing negotiation.

He has since answered that at 10:30 this morning he received a call saying that was no good. So, what is the real reason? We are glad it is happening, by the way, and I think the deferral should be forever. What is the real reason for deferring the debate on Bill 18 today? We are prepared to stand up again and say why we are against it, and to debate it until the cows come home. Give us the real reason. When are you going to take the real leadership approach and the new approach and take away the hanging noose and the guillotine and the threat, and have an open negotiation without a threat of execution?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we decided yesterday that we were going to allow more time. I was asked by the media: Will you allow more time? I said: Look, we have negotiated a long time. I do not think it is going to make any difference. We waited twenty-nine or thirty days. We have tried our best. We thought about it and said: No, we should be extending this. We will give it more time. There is nothing wrong with giving it more time.

Obviously, the hon. gentleman disagrees with the fact that we are going to continue to try and reach an agreement. Why would you be opposed to that? I cannot, for the life of me, understand why you would be opposed to us trying to negotiate an agreement.

We will meet with Mr. Puddister, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Reynolds, and anybody else they want us to meet with, to try and work an agreement. We have talked to mediators. We have talked to absolutely everybody. We are doing our darnest to try and reach an agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Why, why, why would you be opposed to us trying to reach an agreement? That is what we are trying to do, and we are proud of it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Mr. Speaker, the word in the fishing industry -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: Could I have a bit of order here, Mr. Speaker, please?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation. I have difficulty hearing the hon. member, and I am only ten feet away from him. Therefore, would members have relative silence so all members can hear the question?

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the Premier would settle down a little bit over there, Mr. Speaker, we might be able to get on with the orders of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the word in the fishing industry today is that many processors are delighted and they take great comfort from the stand that the Premier has taken against the unions. They know he feels the same way as they do, that unions are meant to be broken and driven into the ground.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the processors feel that if they hold out long enough, this minister, this Premier, and this Finance Minister, will give them production quotas.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: When will this minister stand and tell these processors that there will not be any production quotas today, tomorrow, next week or next year, unless the union agrees to them?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, I have been quite clear in my commentary on plant production quotas. I committed to a full discussion of the issue of plant production quotas and/or an industry-wide auction or some other such scenario, whatever the industry prefers, and that includes all participants in the industry.

I sent a letter to crab processors, the Fishermen's Union and the Association of Seafood Processors last week indicating that we would engage in a full discussion on this in September and October, and that in 2005 there will be a new system implemented in this Province to establish fish prices and to determine how raw material will be bought and sold.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, every fisherman in this Province knows exactly where the minister stands with production quotas. He would like to give them to the processors, and he has not said anything in this House today to deny that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the minister is on record here last week, and out in the media, as saying: There is no room for government in these negotiations. In light of the fact that government issues processing licences to a select and privileged group of individuals, and that these privileged individuals will not negotiate in good faith until they get production quotas, when are you going to stand up for the 20,000 fishermen and plant workers in this Province, or has the Premier told you not to ruffle the feathers of his corporate buddies?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Member for Twillingate & Fogo that yes, there are a select group of people in this Province who have the right to process fish, a select group who have the right to process shrimp and crab, a group that the government that he was a part of doubled, Mr. Speaker. I can assure the member that this minister will not be increasing that number and will not be issuing licences to my corporate buddies or my buddies anywhere in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I am not finished answering the question. I have been engaged in this process every since I became minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer quickly.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I have been engaged in this process right on through. We facilitated a decision, we facilitated a process agreement on shrimp for the processors and the harvesters, Mr. Speaker, culminating in binding arbitration, a set-up that this crowd here have been looking for over the past couple of weeks, that one party decided not to agree to, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Again, the minister talks a lot but does not say a word. He talks about, everyone knows his stand. Yet, the Fisheries Broadcast, the open line shows, are filled every day and night with fishermen and plant workers wanting to know where the Minister of Fisheries is. They have not heard from him.

Mr. Speaker, this minister is saying that he will not get involved, and he will not deny even today that plant production quotas are coming. He will not deny that they are coming. I ask the minister: As a former fisherman, as a former employee of the union, have you turned your back on the fishermen and plant workers in this Province, and crawled into bed with the processors of this Province, or has the Premier told you to keep your hands off his corporate buddies?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, there is nobody on this side of the floor who has corporate buddies in the fishing industry, but there are people on that side of the floor who have corporate buddies in the fishing industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, this party here, when we were in Opposition three years ago, two-and-three-quarter years ago, were the people who wrote the Competition Bureau of Canada and asked them to investigate collusion and corporate concentration in this industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: This was the minister who, at the time, said that he did not see any evidence of corporate concentration or collusion in the industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

I ask the minister to take his seat.

To meet our commitments to the member of the third party, we will go there now.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. The Premier brought in this legislate to impose terms and conditions and order people back to work because there were - as he said - backlogs of diagnosis and treatment in the health care system. Mr. Speaker, George Tilley, the CEO of the St. John's Health Care Corporation, said last night that he is going to be unable to meet the backlog and catch up because there was no money for overtime.

I want to ask the Premier: How is it that there is no money to catch up on the backlog of services and diagnosis that caused this back-to-work legislation, when the health care corporation said it has been operating at 10 per cent capacity for the last month? What has happened to the money, Mr. Premier? What have you done with it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have had a number of discussions with health officials regarding the backlog of services in the health care sector. I have informed those boards to prepare a plan and come back into the department and discuss with me as to how we should proceed to handle the backlog.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS E. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. members across the way would allow me to finish my answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister.

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That information has been relayed to the health care boards, and I am now awaiting information from those boards and recommendations.

Thank you, very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The CEO of the St. John's Health Care Corporation knows what he wants. He needs money for overtime. Can the Premier confirm that not only have the health care corporations - but other agencies and boards of government - been told that the salary budget for the year has been reduced by the amount of money not paid out during the strike, but that, in fact, there is no money there because the Treasury Board is taking that money back and using it for other purposes?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I understood -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: If that question is specifically on health, I certainly will defer it to the minister. I did not know whether the intent was on a general question across all departments. Maybe if he could clarify it. If it is health only, I am sure the minister is prepared and willing to answer that.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, it was very clear that Mr. Tilly said they need money for overtime. So, the minister should answer that question but also tell us whether all other departments have been told that their budgets have been reduced by the amount of money that has been saved in the last thirty days.

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

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I can answer that question as it relates to the Department of Health and the health care boards. Given that the strike was ongoing for most of April month, we have not had the opportunity to sit down with the boards and finalize their budgets for the current fiscal year. So, at this point in time those numbers have not yet been finalized.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS E. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. members would allow me.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS E. MARSHALL: May I finish please?

I have indicated to the health care boards, again, that given the ramifications of the strike and the effects that it has had on the services provided by the health care boards, that I would appreciate if they would come in and provide me with recommendations as to how we should address the backlog.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

In view of the fact that we did take some extended time, with leave, with the first question to the Premier, although we expire at thirty minutes, we will allow one more question from the Opposition.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I appreciate that extra time.

My question is for the Premier. Mr. Premier, in your recent Budget, the worst in fifty years, you slapped over 150 fee increases on the most vulnerable people in our Province. Premier, can you stand on your feet today and attempt to tell this House and the taxpayers of this Province the cost and the justification of overtime, meals for management, police protection, riot gear, rented decoy vehicles and your personal bodyguard for this unnecessary strike?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Oh, (inaudible), you sit down.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The one who asked the question said she would like me to sit down and not answer it, I will do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair would ask if there is a response from the ministry? If there isn't -

MR. SULLIVAN: I have responded, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the people in my District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. Mr. Speaker, it is with regard to the Labrador Marine Services. It is no secret that the people in my district, as well as other people in the Province, are very disappointed and very upset with the decision of this government to base a Labrador ferry out of the community of Lewisporte.

Mr. Speaker, it certainly speaks to the fact that the minister, who's district is in the area of Lewisporte, made a commitment during the election that he would restore services to their community. Mr. Speaker, he indeed, did that. But what is so outraging about this is the fact that he did it after he played the people of my district and the rest of the people of the Province for a bunch of fools, because he went out and launched this entire facade about hiring a consultant to look at this, to look at where the best options would be. He spent the people's money to do that and then, Mr. Speaker, he ignored the recommendations.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, the people in my district took the word of the Premier. The Premier told them he would honour the recommendations in a consultant's report and that report recommended that the Labrador ferry should operate between Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Cartwright and, Mr. Speaker, that the government should increase the subsidy on the service by almost 50 per cent, allowing the businesses in the Happy Valley-Goose Bay area and in the south coast area to be able to supply goods from one region of Labrador to the other at a competitive rate that was being offered through the Island.

Mr. Speaker, it is not only the people in my district who are impacted by this decision of the government but people in other areas of the Province. For example, the Member for Humber Valley might be interested to know that the Deer Lake Chamber of Commerce was very disappointed with the decision that was made by her government and made by the minister, because, Mr. Speaker, it would mean less traffic coming through their area. Mr. Speaker, I quote the President of the Deer Lake Chamber of Commerce who was in The Western Star.

AN HON. MEMBER: She is over there laughing.

MS JONES: I know the Member for Humber Valley is laughing, but the Member for Humber Valley might learn something if she wanted to listen to this.

Mr. Speaker, they built and expanded their businesses based on the move of a ferry service to Cartwright. That is what the president said, Mr. Speaker.

Also, the President of the Corner Brook Board of Trade was very disappointed with the decision that her government made, I will let her know. He said they have a hard time. His quote, Mr. Speaker, "...he's having a hard time understand the government's rationale behind the move." Well, I will tell him the rationale, Mr. Speaker. It was all political. That is what the rationale was.

Lets see what they had to say on the Northern Peninsula. Mr. Speaker, the President of the Viking Trail Tourism Association is very disappointed, I say to the Member for St. Anthony and the Member for St. Barbe, very disappointed. Do you know something? They went out and invested money, according to the President, businesses in that area invested money, in order to meet the new demand for service that was coming out of Cartwright, and saw a 25 per cent increase in their businesses last year; one of the poorest areas in this Province, economically, Mr. Speaker, that has had a hard time, has struggled, after the closure of the fishery. They finally saw a bright light, just like the people in my district did. They had a new opportunity.

What did this government do? They came in, they wiped that opportunity right out from under them and they paid $1.7 million more a year to do it. It is unbelievable that you could see this happen in this day and age.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MS JONES: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MS JONES: No leave? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My petition has to do with the allocation of funding this year by the government for the roads program in the vicinity of $30 million. I have a petition from the people of Garnish in the District of Grand Bank on the Burin Peninsula. They say:

WHEREAS the provincial government has stated they will be spending $30 million this year on roadwork throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

WHEREAS Route 220 was not considered part of the Road for Rails Agreement and therefore not on the receiving end of funding approved under that agreement.

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, call upon all members of the House of Assembly to impress upon the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs of the urgency of including that section of Route 220 between the turnoff to Winterland Road and the turnoff to Garnish in this year's allocation of funding for provincial roadwork.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the Burin Peninsula, the highway there and the money that has been allocated in the past while to get work done, unfortunately that part of the Burin Peninsula highway which is Route 220, on the other side of Marystown, which includes all of the tip of the boot of the Burin Peninsula was not part of the Road for Rails Agreement, the federal-provincial agreement, that saw a significant amount of money come to this Province, but only for those roads covered under that particular agreement. That part is called a trunk road and unfortunately there has been little money compared to what has been spent in other parts of the Province, again because of the availability of federal money to cover off those roads that needed work done, and was able to get it done under the Road for Rails Agreement.

When we look at what happened on the Burin Peninsula in the last little while, with respect to the washouts on the road and the danger situation there, clearly there is a need for more work to be done on the Burin Peninsula. We have a case where, of course, we now see the contractor there and hopefully that work will be done in the not too distant future.

It is important to make sure that our roadways are safe. What we are finding is that, with so little money available to be spent in the last while on roads, even though we put in as much as we possibly could, we are finding that there are sections of the highway on the Burin Peninsula - or at least that part which was not included in the Roads for Rail Agreement - that really needs some attention from this government. The fact that they have allocated $30 million - I am hoping they are going to be fair in their distribution of that money, as the government that I was part of was whenever there was a need to distribute money for roads. We made sure that it was done on a fair and equitable basis, and we are hoping that the same will be the case with this government, Mr. Speaker, because we need to ensure that our roads are safe, that people can feel, when they get in their cars or when transport trucks are on the highway, that they are indeed safe. When we have a lot of transportation trucks, in fact, that go down the Burin Peninsula - especially when they are on their way to St. Pierre and Miquelon. We have a lot of trucks that drive that route because, of course, they are delivering a lot of goods and services, many of which are made in Newfoundland and Labrador.

So, it is important for us to make every effort we can to ensure that our roads are safe. That is why I am calling on the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs on behalf of the people in Garnish, in particular, because the petition came from them, but on behalf of everybody on the Burin Peninsula, in particular because, obviously, anyone who has to travel over the road knows the extent of work that needs to be done. I am calling on the minister to allocate the necessary funding as is called for by the people of Garnish to make sure that section of the road, in particular, will get the attention it deserves.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MS FOOTE: Thank you.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, Orders of the Days, Motion 1.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to support the motion of non-confidence in this year's Budget, Budget for 2004. After giving some preliminary review to this Budget and I look at the Introduction of the Budget, the whole thing begins to develop an odour just in the Introduction: "First, to balance the budget on a cash basis in four years and restore sound fiscal management."

Well, Mr. Speaker, we have just seen twenty-eight, twenty-nine days of that attempt of trying to balance the Budget. Any government in this current society that we presently live in would take number three there in their list of priorities, and that is, "...to ensure that our health and education systems meet the needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and are sustainable into the future." But what I see happening in this Province right now over the past twenty-nine days does not come close to being anywhere in the ballpark. We have a promise of 4,000 layoffs. Now, granted, the Minister of Health and Community Services said that would come through attrition. Well, a job gone is a job gone, regardless in what name you put on it.

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

MR. SWEENEY: I say to the minister that a job gone is a job gone. It does not make any difference if it is through attrition, through death or whatever. It is still a job gone.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order was raised by the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: I have raised this in debate before. I will ask the hon. member if he will acknowledge, as his leader did, that when they were on this side of the House they had an attrition policy operating for the last three years, two which were not announced, but last year announced in their own budget. Will he acknowledge that when he was in government and a minister of the Crown, that that government had an attrition policy in place as well?

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

MR. PARSONS: Just a comment, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is well known, certainly by the Government House Leader, that it is not a point of order, not even a point of clarification. It might be a point of information. I would suggest to the Government House Leader that he knows full well he has time to debate on these matters. If - in the course of his time that he gets - he would like to stand up in this House and clarify any statements that the member over here from Carbonear-Harbour Grace makes, he is totally at liberty to do that. He need not be disruptive. He need not interrupt the member in giving his statements. I am sure we all, from time to time, make misstatements or misunderstand, or disagree with someone, but he understands full well. He has all the time in the world that he needs to do this. He does not need to do it on a point of order. It does nothing, other than to be discourteous to the member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. It is merely a disagreement between two hon. members.

Continuing debate, the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand full well, Mr. Speaker, of the members opposite urgent need to get up today and speak. They seem to think that this is safe ground to speak on. Well, let me tell you, there was not much speaking going on here on Monday and Tuesday. There was not very much speaking going on from the other side.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: I spoke as well, I say to the Government House Leader. You were allowed too.

Mr. Speaker, I know I have twenty minutes here today to speak and give my views of disgust regarding this Budget. This Budget is part of a plan. It is part of a plan by a group of people in this Province, a group of people that we - the ordinary people of the Province have fought for years of trying to establish themselves.

I heard a union leader this morning on the radio saying that - I do not know if I have her words correct or not, but I can give you the gist of it: That it is not good for the poor people to reach up into the ranks of the rich people. We all cannot be equal. It creates problems when we establish this thing of people having equal money. It is not good for society because then, of course, when everybody has what everybody else has, the luxury of being able to go out and buy groceries on their own, or send somebody out to buy groceries whatever the case might be. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, I grew up in a family of nine. I lost a brother in an industrial accident when he was twenty-three years old. I lost a brother-in-law some years ago, a short time ago, forty-six years old, leaving a wife and two young girls on their own.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we celebrated a National Day of Mourning in this Province. I should not say celebrated because, I guess - yes, maybe we did celebrate it, because it took years, up to 1984, before it was finally recognized that we did have a decent Workers' Compensation Act in this Province.

I looked at what is after happening. I observed the impact it had on my family. We have to be very, very careful when we start cutting back employees of the government, of this public service, because those public servants - and I have been a member of the public service since 1974. Let me tell you, I took great pride in doing what I did, and never, never, was the spectre of darkness over my head as to what is there now. I have bumped into dozens of my friends since they have come back to work in this building, dozens of my friends. I have had numerous phone calls. I was here yesterday until late, answering e-mails and taking calls from people voicing their concerns. They are saying to me: Why is all of this stuff happening? What is going on? We are back to work; that is the legislation. We do not need the legislation, we are back to work.

You know, I think, as I said a week ago, the real reason, one of the real reasons, is that the devil is in the detail. It is here in this Budget, because I have heard and I have listened. I have sat very intently and listened to what has been coming out of the government members. I heard the Minister of Transportation and Works say some time ago it may be 6,000 or 7000 people who are going.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who are going (inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: Exactly.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are going to retire. (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: They are going to retire.

Here we go, playing with words again. Are we going to retire - I could have retired last October 21, I say to the minister, if the people decided I was going to retire. I could have been sent home. It is the same thing here. Your plan is -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: I say to the minister: methinks thou dost protest too much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is too much loud talking going on. The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. member, and I ask for your co-operation.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have no problem with exerting my voice to a tone that can be heard, let me assure you. I will not be intimidated by the members opposite. It is not in my makeup at all. I fought too long and hard to get where I am today, and I will continue to do that and fight for the people I represent. I will not be shouted down or bullied down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I go back to Monday and Tuesday. There was no problem getting time here to speak, or standing up and getting a word in, because the zippers, the gags, were all in place. They were all in place. Today, all of a sudden, somebody has blown the whistle and the sheep have become attack dogs. The gags are off.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is a different bill.

MR. SWEENEY: It is a different bill. Because they, too, were following the line of saying: This is good for us. This is the Budget that is going to lead us through the dark days of the Liberal government and take us out and bring us to prosperity under the PC government.

Well, I saw the PC government in action, when I stood shoulder to shoulder with my friends and co-workers back in the 1980s when I was almost hit with a paddy wagon in their mad rush to get somebody arrested and dragged off to jail. I saw that, and I was almost injured through it.

Do you know what that does? - and the PC government still has not learned - that makes the ordinary person, the workers of this Province, stronger, because you go back to where we were, where we came from. It was the big word, fish, which was the economy of this Province, when people worked like dogs to be able to come down and work for the whole year, from daylight until after dark, and their wives and children worked as hard as well. What happened? At the end of the season, guess what happened? We might give you some salt for next season, to start off the year, because you still owe us for your food for this year. That is where we have evolved to, and we are heading back.

When my friend here, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, today raised the issued about what is happening with the crab fishery -

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty thousand people.

MR. SWEENEY: Twenty thousand more people are going to be affected by this government.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise at this point in time a sub-amendment to the non-confidence motion:

I, the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, seconded by the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, move the following sub-amendment to the motion of non-confidence moved by the Member for Exploits and seconded by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, and the said non-confidence motion should be amended by adding immediately after the word "problems" the following: "And further, this House rejects the Government's Budget statement because it is predicated upon mythical and inaccurate information".

Mr. Speaker, I submit the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the member could arrange to have the sub-amendment delivered to the Table, the Chair will call a brief recess so that we can consider the sub-amendment and come back with a ruling very, very shortly.

This House is now in recess.

Recess

[Technical difficulties]

MR. SPEAKER: (Inaudible) be speaking to the sub-amendment.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That was my understanding as well. The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair will proceed with the debate on the sub-amendment, on behalf of the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GRIMES: Be gentle with them now, they are very sensitive over there.

MS JONES: Indeed, I will be gentle.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak to the Budget, as my college for Grand Falls-Buchans indicated today, probably one of the worst Budgets to be ever presented in this House of Assembly in the past fifty years. It is simply because it is a Budget that attacks the ordinary working person in our society. That is the problem with this Budget, Mr. Speaker, and I will go into some details today that will certainly substantiate and outline to the people of the Province why that is.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, if you look at this Budget, it tells you that we are approaching the fiscal position of the Province from a two-pronged approach. Mr. Speaker, one of the prongs in this approach was certainly the attack on working people, as we have seen over the past few weeks, but not only in the area of what has transpired with regard to collective agreements and bargaining with unions, but also, Mr. Speaker, this Budget increases almost every single fee known to man and woman and child, to be paid in this Province. Those fees, if you look through it, are fees that incurred by ordinary working people in this Province on a daily and a weekly basis.

Mr. Speaker, I live in a district where people love the outdoors, as well as many other people in the Province do, and what we are seeing is more fees tacked on to the kind of lifestyle that we have grown accustomed to lead.

Also what you see are job cuts, Mr. Speaker, again an attack on the ordinary person in our society. I can tell you right now that it is not easy to get a job in Newfoundland and Labrador, especially in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. If you are lucky enough in my district, Mr. Speaker, to work for the public service, then you are probably one of the highest paid, have the best employment conditions of any worker in my entire district, because those are the best jobs, Mr. Speaker. The ones who get a job at the school or get a job in a government office or a government building, they are looked at as having the best jobs in my district because they are year round. They have some stability to them. So, when you talk about taking 4,000 of these jobs out of the public service in this Province, Mr. Speaker, it leaves very little opportunity for new people to move into those jobs.

I have students from my district, some of whom I announced in the gallery today, who come to the capital city to get educated, to go to Memorial University, to go to the College of the North Atlantic or the Marine Institute. Mr. Speaker, they spend a lot of money, they make a lot of investment into their education, and they do so hoping that, when they finish, they too will be able to get one of those good jobs, one of those year-round jobs that will pay them a decent wage; but, Mr. Speaker, their options are becoming more limited as time goes on. Every time you talk about taking a job out of the civil service, it means you are taking a job from one young person in this Province who is going to graduate from university or college this year, looking for that opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, this Budget also looked at schools, and reduced spending in schools, taking, I think, this year and next year, a combination of 478 teachers out of the school system in the next twenty-four months. Mr. Speaker, that too has tremendous impacts on a district like mine. I have all small schools, all that fit the necessarily existing school formula for small schools in this Province. I have schools, Mr. Speaker, that have less than twelve students in them, and are in one of the most isolated regions of this Province. Actually, the hon. member across the way, from Placentia & St. Mary's, continues to talk about travelling by helicopter in this Province. I happen to live in a district, Mr. Speaker, that there are times of the year that you can only access these communities by helicopter. That is how isolated they really are. So, I have some grave concerns every time I hear of teachers coming out of the school system, no matter what government is in power, because it is always the smaller schools that are going to be impacted the greatest because they have the fewer students.

Already in my district, Mr. Speaker, I have students who do a lot of their programming through Distance Education, and they are very bright kids. I have stood in this House time and time again to congratulate them on the many successes that they have accomplished. I am very proud of the things they have done, but I also want to make sure that they have the opportunity for a continued level of education that is achievable in any major centre in this Province, no matter where you live.

Mr. Speaker, the school board restructuring, this was an initiative that this government walked into at the last moment. We know that because the Minister of Education was on record only a week before, in Central Newfoundland, saying that in his estimation there would be no restructuring of school boards this year. A week later the Budget is dropped, Mr. Speaker, and sure enough, sure enough, we will see boards cut in this Province. Right now, my district will become a part of the Western Newfoundland board. We will be lost in the shuffle of over eighty other schools in that board area, and it was done with no consultation with the people I represent.

I am not saying that it is bad thing or a good thing to be part of a Western board. All I am saying is that people, parents who have their children in the school system, deserve the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, at the very least, to be asked their input, to be asked what they feel about this kind of restructuring, and whether their children should be going into these schools, into this board area, or if they should not. That did not occur. To me, I think that is wrong because it shows no respect: no respect for the students, no respect for the parents to make decisions arbitrarily, outside of seeking their advice and their consultation. That is wrong, Mr. Speaker, and frankly I am very disappointed that the present day Minister of Education would allow that to happen, because I have known this man for quite some time and I know that he is an hon. minister and I know that he cares about people. I was so disappointed when I saw that the government went out and did away with these boards, appointed PC affiliated people to replace the elected board members to go in and arbitrarily put the new system in place, without talking to parents, without talking to teachers, without talking to students, without talking to elected school boards and parent committees, and that is what I have a problem with.

The other side to the Budget, the other prong, the social prong, the health care piece, we have not seen that yet, Mr. Speaker. Even the minister today stood in this House and said: We have not ironed out the budgets for this year with all of the health boards.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, when the shoe drops on the health budgets in this Province, it is going to be alarming for everybody, because we have seen what is happening with education. We have seen already the 478 teachers who will come out in the next twenty-four months. We have seen this government not wanting to guarantee hours of work for secretaries and janitors in our school system. We have seen their budget that looks at buying more computer monitors for classroom as opposed to putting teachers in the classrooms.

Now let's see what we are going to see in health care. I think that the people on the West Coast of the Island, on the Northern Peninsula, and in the central region who have raised issues with regard to the health care system over the last few months are very legitimate. There are very legitimate concerns, Mr. Speaker, because the word is out. The word is out that there is not enough money voted in the Budget this year to maintain the level of health care that we see in the Province today. Now, that is no secret to anyone. You can look at the Estimates yourself and see that in order to maintain the level of service that we have today, you would have had to see an 8 per cent increase in health spending, and that did not occur in this Budget.

So, Mr. Speaker, where are the savings going to come from? That is where we are going to get our answers. They are going to come from the same recommendations that boards are being forced to put through. These boards out there right now, these health boards, are being forced to offer up concessions in order to meet this government's downgraded budget targets for health care this year. That is exactly what is happening. That is why we are hearing that hospital facilities in Flower's Cove and Roddickton could be downgraded to clinical operations. That is why we are hearing that there could be major procedures taken out of the Stephenville hospital and relocated to Corner Brook only, a brand new hospital that just opened. That is why we are getting petitions in here from small communities on the West Coast of the Island that do not want to lose their clinics, because they know. They can read the Estimates in the Budget, and they know there is not enough money there to maintain the level of health care that we already have.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let's look at the other prong, because the other prong to this Budget - one was to attack the working-class people and jack up every single fee possibly known to man, woman and child in this Province, and to ensure that we cut education and cut health care. Well, the other prong was revenue generation. There was going to be a full revitalization of the economy under this Budget, the day the Minister of Finance stood in this House and talked about his two-pronged approach, and talked about revenue generation. Well, let me tell you, they had the opportunity to generate revenue in this Budget. They could have increased the corporate income tax, to bring it up to the same level that it was in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

Only a week ago, the Government of Nova Scotia brought down their new budget and what did they do? They increased corporate income tax rates. That is what they did, but in this Province our corporate taxpayers are paying 5 per cent as opposed to 15 per cent to 16 per cent in the Province of Nova Scotia. That is the difference. This government had the option to generate revenue. When the minister stood there and said it was a second prong, he did not give it any substance, and that is why people like myself find it doubtful that they can grow the revenue of the Province under the existing circumstances. He had the opportunity to bring about $65 million in corporate taxes into this Province and he did not do it, and that is why you have groups out there today that are having their hospitals taken down as opposed to being completed.

Then, Mr. Speaker, they are talking about growing revenues. Now, how do you grow revenues in a Province where you are going to take 4,000 jobs out of the system? I have never seen consumer confidence lower in this Province than it is today. People are not spending money. In a lot of cases, in the last month, there have been 20,000 with no money to spend because they did not have a paycheque coming in. Consumer confidence is down, and with less jobs in the Province we are going to see less income tax being submitted and you are going to see less business development. I say that because I live in a district where we have had tremendous growth in business development in the last two to three years, but that is stagnant now. It is stagnant because of policies that this government opposite have implemented that have been done to the demise of businesses in my district, so they will not be generating new revenue. They will be trying to stay alive, trying to survive.

We already know that businesses in rural Newfoundland and Labrador do not have a large population base upon which to build a business. They do not have that large clientele, and their struggles are every day - every day. What this government has done on the Northern Peninsula and in my district is, they made a decision to make it even harder for these businesses to survive. They will see what they have reaped, Mr. Speaker, come another six months. They will see what they have reaped when you start seeing a lot of these businesses having to probably declare bankruptcy because the entire economy on which they built their business has been taken from them by this government.

Mr. Speaker, we also, in the two-pronged approach, heard of the Rural Secretariat. The Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development is so proud of the Rural Secretariat. Well, let me tell you what it is, Mr. Speaker. It is $1.7million going into a Rural Secretariat that is going to be used to keep the Strategic Social Plans going in this Province, an initiative created by the Liberal government. It is a good initiative but it is not the key to rural revitalization, I say to the minister. No, it is not. It is another social piece that needs to be done out there in our society, but that is what her Rural Secretariat is all about. It is about an initiative that the Liberal government started and has been carrying forward for five years now. That is what the Rural Secretariat is. It is such a farce. It is a play on words. It is words to convince people out there that we are actually going to do something as a Rural Secretariat.

Well, I will tell you what they are going to do. They are going to hire two or three people. They are going to stick them in an office somewhere, Mr. Speaker, and they are going to use the rest of the money to pay for the SSPs and to do the community accounts. That is what it is going to be used for, I say to the Member for St. John's Centre. He is up there shaking his head. Go read the Budget. I have the press release here. Your minister signed it.

She says, the monies in the Rural Secretariat are going to be used for community accounts, a Liberal government initiative, started a year ago, Mr. Speaker. It is going to be used for the SSP, a Liberal government initiative. That is where the $1.7 million in the Rural Secretariat is going. You never know, there might be enough money left over for a couple of people in an office with a sign on the door that says: Rural Secretariat.

If you are going to put it in the Budget, Mr. Speaker, do it with substance. Do not play on words, to the people out there in this Province, but that is all we have seen, Mr. Speaker, words. I live in a district where we have seen broken promises - broken promises - from this government.

I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that the Labrador Metis Nation, of which I am a member - a Metis woman, the only Metis person in this House of Assembly, and very proud of my Aboriginal roots - let me tell you, the Metis people of Labrador believed what the Premier had to say. They believed this government when they were on the election trail, when they wrote them letters and said that they would recognize the Metis people under the Powley decision. That was in October, when they were out knocking on doors, when they were looking for votes, when they were trying to get their candidate up in the Lake Melville area elected, Mr. Speaker. They were out telling people that yes, we will honour the Metis people under the Powley decision.

Do you know what they did on January 31, Mr. Speaker? They sent the Member for Lake Melville and the Minister of Transportation and Works and Aboriginal Affairs up to Goose Bay. They sent them to the Metis Nation office and they said: We are not going to honour that commitment any more. We have just had a couple of lawyers look at this, and the interpretation is different.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the Premier himself was a lawyer in October when he made the commitment. I believe he had six lawyers running for him in the election in October when he made the commitment to the Métis people. Now, do you mean to tell me that between the six of them, in October, that they took one interpretation and then after he became Premier and formed government and sent it to another law firm he had another interpretation. I don't think so, Mr. Speaker. It was politics. It was pure, simple politics. We will tell you what you want to hear because we need your vote. That is exactly what it was.

It forced the Métis people, Mr. Speaker, to have to go out and take out full page ads in newspapers to get their message out as to how they were treated by this government opposite. Do you know what they said in those ads, Mr. Speaker? They said they felt betrayed. They felt like they had been taken for a ride. They were told one thing in October and a completely different story in January.

Now, Mr. Speaker, lets see if they live up to their last commitment that they made to the Métis people, that we will re-examine this again. We will give you a decision on the 12th of April. Well, the 12th of April has come and gone. We don't have the decision yet, but I understand with the strike and things getting sidetracked a little bit. They have been under a lot of stress over there, Mr. Speaker. They have had a lot of issues on their plate, most of them created by themselves. They have had a lot of issues on their plate, so they have taken a little bit of time getting back to the Métis people. Mr. Speaker, no doubt they felt betrayed. They felt that they were taken for granted by this government. They had a line signed by the Premier saying: I will support the Métis decision on their Powley. Then, Mr. Speaker, he sends the minister and the Member for Lake Melville to say: No, it is not on now. Three months later it is not on.

Then again, Mr. Speaker, it is no different than the commitment that he made to the unions in the middle of the election, when he went out and took out full page ads and said that we would not have layoffs in the public service. What do we have in the first budget? Four thousand jobs gone in this Province. Just like when he went to the NAPE convention and said: I will respect the union movement. We will not legislate workers back to work. What do we have today in this House, Mr. Speaker? Bill 18 to legislate people back to work. That is what we have in this House. Now that workers are back to work they refuse to withdraw the legislation from the floor of the House. I have never seen anything like it in my entire life.

Mr. Speaker, I have experienced the wrath from this government first-hand in my district, because in my district they have been able to take every single piece of marine service and turn it upside down. For the first time ever, Mr. Speaker, in probably five years, we didn't get the ferry on early in the Labrador Straits. Every other year, with no ice, governments before them went out and spent the money to put the ferry on to Labrador, because we are no different than Bell Island or Fogo Island or anywhere else in the Province. We need to get out too. We want to have a transportation system. But, no, the minister says, it is going to cost a couple of hundred thousand dollars. So, we cannot afford to do that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MS JONES: May I have leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MS JONES: No leave? Leave has been denied?

MR. SPEAKER: I do believe the member who denied leave was not in his seat. So I am awaiting directions from -

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been denied.

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

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I would just like a point of clarification, if you could. I realize that leave was denied, and that is not an issue. That is certainly the right and prerogative of anyone over there to do that, but I would like some clarification: Is it in order for the Deputy Speaker or the Chairman of Committees to deny that leave, which she did?

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible)

MR. E. BYRNE: I am allowed to speak to the point of order, I ask the Leader of the Opposition, am I? Is that okay with you?

AN HON. MEMBER: You are telling him what to say.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I am not. I am giving you my point of view, if that is okay with you. You are not going to deny me my point of view in this House either.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: I said that in my view it is in order, because there was a point here one time, about two-and-a-half, three years ago, when the former Member for Humber East, who was also Deputy Speaker, had made a similar point. The ruling at the time was that the Speaker - I am just refreshing what went on at that time, and why I say to your point of order that he can, that the Speaker is the only person who can operate in that. That is the reason why I responded to it the way I did.

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

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I -

MR. GRIMES: Everything is foolishness with you, Loyola, unless it is what you want to do. That is the problem with this.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Opposition House Leader has the floor.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I appreciate the comments of the Government House Leader. Again, as I indicated earlier when we started this session, I am still in learning mode here. I have a lot to learn. Pardon me if I stand from time to time to ask for clarification and ask direction. It just seemed to me, in the parliamentary process, that if there is a Speaker, a Deputy Speaker, and a Chairman of Committees, all of whom act from time to time as referees in this House, I was concerned and did not know if those persons who are our referees from time to time, when they are not filling that role, if they in fact act as private members when they are in their seats? Obviously, the Government House Leader's opinion is that it is, and I appreciate his information. I would assume of course that you are going to confirm that to be the case, and I would appreciate that.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Our Standing Orders are quite clear. As it is a parliamentary precedence, any member who has a seat on the floor of the House has all the rights of any other member who has a seat on the floor of the House. The only person who cannot participate in debate or vote on any motions, excepting where there is tie vote, is the Speaker. The Speaker does not have a seat on the floor of the House, so therefore is not permitted to take part in any debate in any way. So, the Chair would rule there is no point of order, but I am sure all members appreciate the point that was raised.

MR. GRIMES: A new point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A new point of order raised by the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure all members opposite appreciate the clarity of the ruling you just gave because as we have said before, we are with a new government in its first session in the Legislature with a lot of new members on that side who have never been here before. I am sure they all appreciate the clarity of that ruling, for all of us, and we now understand the rules. Every time a ruling is made, that is that clear, it benefits all of us and I appreciate it.

My separate point of order is this: when you were dealing with that issue, which I am sure you would recognize as a serious issue, and it was actually a useful point of order raised for clarification - and I am sure I can look at one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten members on the opposite side who heard that clarified for the first time and it is beneficial to all of us. Now, Mr. Speaker, my point is this, while you were doing that, one of the veterans and the leaders in this House of Assembly for the government, the President of Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance said across the floor, in an angry tone: Stop the nonsense, he said, and let's get on with the debate. No, Mr. Speaker, he qualified it. He said: Don't be so silly!

Now he said - that is not what he said, by the way. He has a track record of forgetting very quickly what he said. He said: Stop the nonsense! Now he wants to say it is silly, it is foolishness and he is making my point for me. If he is a serious and hon. Member of the House of Assembly - which we do not believe he is, by the way, because we do not find him to be credible and we do not believe a single word he says - he would stand up and apologize and take the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is hearing a point of order raised by the Leader of the Opposition. Are there any comments from any other member? If not, the Chair will rule that there is no point of order and we should proceed with the debate.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak to the Budget Debate today. I want to start off by saying that we are dealing with a very serious fiscal situation in the Province today. To put it into perspective somewhat, it took from 1949 to 1999, fifty years, for this Province to build a debt of about $8 billion. That is fifty years, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is altogether too much shouting across the floor. If members wish to carry on dialogue with each other, I would ask them if they would go outside the Chamber. We are hearing an address by the Minister of Environment and Conservation and every member has a right to be heard in relative silence.

The hon. the minister.

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

Mr. Speaker, it took fifty years to build a debt in this Province of about $8 billion; fifty years. From the time we joined Canada in 1949 to 1999 this Province built a debt of about $8 billion. To make it perfectly clear, that is throughout all of the Smallwood years, throughout all of the Moores years, all of the Peckford years, all of the Wells years and the Tobin years, up to 1999, to build a debt of $8 billion. From 1999 to 2004 - in fact, to be more precise, from 1999 until the time we formed government in October of 2003, the debt of this Province was in excess of $11 billion. It took from 1999 to 2003 to go from $8 billion to in excess of $11 billion, one term. We have had seventeen elections in this Province and in one term - the majority of it led by the Leader of the Opposition - our debt has grown from $8 billion to in excess of $11 billion. Mr. Speaker, that is the financial crisis we are dealing with today.

In the last term, of which the Leader of the Opposition was Premier, the debt of this Province grew by approximately 30 per cent in one term. Mr. Speaker, all of the one-time financial payments to this Province, the one-time upfront cash grabs, have been taken by the previous administration. They have taken an enormous amount of money from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. That is no longer there to be taken. They have cashed out whatever money was available to be taken from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. On top of building the debt by 30 per cent, they have taken all of the cash money available from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and they have taken all of the money that they could squeeze out of Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation. The previous Administration, Mr. Speaker, took an up front cash settlement from the federal government. Under the Terms of Confederation, under Term 29, we were entitled to $8 million a year. They took forever. They took an up front cash settlement from the federal government. I will ask the Finance Minister, what was the amount? One hundred and eighty million?

MR. SULLIVAN: One hundred and thirty million.

MR. T. OSBORNE: One hundred and thirty million, and they spent it. It is gone.

They took money on the coastal ferry service, an up front cash settlement from the federal government. The South Coast ferry service, that money is gone. That was $55 million.

So, on top of building, increasing, adding to our provincial debt by 30 per cent, they have taken money from every nook and cranny they could find: from the federal government, from hydro, from the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation, hundreds of millions of dollars from the sinking funds, Mr. Speaker. They have milked whatever financial resources were available to this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: They went after the Labrador money.

MR. T. OSBORNE: They went after whatever money they could get, and they left this Province with a financial crisis. They went after the Labrador Fund. Because of public pressure and pressure from the Opposition they did not do that, but they went after every possible nook and cranny that had money there, and spent it. That money is gone. It is no longer there. It is no longer accessible. In addition to adding to our provincial debt by over 30 per cent, over $11 billion, that is what we are faced with, Mr. Speaker. That is what we are faced with.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government, on top of that, has reduced cash transfers to this Province. The federal government has reduced health and social transfers to this Province, and that Administration knows what it is like to deal with that, because they had to deal with it: less money coming to this Province from the federal government. Over the past ten years, the health and social transfers, our equalization payments coming from the federal government, have been reduced, so the Province is dealing with that.

MR. JOYCE: Eight hundred million in health care alone.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I hear the Member for Bay of Island saying that is $800 million in health care alone.

So, Mr. Speaker, there is less money coming in from the federal government, the Province's debt has been increased by over 30 per cent in one political term, and all one-time cash sources to this Province have been dried up, eliminated.

Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to sit on the other side of the House today and criticize and blame us for the financial position that Administration put this Province in. In fact, when they took government in 1989, the Province's debt was $5 billion. It is over $11 billion today. It took forty years to have a $5 billion debt and they more than doubled it, Mr. Speaker, in one administration. That is what we are dealing with in this Province. That is the financial mess that Administration has left us to deal with.

Mr. Speaker, the decisions that were made by this party in the Budget were difficult, difficult, decisions to make. They were not made lightly. I can tell you that, as a Minister of the Crown, as we sat around the Cabinet table, we agonized over the decisions we had to make. We pondered line by line through every department. We agonized over the decisions that we had to make. Day after day we sat at the Cabinet table, trying to determine how we could put the fiscal situation in this Province right, how we could protect the future of this Province. We agonized, Mr. Speaker, how we would deal with the mess that Administration had handed to us when we took office. Those decisions were not made lightly. They were very difficult decisions indeed. We would have preferred to have made the easy decisions. We would have preferred to have been able to provide more money for this group or more money for that group. We would have preferred to make the easy decisions, but not only did that Administration cash in on every possible source of revenue available to this Province; they used up every easy decision that this Province could have made for the last ten years. The only decisions that were left when it came to putting this Budget forward were the difficult decisions. The only decisions that were left were the difficult decisions, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the fiscal situation that the Province now finds itself in has demanded that the difficult decisions, the tough decisions, be made. They are tough decisions, because nobody wants to make the tough decisions. Nobody wants to make the tough decisions, and that is what got this Province in the situation we are in today, because the previous Administration did not have the courage to make the tough decisions. In fact, I will go this far: The longer you put off making tough decisions, the tougher they get, the worst a situation gets, and that is exactly what has happened in this Province. That Administration, in one term, added 30 per cent to the Province's debt. If they had made some of the tough decisions, they would not be so hard for people in this Province to take, and the very tough decisions that had to be made in this Budget would not have had to be made.

They had promised a better tomorrow, don't forget. They had promised a better tomorrow. Well, Mr. Speaker, a better tomorrow only comes when you protect the financial integrity of this Province. A better tomorrow, for future generations, will only come when you protect the financial integrity of this Province, and that is what we are trying to do. That is what we are trying to do. We are trying to protect the financial integrity of this Province. We are trying to reverse the fiscal crisis that has been created by the previous Administration. We are trying to ensure that our children and their children and their children have a Province that not only can they live in, but that offers opportunity - a Province that offers opportunity. That is the only way we are going to prevent the out-migration from this Province, by creating opportunity.

We agonized over the decisions that had to be made. We agonized over those decisions, Mr. Speaker, because we were forced to make them in order to address the very serious fiscal situation that is now before this Province. The financial situation in this Province is the worst that this Province has ever had to deal with, the worst that this Province has ever faced since we had joined Confederation. Our Province now has a debt of $11 billion. Eleven billion dollars. The first time that this Province, with a population of just over 500,000, has had to deal with a debt of over $11 billion, a cash deficit on current account of over $800 million, that is what this Province is faced with. That is what our party, who has been in power six months, are faced with. We are faced with trying to reverse the fiscal situation that was created by the previous administration. The longer you put off hard decisions the tougher they get. They have been put off, Mr. Speaker. They have been put off since 1989.

Nobody wanted to deal with the tough decisions. Nobody had the courage to deal with the decisions that had to be made in this Province. We did not enjoy making those tough decisions, Mr. Speaker. We did not enjoy raising fees. Nobody takes pleasure in that, but those are the decisions that had to be made. Those are the decisions that we had to make in order to protect our Province's financial integrity for future generations; to secure a future in this Province for our grandchildren and their grandchildren, because if nobody ever makes them - and this Province, when it was a colony, went through it. This Province, when it was a colony, went through it, Mr. Speaker, and none of us in this House today were around at that time. But, Mr. Speaker, history shows that when this Province faced bankruptcy, when there were protests because of that situation - nobody wants to go back to that again, but that is the direction the Province is headed in and that is the reason we have had to take the measures that we have taken. Because unless somebody has the courage to make those tough decisions, that is going to happen again. When the Province, for fifty years, has spent more money than they were generating, there comes a time when the bond rating agencies, when the lenders say enough is enough. That time is today. That time is today, Mr. Speaker.

The time has come for politicians in this Province to make the tough decisions to do what needs to be done, and that is exactly what we are doing. We did not take pleasure in making those decisions. We had courage to make those tough decisions. We had courage to make the decisions that had to be made. We made those decisions, not based on the date of the next election. We made those decisions, not on the narrow-minded survival mode of the previous Administration. We made those decisions on the survival mode of this Province. We made those decisions to protect this Province. Nobody wants to be taking the tough calls and tough e-mails that we have taken. Nobody wants to be doing the tough interviews. We all would rather be taking the pleasurable calls: Thanks for giving us this extra money. Thanks for opening this. Thanks for opening that. That is what has happened in this Province for decades. Instead of saying: We do not have the money. We continued down that slippery slope of giving, giving, giving, what was not there to give. We want to give, and that is the reason we have made the tough decisions, so that we can give to future generations a Province that is better off than it is today.

The reality is we were forced to make these decisions, because if we did not make these decisions and the Province was dealt the unfortunate blow of facing a downgrading of the credit rating, that would mean $100 million, $200 million, maybe $300 million a year in additional interest. If we were faced with a downgrade in the credit rating, where would we get the money? After all of the tough decisions we have made in this Budget, we have saved $240 million. That is all we have saved. With an $840 million cash deficit, we have saved $240 million. That is why those tough decisions have to be made. That is exactly why those tough decisions had to be made. We went somewhere between what we were being told had to be done and what we figured the Province could sustain and the people of the Province could sustain. We went somewhere in between, Mr. Speaker, because we did not want to do it all this year or next year, but we want to do it slowly. We want to reverse the trend that this Province has been facing -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. T. OSBORNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave to clue up has been granted.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by making just a couple of more statements, and that is we have made these decisions, not because we enjoyed making them, but because we wanted to secure this future for future generations.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is good to see the Minister of Environment on his feet speaking today because he is the first one I have seen, I think, since Thursday, on the opposite side, get up and speak to anything. I guess that is probably because we do not have as many strikers in the gallery today as we had up until this point.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the Budget. I can tell you up front that I will not be supporting this Budget, and when given the vote I will vote against it. As one of my colleagues said here today, it is the worst Budget that we have seen - or anybody, I guess, has seen - since Confederation in 1949.

I think that, besides being the worst Budget, the reason that the people of the Province are so upset and feel so betrayed by it is because they anticipated so much more from this government. The reason that they anticipated so much more was because just a short year ago the government sat over here as Opposition and they promised so many things to the people of the Province, and they condemned us day after day after day, when we were in government, for the things that we were doing and things that we were not doing. In so doing, they promised the people so much more.

Their leader, the Premier, was offering this new approach. I think that over a period of a year or so, in going around the Province and telling people what he was going to do, I think the first commitment he made was to a tunnel across The Straits. The only reason he did that was because he visited the Northern Peninsula during a by-election a couple of years ago and looked across and saw how close Labrador was and said: We should build a tunnel over there - just like Frank Moores did in his first visit up there back in the early 1970s. We know what happened to the tunnel that Frank Moores started to build during an election back in the early 1970s. I say, Mr. Speaker, it is because people anticipated so much that they feel so terribly done by, by this Budget that the Minister of Finance presented here in the House just about a month ago.

Mr. Speaker, I will go through some of the issues in the Budget and talk about the draconian measures that the Minister of Finance and his colleagues are trying to foist upon the people of this Province. Maybe if some of the new members across the floor would sit up and take note, instead of sitting around, laughing and talking, they might learn why their constituents are e-mailing and phoning us to say how disappointed they are with their members.

MR. SKINNER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: The Member for St. John's Centre is over there heckling me now. Maybe I will send you down the e-mail that I had from one of your constituents yesterday afternoon about the education system and the draconian measures that the Member for St. John's Centre applauds his Premier for, when he gets up and talks.

I know he is angry because he, himself, was going to go out and make all of these commitments, and that people were going to forget about them the day after the election, like the one that he made to the seniors of the Province when he talked about how the Liberal government did not give them a raise in their pensions from 1989 until 2003. During the election he met with these same seniors and gave them his solemn word, his solemn commitment, that not only were they going to increase their pensions but they were going to do it retroactively, right back to 1989.

I say to the Member for St. John's Centre, if he would like for me to sit down for a few minutes so that he could get up and explain to the people how he misled them, well, I might even do that.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I will start with education because I am the critic for Education. I was the former Minister for Education, and I remember a year ago sitting in the same seat that the Minister of Education now sits in today.

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

MR. SPEAKER ( Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

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

I would happily take that time, if the member would offer it. I did not think that he offered it. He indicated that he would, but when I stood he did not.

The point of order, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SKINNER: The point of order, Mr. Speaker, that I wish to speak to, is that the commentary I made to the member was that he should speak the truth about what is happening here. He has just indicated that I misled some people. I would like to see the factual information where he can indicate that I misled people and then I would be happy to respond to it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Exactly, Mr. Speaker.

For some reason, every time I stand on my feet here in the House of Assembly, he or one of his colleagues have to get up and interrupt me, to kill my time. I am not going to get up and tell the member opposite whether or not he told his constituents the truth. They were the ones who told me what you said, so I suggest to him that instead of hiding away on a camp cot somewhere in Confederation Building the last four or five days, he go back to his district down over the hill and talk to those very constituents who are saying that you did not tell them the truth. That is what I suggest you do, the Member for St. John's Centre.

Let's talk about education. One short year ago the Minister of Education, when sitting here in the Opposition, got up and railed for days about the cuts to teachers in the Province. At the same time, the member for Marystown was at that time a director on the school board down there. He knew, and he was down there giving them the information, sending it in to them, in anticipation of running for them in the election. They railed about the cuts to the education system, and said that a Tory government would never do that. They would never lay off teachers. They would never touch school boards. What do they do, Mr. Speaker?

That is one example. That is what they said a very, very short time ago, a few months before the election, that they would not touch the teachers in the Province. The teachers in the Province listening to the Education Minister, who they thought was an hon. man, said: We believe him. Maybe we will not lose any teachers if he forms the government.

They listened to his leader, and they listened to all the rest of the candidates who ran for him, when they made the commitments that they would not cut teachers. What do they do? A short six months after they are elected to government, what do they do? They bring in a Budget and one of the first things in the Budget was that they were going to eliminate 475 teaching positions in the next twenty-four months. So they went from eliminating none to eliminating 475, and we still do not know, because we have not had a decent debate on the Budget, we have not gone into Estimates to determine how many other teaching positions are going to go. Because there are a number of teachers in the Province today who have been seconded to the school boards, and this government over here is eliminating six school boards, there are more teachers than that, actually, who are going to receive their pink slips in the coming months before the next school year.

Mr. Speaker, another commitment that government across made to the people of the Province is that they were not going to eliminate the elected school boards - and I say elected school boards - in the Province. They were not going to touch the elected school boards, because back in 1997, when we had the educational reform, we reduced the number of school boards from twenty-seven down to eleven. We reduced them from twenty-seven to eleven. We did not think we could reduce them any further than that because of the geographic locations of the schools around this Province and the vast geography that we have, so we though that the eleven, maybe, would be sufficient.

The Tory Opposition, at the time, said that they would not touch the school boards. The Minister of Education actually went out to Corner Brook and told the people on the West Coast, when he met with them out there about a month before the Budget: No, we are not eliminating school boards. In fact, he met with the school board in Gander one week before the Budget came down. The hon. Member for St. John's East, the Minister of Education, met with the school boards and said: No, we are not touching them. Then, one week after that, they rise in the House of Assembly and say in their Budget, we are eliminating six school boards in the Province. We are going to establish only four.

Then, on top of that, to talk about the new approach to democracy in this Province, not only are they eliminating six school boards but they actually have the audacity in their new approach to democracy, where these school boards were elected, now they are appointing some of their old political cronies to take the place as the Chairs of these interim boards, like the Premier's finance officer during the last election, the one that we heard about last night on one of the media in the Province. The unfortunate thing that the media did last night was that they said that the new Chair of the western region board was a Tory crony, but then they also tried to give the impression that the current Chair from Corner Brook was also a political crony. What they forgot to add was that the current Chair was elected by the people of the West Coast, not appointed by a Premier, a dictatorial Premier - was not appointed by a dictatorial Premier.

I just heard yesterday that this new approach to democracy, the one that the Premier talked about so eloquently prior to the election, about eliminating political patronage, I hear today that the new Chair, the newly appointed Chair, not elected Chair of the Board -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, can I get some protection from the member from Clarenville. The old trust; the centerfold for trust magazine.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members if they would refrain from shouting back and forth the House. The Chair has difficulty hearing the member speak. I ask if people would show respect to the person who is speaking and allow him to be heard.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate your protection. The only shouts - they are not coming back and forth the House. All the shouts are coming from the zoo crew down here, led by the member from Clarenville. They are the only ones who are doing the shouting down there, and the Member for St. John's Centre. They are the only ones. So, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for your protection because they have a difficulty with the truth.

Lets go back to the new appointed chair of the Labrador board, the individual who ran against my colleague. The individual who ran for the Tories against my colleague for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. He could not defeat her, so what does the Premier do under his new democracy? What does he do? He goes and appoints him as the interim Chair of the school board. We also hear that the new Director of Education for the super board is going to be the Tory candidate who ran against my colleague from Grand Bank and was defeated. Now we hear that he is going to be the new director who will make in excess of $100,000 a year as a director of the super board that they are establishing here. All we want to know is, where are you going to put that super board?

Mr. Speaker, if you wonder why the people of this Province feel like they have been betrayed, feel that they have been led down the garden path and feel so angry with the government is because they anticipated such a new approach. The Premier was talking about his business acumen and how he was going to make the rest of the Province rich like himself. So you can understand why they feel so let down and so angry and so frustrated with the crowd opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear what the Minister of Education and others opposite - I heard the Member for Humber Valley stand up here in this House last week and utter words that I could not believe. She talked about, in her maiden speech, how great it was that we were eliminating school boards. Now, she never explained why it was such a great idea to eliminate school boards, but I think she is under the false impression that the money saved from school boards is going to be reinvested back into the education system. But, the Minister of Education - and she does not even know it. He has not even told her. The Minister of Education stood out in front of those doors, in front of TV cameras two weeks ago and told the media and the people of the Province - I do not know where she was - that no money saved from eliminating six school boards was going back into the education system; going back into classrooms, going back into teachers. They were taking the money saved from the school boards and going to pay off the deficit because the Minister of Finance says they have to do it. Another broken promise.

They are not going to take the money saved from the elimination of 475 teachers and put back into education, no, because the Minister of Finance and the Premier says: No, we cannot do that. That is not good business sense. Forget the people. Forget the teachers because the teachers belong to another union. He has not gotten around to axing them yet. You cannot put any money for teaching salaries back into the education of our youth. He wants to put it elsewhere.

Now, Mr. Speaker, those are just a few examples of broken promises that this crowd opposite made in education. Let me talk about my own district for awhile because I have not had the opportunity in the last few days. Let me talk about the commitments that were made in my district. The Premier, in three of his jaunts to my district prior to the election, met with representatives of various councils on the island and at each of these council meetings he was asked by the people on Fogo Island: What about the new hospital that was just about complete? In fact, as we speak, it is completed today, waiting for the grand opening. They asked him: If you are elected, are you going to open our hospital? And you have to watch this Premier, and I say to anyone who might be out there in the Province today: Pay very careful attention to his promises and his commitments because he commited to every single soul on Fogo Island that he was going to open their hospital.

Then we heard him in Gander just one week, the week that the Budget came down, he never announced anything about the hospital, but when questioned by a member of the media he let it slip: Yes, we are opening the hospital, but we are only going to open ten of the twenty beds. Just imagine how cute he is with words. I guess that is his legal background and his business background, to trick someone into doing something for you but not getting the reward that you were promised. I guess that is what it is all about. It is about contracts and stuff like that, but I tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, when I tell my constituents I am going to do something, I do it. I did not do what the Premier said. I did not do what the Minister of Health and all that crowd over there said, that they were going to open the hospital and find out about it thirdhand, that opening the hospital meant ten beds instead of twenty, because he can go back out there now and say: I didn't lie. We are opening your hospital, but we are only opening ten instead of twenty beds. The people of Fogo Island have made call upon call to the Minister of Health's office and to the boards in Central Newfoundland and asked them to explain why only ten of these beds are opening and, guess what? Nobody knows to date.

The other one, Mr. Speaker, which really irks me - because we froze the rates for ferries all the while I have been elected. I got elected in 1996. There has not been an increase in ferry rates in this Province since I was elected in 1996. The Premier goes out to Fogo Island - he had to do this one upmanship. He had to do one up on me. You know, poor, old, lowly Gerry Reid. Who is he anyway? He told me the other night in the House that I was insignificant. I was only a speck of dust, not worthy to comment to. I guess that is the way he feels. He said: You are so low that you are insignificant. You do not even register on my radar screen. I guess that is the way he feels about the people of Fogo Island, too, because he paraded around out there. Not only that, but he put it right in his Blue Book, prior to the election, when he was trying to fool the people who live on the islands around the Province. We are going to do one up on the Liberal government. We are not freezing your rates. We are not going to freeze your rates. We are going to reduce them to zero or bring them in line with the cost of ground transportation.

Now, the ground transportation from Man of War Cove on Fogo Island to Farewell on the mainland, if you drove that today, for all of you who have never been out there - the Premier only went out there twice and, by the way, he took his Winnebago with him because the hotel was not good enough for him to sleep in. The Premier goes out and says: We are reducing the cost of transportation on the ferry to what it would cost you to drive that distance; which would be about twenty-five cents, I would take it. It is about thirteen kilometres. About twenty-five cents. That was his big promise. That is two he made to my District on Fogo Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: We are going to open your hospital and then he says: We are opening only ten of twenty beds. We are going to eliminate your ferry rates and bring it in line with ground transportation. What does the Minister of Finance stand on his feet and say in the Legislature on the day of the Budget? Yes. Guess what he said about ferry rates? We are not going to eliminate ferry rates as I promised you. We are going to increase them by 25 per cent over the next five years. If you do the math - and I am sure the Auditor General, the Minister of Health knows all about math - if you increase over a five-year period, five, four, four and whatever the formula she has worked out over there, you will realize that it is going to be over 26 per cent not 25 per cent. So, I ask the hon. Premier if he would have the decency, at least return a call to the people on Fogo Island or at least go out there and explain to them why he misled them in the election and prior to the election and in his Blue Book because we have his promise on paper. That is two, Mr. Speaker.

Social services offices; never mentioned. Never mentioned. But they were mentioned in one way. He told the people of the Province that he was not going to lay the people off. He said they are not going to lay people off, that we were not going to reduce the civil service by 25 per cent. I got that right here in his ad somewhere. Real Leadership, where he said he is not going to eliminate anything. Then we hear from the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, through her mouthpiece, the Minister of Finance, on Budget Day that we are eliminating twenty social services offices throughout the Province. Mr. Speaker, I have two of those. I have one on Fogo Island and I have one on Twillingate Island, and I am getting calls from these people on a daily basis. Now that they have returned from the picket lines to their jobs, they have called and said: Gerry, can someone put us out of our misery one way or the other? We were told a month ago that the hon. minister, the Member for Stephenville, the hon. member is eliminating twenty offices in this Province. Our jobs are going to be gone. Could she have the decency to at least stand and tell us which of the twenty offices are going to be eliminated and then tell me whether or not I have a job next month so I can get on with my life, make the decisions that I have to make for myself, my wife and my children so that we will have to determine if we are going to have to leave this Province and seek work elsewhere? Or is she going to continue, like the Premier did today, by lifting the piece of legislation off the table -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the Member for Twillingate & Fogo that his time has expired.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, are you sure that was twenty minutes? By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave granted.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I make it known that it was the Minister of Health who broke her promise to the people of Fogo Island and (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame on you, Beth! Shame on you!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to make a few comments here this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I guess it is basically a follow-up to some of the issues that were raised by my hon. critic, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo in Question Period. Since we are on Budget Debate, as we all know, Mr. Speaker, we can talk about pretty well anything. I expect that the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador and stability in the fishery, whatever happens - as the saying goes, so goes the fishery, so goes Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, I will put that sort of frame where my comments are going to be this afternoon.

I want to start off, Mr. Speaker, by being very clear and concise on the issue of plant production quotas. Mr. Speaker, the critic, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, keeps fearmongering, that he is so good at, that there are going to be plant production quotas this year, that this is some agenda at play, that the minister is in cahoots with somebody; you know, fearmongering anyway, and I will leave it at that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say right now, right here, consistent with what I have said practically right from the day that I became minister, back on the 6th of November, within two weeks of that - I am going to lay out a little chronology of what has happened over the past number of months. Within, I would say, two to four weeks of becoming minister, I met with representatives of both sides of the industry, harvesters' representatives in the union and the processing representatives. I was quite clear in my comments then, the 29th of January when I met with both sides, on the 4th of February when I rolled out the Dunne Report, towards the end of February and early in March when we were in discussions on shrimp, and as late as last week when I wrote all participants in the crab sector, all licensed crab processors, the Association of Seafood Processors and the FFAW. At every point along that way, Mr. Speaker, in that chronology and those dates that I just laid out there and those times, I said quite clearly that I didn't believe that plant production quotas should happen or could happen in crab this year.

Last week, to be absolutely certain that nobody misunderstood anything that I said, there was a letter that went to all participants that said: No, there will not be any plant production quotas in crab in 2004. Do not ask about it any more. Do not bring it up. It is not going to happen.

As for plant production quotas, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be a coward, like some of my predecessors were, and shirk my responsibility to engage in a full discussion on every issue related to this industry. I will step up to the plate, as I have so far, and engage in a full discussion with the participants in the industry. I indicated this in my letter to the industry. Starting around September 15 and ending by the end of October, there will be a discussion, led by me, where all people who want to participate, their representatives - not exclusively the FFAW, nor exclusively the Association of Seafood Processors, because there are other people in this industry who are not necessarily represented or do not feel that they are represented by one or the other of those groups - they will be allowed and will be encouraged to have a discussion on plant production quotas, and an auction.

I can tell you right now, Mr. Speaker, in case anybody missed it the winter, my preferred option for the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador is an auction, not plant production quotas. My preferred option for shrimp this winter was an auction. Not the Gabe Gregory-Bill Broderick report. I was not the one who brought that to the table. That was brought to the table by the industry, and a piece of that was production sharing, raw material sharing, production quotas, plant quotas, whatever you want to call it. That was a piece of it.

I signed on to it because I do believe that it has some merit and that it can work. If everybody is playing above board and by the rules, and the union and the harvesters engage in a proper manner on one side, and the processors and plant owners engage in a proper manner on the other side, if they both negotiate in good faith, then we can make that work, Mr. Speaker, but that has not happened to this point. There are a number of reasons for it. Some of it is fear, some of it is greed, and some of it falls in between fear and greed.

Mr. Speaker, that is where we are as a government. We are not implementing plant production quotas in crab this year. We agreed to a raw material sharing arrangement for shrimp because we had what we believed, what was presented to us in good faith, or accepted in good faith, anyway, an agreement between the harvesting sector and the processing sector on the Gregory-Broderick report and the implementation of that.

That, Mr. Speaker, was why we pulled the auction off the table; not because we did not believe an auction could work. I am adamant that an auction would work in this fishery. In spite of all of the problems that would be associated with the implementation of it, there are all kinds of problems associated with doing nothing, as we can see right now and as the previous two ministers surely can see because they presided over nothing for three years, Mr. Speaker. That is why we, on this side of the House, on a whole variety of fronts, have so many challenges in front of us today, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat strange that the current Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture would make the statement that he just made, that the two previous Ministers of Fisheries presided over nothing, when in fact the record shows that in the last three years the fishery was reorganized, rebuilt, to the point -

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, boy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Yes, boy, says the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Now he understands that he has made a mistake.

- rebuilt, reorganized, and restructured to the point that the value of it, Mr. Speaker, exceeded a billion dollars to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador for the first time in the history of the Province.

That is the problem with this government, Mr. Speaker, they want to stand up and describe that as nothing. That is very significant, Mr. Speaker, -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the Leader of the Opposition to get to his point of order.

MR. GRIMES: - but it shows the problem with the whole debate.

MR. SPEAKER: There is certainly no point of order.

I call on the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and Labrador Affairs.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the former Premier should know - he obviously does not, but he should know - the fishery reached a billion dollars prior to the two previous ministers becoming ministers, and anything that happened this year, when it comes to an increase in value, or a decrease in value, will not be as a result of any actions that I take, Mr. Speaker. I will freely admit that. We hope to be able to set the table now, Mr. Speaker, to make changes over time.

If the former Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, would be quiet long enough for me to finish my commentary, he might learn something about the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not expect he will do that, I do not expect he will learn anything, because he does not come across as that kind of a man, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will say that the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador reached a billion dollars not as a result of the management of it by the provincial Ministers of Fisheries in recent years. It reached a billion dollars because of a significantly increasing crab resource off the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador and a significant abundance of shrimp off the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, where we saw the industry move from 1997, or 1996, when there were no Northern shrimp fisheries for boats less than sixty-five feet, to where we now have 120 million or 140 million pounds of shrimp being harvested on the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, and off the West Coast of the Province.

That is what is after happening on the shrimp front. They did not grow the shrimp, Mr. Speaker; they grew on their own. They did licence a pile of plants, and we all know that the overcapacity was widely recognized - widely recognized - by this minister, by the previous minister and the minister before that, as being one of the fundamental problems that we have in the industry and one of the reasons why we have had so many shutdowns in this industry over the course of the last number of years.

It was that Administration over there, when they were on this side of the House, that allowed and in some cases encouraged that to happen. That is why we have a problem in the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador today. That is why collective bargaining in the industry has been eroded to the point where it has become dysfunctional. That, Mr. Speaker, is why I believe there has to be a restructuring and a rationalization. As I said, that is a view that is supported by people on this side of the House and anybody who speaks honestly on that side of the House. I am sure there are many who do. I am not suggesting that any do not.

Mr. Speaker, there are members over there - and the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, when he sat in that seat over right there, I sat down alongside of him and he told me on many occasions about the problems that he had to address in this industry. He knew there was too much capacity. He knew that the industry was overcapitalized, but what could he do about it. I agree, Mr. Speaker, it is a very difficult issue to address. It will not be addressed in six month, which is what we have been in government right now, and it will not be addressed in the next six months, but we will begin. We have started down that road, Mr. Speaker. We started down that road with the Dunne Report. We started down that road when I announced that we would establish an independent fish licensing board so it would not become a political football - as the member said this afternoon in Question Period - where we hand out licences to our corporate buddies, which is what happened when the previous Administration sat on this side of the House. Those were the things that happened. It will not happen on this side of the House. It will not happen under this watch and, please God, it will not happen under whatever watch comes afterwards because there will be an independent fisheries licensing board that will take care of it so that politicians, whom we all know, play a little bit loose and fast somedays with licenses and things like that, and handing out goodies. The people of the Province will be protected from the politics of the fishery.

Mr. Speaker, those are the things that we are trying to do. As for the former minister's suggestion this afternoon about corporate buddies and allowing the processing sector to take over the industry, I will remind him again, Mr. Speaker, and all members on the opposite side who have forgotten, that two-and-a-half years ago it was this party, our leader, and our fisheries committee who wrote the federal Competition Bureau and asked them to investigate the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador and to check into allegations of collusion.

As far as I know, that investigation is ongoing, Mr. Speaker. I will say, at that time, if I am not mistaken, the former Premier - if not, certainly his minister, and if he did not say it, I will withdraw the statement - but I know that his minister had a report done and suggested that as far as he could tell there was no evidence of collusion in the industry. Maybe there was not, Mr. Speaker, the investigation is ongoing, but do not stand in this House and accuse me of presiding over corporate collusion in this Province when we were the ones who asked for an investigation on it and they were the people who said that there was no evidence of it. Don't go twisting the tables around two-and-a-half years later and trying, as they are, on every issue in this House when it comes to education, health care and the deficit.

We have been here six months trying to deal with the fundamental problems that are in this Province, from the fishery, to the education system, to the health care system, to the transportation system, where we have roads on the Northern Peninsula, 100 kilometres, that have signs posted on them for the last three or four years saying: Caution Ahead; Rough Road Ahead, the next thirty-two kilometres; Rough Road Ahead, next sixty-five kilometres; Rough Road Ahead, next twenty kilometres. How many places do you see that around this Province, Mr. Speaker? As I understand it, we need $50 million to $60 million a year in a roads program just to address it. Where do we get it when we have an eight hundred and some odd million deficit? Tell me where to find it? I will surely go and pick it up, if anybody can show me where to pick up another $30 million to pass along to the Minister of Transportation. If anybody wants to show me right now how to make sure that the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador opens today or tomorrow, I will gladly listen to that too, Mr. Speaker. I will gladly listen to it from the critic, from the former minister, because he certainly could not ensure that it happen.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise on a point of order. The minister just talked about collusion in the fishing industry. He will not find anywhere in this House or anywhere ever written, that I said there was no collusion in the fishing industry. What I did say in this House on numerous occasions was that if the minister and his leader, who is now the Premier, have evidence, as they must have had evidence to call in the Competition Bureau, give it to me. Time after time I said that and -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to get to his point of order, please.

MR. REID: - they never did present me with the evidence that they presented to the Competition Bureau of Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, maybe if the Member for Lewisporte would listen for a second.

All I stood to say was that any time that the Member for Twillingate or the Leader of the Opposition took from the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, you can gladly have it. We have no objection, whatsoever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Opposition House Leader, and I apologize for getting a little bit hasty in my commentary when he arose.

Mr. Speaker, as I said when I was speaking just before the point of order by the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. If he has suggestions - has he asked questions today? If he has suggestions on how we can ensure that the fishery starts up; if he is suggesting that I should post the price today for crab or shrimp - is he suggesting that? Then, if he is, tell me how we can legally do it because all of our legal advice says I cannot. Then I will do it.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: The Premier raises a good point.

AN HON. MEMBER: Former Premier.

MR. TAYLOR: The former Premier, I mean. The former Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, raises a good point. He says: Come to the Legislature and do it. Well, Mr. Speaker, there were a number of people in the industry who suggested, like the members opposite now, that we sent this matter to binding arbitration. That is what we did with shrimp. We put a process in place, working with the Fishermen's Union and the processors this past winter, back in February, to send this to arbitration, Mr. Speaker. We sent it to arbitration, it went to arbitration, and what happened? When the decision came down, one party would not accept the arbitrator's decision. Now, I am not going to blame that party for not accepting it. The Fishermen's Union said they couldn't accept it, their members couldn't make money fishing for the prices that were arrived at. That is fully up to them to make that decision.

Mr. Speaker, I will just say to everybody, we all have to understand that arbitration only works when both parties are prepared to live with the outcome, and that is not always the case. That is not the case in the fishing industry when the processors believe that they will lose money, if it comes down on the fishermen's side, and it is not true in the fishing industry when the fishermen believe that they will lose money when it comes down on the processor's side. It is not true in government, Mr. Speaker, when government believes that with an eight hundred and thirty-odd million dollar deficit and a ballooning debt that is around $12 billion right now, gone up from $6 billion in 1996 or 1998, as I recall - I am not sure what the date was. If you follow that trend you will be up around $15 or $18 billion by the time we get out of here, if we don't do something about it in the next four years, by the time the next election comes up.

MR. REID: You are leaving in four years?

MR. TAYLOR: Well, I mean, we will assume the worst and hope for the best, I suppose, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

Mr. Speaker, that is the situation in the fishing industry and it is the situation in government. All I will say, in conclusion, to hon. members opposite, is that everybody in this Province must remember, and everybody on that side of the House must remember, that we have been here six months. Have we done everything right, Mr. Speaker? No, absolutely not, and we won't do everything right for the next four years, but we haven't done everything wrong either. One thing that we have done right -

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Do you want something done out in your district?

MR. BARRETT: Yes.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes? You would never say it. I say to the Member for Bellevue, if I didn't have any more concern about my district than he apparently has about his district, I wouldn't even speak in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: I will assure the Member for Bellevue and the people in Bellevue District, that this minister has done a whole lot more work in the last six months, on behalf of the people of Arnold's Cove and that surrounding area, to try to ensure that their plant has a future, than that member did in the past two and a half years since National Sea said they were going to put it for sale; a lot more.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: That, Mr. Speaker, again, is typical. It is just the same thing on that issue with the National Sea plant, the High Liner plant out in Arnold's Cove, where there was nothing done - it is just as well to say it - for two-and-a-half years since that place went up for sale by the previous Administration.

In the last six months, Mr. Speaker, we have been aggressively pursuing that, just as we have with trying to make changes in our health care system and our education system. Just like I hope to be able to report some progress on the fisheries issues, like I hope to be able to report some progress on the health care issues and the education issues, I hope, in the not-too-distant future, we will be able to report some significant progress on the Arnold's Cove issue.

On that note, Mr. Speaker, I will say in conclusion again that on crab, as I said, I have indicated to all in the industry that there will not be plant production quotas this year. I have met and talked - as recently as this morning - with both sides of the industry. I have proposed to them that once again we are prepared to enter into a mediation arbitration process with them. They entertained that. I have had a response back from one side of the industry, saying that they are prepared to entertain that. We are waiting for a response from the other side of the industry. If that happens, if they are agreeable, then we will move forward on that, hopefully culminating in an opening of the fishery in the not-too-distance future.

That, Mr. Speaker, as I said, is the role of government. The decision on what gets negotiated is the role of the industry.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take this opportunity to speak on the non-confidence motion. Actually, it is an amendment to the non-confidence motion, a sub-amendment to the Budget motion, the amendment being the non-confidence motion.

It is an unusual act, to have a sub-amendment, but, in fact, we are dealing with unusual times. The sub-amendment, as I understand it, suggests that we should reject this Budget, reject the government's projections, because they are based on mythical principles. I think that is probably pretty appropriate, Mr. Speaker.

I listened with great interest to the Member for St. John's South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask that the member be heard.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for your protection.

The Member for St. John's South, the Minister of Environment and Conservation, gave an interesting speech, but I think it fits well within the sub-amendment because it is all about myths and things like that.

What I heard the member say was that the bond rating agencies and the Province's creditors, there comes a time when they say enough is enough, and that time is now. I want to relate that to the notion of the sub-amendment that talks about myths, because what I want to wonder out loud in this Legislature is whether or not the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board is reading bedtime stories to members opposite, because that is when you read fairy tales, Mr. Speaker. That is when you read fairy tales. I do it for my children and I know hon. members who have children are doing that, too, but I think the Member for Ferryland has a book of fairy tales.

There are two different words. Ferryland and fairy tales mean two different things, but I know the Member for Ferryland says more than his prayers, as one saying has it. The Member for Ferryland is telling a series of fairy tales to members opposite. I do not know if he does it at bedtime or whether he does it in the caucus room or where he does it, or whether he does it in the hockey arenas or wherever it is he goes, but wherever they get together, somehow or other there is a whole series of fairy tales and myths being perpetrated to members opposite by various people. The $1 billion worth of interest on the debt, for example, we are paying the bankers $1 billion every year. The first twenty-five cents of every dollar has to go to the bankers. That is one of the myths, Mr. Speaker.

You can tell that they do not really believe it themselves because one day it is one thing and the next day it is another. One day, when it suits the Minister of Finance, we are wallowing in debt. We have billions of unfunded pension liability. The next day, when it suits him, well, you know, if we get the kind of annual returns on our Public Service Pension Plan that we have gotten since 1980 - in other words, for twenty-five years, averaging 10.2 per cent a year - if we continue to get those kinds of returns over the long haul, the Public Service Pension Plan is all right, there is no problem with it.

What I want to know, Mr. Speaker, is there a problem or is there not? Is there a problem when they want to shove something down people's throats, like the public sector workers, saying: We cannot afford it, we just cannot afford it.

That is what you hear one day, and the next day, when he is in the mood to give us the full story, he is prepared to acknowledge that yes, the Public Service Pension Plan now funded at about 48 per cent or better - because the stock markets are doing extremely well in the last year, 23 per cent or 24 per cent increase in the equities market in Canada. The latest projections that we have on these are a year old or thereabouts, so the Public Service Pension Plan is responding to the stock markets like everything else, and we have a long-term problem. Yes we do, but is it fair and reasonable to tell the people of this Province that if you hire a school teacher tomorrow at age twenty-four, that because there is an unfunded liability in the pension plan and this teacher is going to retire in thirty years' time, that you have to $150,000 or $200,000 or $300,000 or $500,000 to the public debt? Is that realistic and honest and honourable to put before the people of the Province and say that is the problem that we have? We are going to have a problem in thirty years' time because we have not fixed the unfunded liability. Yes, we have to fix it. Of course we have to fix it; but, you know, Ontario had a problem like that.

Ontario had a bigger problem back in the early 1990s, because they had a multi-mega-billion dollar problem with unfunded pension liability, just as every province had until the accountants discovered it. You have to watch the accountants. The Minister of Health knows what I am talking about. You have to watch the accountants. They go digging into your books and they will tell you, you have problems you never even knew about. They will make you worry about things that you never even thought were problems, and they discovered unfunded pension liability about fifteen years ago.

They started telling governments across the country that you have to do something about it, that this is actually a liability. Of course it is a liability. It is not a liability for tomorrow - you do not have to pay it off tomorrow - but eventually the cows will come home on the pension plans, and eventually the chickens will come home to roost, and all of those phrases that we hear lately. Eventually you will have to pay and you will have to deal with these problems.

So, what did the Province of Ontario do? Well, Mr. Speaker, back in the early 1990s when there was, I believe there was an NDP government in Ontario at the time, and the NDP government said: We have a real serious problem here; we had better do something about this. We had better do something about this unfunded pension liability that the accountants just discovered and told us about. What did they do? They put in place a plan to get rid of the unfunded pension liability over a period of thirty years. They said: Okay, we will -

AN HON. MEMBER: A one-term government.

MR. HARRIS: I wouldn't advise members over there to remind people about the possibilities of one-term government, because you might find out all too soon. Those of you who were elected for the first time over there, you had better watch out for the fact that you might not be here after the next election.

I want to tell you what this NDP government did in Ontario. They put in place a plan that would get rid of the unfunded pension liability over a period of thirty years, because that is the period over which pension liabilities are, in fact, undertaken. They put it in place, Mr. Speaker, because it had to be done.

What I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, is that Ontario does not have an unfunded pension liability problem now, and do you know why? Because that plan was put in place by the NDP government in the early 1990s and guess what? The thirty-year plan to get rid of the unfunded pension liability took only eight years. In eight years it was gone. It was gone because of the performance of the stock markets in the 1990s, a function of good planning and good luck - good planning and good luck. It would have taken thirty years, and that would have been perfectly fine.

Just the way that you can come in here and talk about how we are mired in debt down here, we have all kinds of it, $10 billion, $13 billion. Depending on what day it is, you will hear different figures from across the other side. Included in that, of course, is the Hydro debt. They talked about that Hydro debt. That is part of this money, by the way, the Hydro debt. Well, the Hydro debt happens to be offset by assets that are worth twice the debt.

When we look at what Moody's say about that - I mean, what do they say about that? It was $1.4 billion, and if you want to frighten people who do not know the difference, you say: Oh, we are mired in debt, we owe $1.4 billion, Hydro alone. Do you plan to pay it off? Is that what you are saying, we should have 100 per cent, zero debt in Hydro? Not another corporation in the world has zero debt. Not another hydro corporation, utility of any kind, operates on 100 per cent equity with zero debt; not one. Are we saying that, somehow or other, having $1.4 billion is wrong? Because, you know, when Moody's looks at it, they say: Look, the self-supporting nature of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro mitigates concerns about the large contingent liability posed by the provincial guarantee of its debt. It says, contingent liability - another accountant's term, by the way. Some of you, I am sure many of you, have heard about it; a contingent liability.

If Hydro does not pay its debt, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador does. Now, under what circumstances is Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro not going to pay its debt? Under what circumstances? The Public Utilities Commission is over there, and their job is to give Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro a rate sufficient to pay all of its obligations. So, I suppose if, somehow or other, this government wiped out the Public Utilities Commission, told Hydro, you know, they are on their own, if you dismantled the system, if you took apart the institutions of government, I suppose Hydro might not pay its debt. I suppose that could happen, but are we afraid of that? Do you guys have such a lack of confidence in your own government that you think that they might do something stupid and silly like that?

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is an institution that provides - and it should be a larger institution, by the way, because Newfoundland Power should be part of it. If that $1.4 billion worth of debt were increased to about $1.8 billion or $2 billion, and that money was used to acquire the assets of Newfoundland Power, we would be better off. More debt is a good thing in some circumstances. Anybody who has bought a house knows that. The day after you bought your house, you owed more money than the day before. Are you saying that is a bad thing? Should people not buy houses? The day after I bought my first house, I owed $56,000. The day before I owed nothing. I was about $12,000 or $15,000 to the good. That was my down payment. The day afterwards I was in debt. I did not lose any sleep, I will tell you, and I did not lose money on it either. I did not go around saying, woe is me, I owe the banks $56,000, and I do not think anybody across the way did either.

Why should we say that about the $1.4 billion worth of debt that Hydro has on its books, that is serviced annually, that happens to be guaranteed by this government? Do you know why? They could probably borrow it without having it guaranteed by the government, and if you want to let them loose you can do it, but the government collects a guarantee fee on it, for one, a 1 per cent guarantee fee. What is that, $140 million a year? A fee for guaranteeing the debt of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and that money is used for government services. The government could say, no, you go borrow it yourself, and they could borrow it, they have the assets. They might have to pay a higher interest rate because it is not government guaranteed. When they go to the bond market looking for money, they get the same credit rating as the government because the government guarantees the debt. That is the advantage.

Are we going to go around saying, we are in big trouble because we have $1.4 billion worth of Hydro debt. I do not think so, because that debt is good debt. It is good for us, it is obviously good for the bond markets, and it is good for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Without it, we would not have a publicly owned Hydro Corporation and that would be a bad thing. We are not wallowing in $1.4 billion of Hydro debt. The real debt of this Province - there are two major debts in this Province. One is the public sector direct debt, an important figure, about $6.5 billion, a lot of money.

You know, I would invite members opposite, especially the new members, to have a look at the books. Look back at that figure, the public sector direct debt, look back over the last ten or twelve years. It is now $6.5 billion. It has been as low as $6 billion, it has been up to $6.2 billion, it has been back and forth, but over the last ten or twelve years it has not changed very much. There has been $200 million or $300 million difference in the last three or four years, but the public sector direct debt is not soaring out of control. In fact, the debt to GDP ratio, which is one of the figures that the Minister of Finance, when he was over here, used to bawl and yell about all the time - nobody knew what he was talking about. Not very many people knew what he was talking about. The financial people know what that figure is.

The Dominion Bond Rating Service, one of these bond credit agencies that the Minister of Environment and Conservation was talking about, in their report to this government, a rating update, October 29, 2003, seven days after they were elected, here is what they said: Due to record economic growth, however, the debt to GDP ratio dropped 7.9 per cent to 63.3 per cent, its lowest level in at least two decades. I will repeat that for those of you who did not hear it. The debt to GDP ratio, as of October 29, 2003, was 63.3 per cent, its lowest level in at least two decades. A few months later, we are spiraling out of control, according to somebody else. These are the bedtime stories of the Minister of Finance, we are spiraling out of control, but on October 29, we had the lowest level in at least two decades for the debt to GDP ratio, a very important number.

The same agency, the Dominion Bond Rating Service, said, in their current ratings, long-term debt, BBB stable trend, not spiraling downward out of control, not what the Premier said: We are wallowing in debt down here. I do not know where up is, I am not sure where up is. Every time I look at a globe we are pretty far up, but we are not down anywhere. Wherever we are, up or down, in or out, we are not wallowing in debt. We are not on the verge of bankruptcy. We are not about to fall over the cliff here. We have the lowest level of debt to GDP ratio in at least two decades.

They should read these, by the way. I have a copy of them. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would made available a copy to any members of the backbench opposite who have not had the opportunity to read these. He was kind enough to give one to me. It comes from Terry Paddon. If you do not know who Terry Paddon is, he is the Deputy Minister of Finance. Now he is not the one who tells the bedtime stories, he is not the one who tells the fairy tales, he does not make the myths. There is somebody else who makes the myths, there is somebody else who tells the bedtime stories, there is somebody else who is fast and loose with the facts, I think, is the phrase I used the other day.

These are the facts. There are different kinds of facts, I suppose. There are certain kinds of opinions. These are opinions of the bond rating agencies. It is a fact that these are the opinions. So if someone comes to this House or goes to the public and says, we just got alarming correspondence from the bond rating agencies, and they are asked to produce it, then the only correspondence apparently from the bond rating agencies are these particular documents. They are not secret documents either, by the way. They are probably available on their website, some of them. When you look at the December, 2003 analysis of Moody's - and Moody's has been doing this for a long time -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Let me just read it to you now. It is pretty interesting. Newfoundland and Labrador, Province of - so they obviously cover a lot of places. Newfoundland and Labrador is one of them. The financial and debt profile. The next headline: Debt burden easing despite increases in debt levels. Now, there is a difference between debt burden and debt levels. I mean, if I am making $50,000 a year, and my debt is $10,000, that is one thing. If my debt is actually $25,000, I am obviously two-and-a-half times more in debt than I was before, but if my income is $150,000, I am better off, okay. Now that is a very simple concept. But, if I want to go around and feel sorry for myself and say: Gee, I got two-and-a-half times more debt than I had last year. If I bought a house that I did not own before and I am $50,000 worth in debt or I just signed a mortgage for $75,000, well, I am in really bad shape. I am in really bad shape. Now, the fact that I have a house, they do not want to talk about that. When you borrow money to build a school, you own the school. When you borrow money to build a road, you own the road. When you look -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi that his time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: I wonder if I could have leave. The hon. members opposite seem to be learning something, Mr. Speaker. I have been offered a minute to clue up. I wonder if -

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: I will have an opportunity to speak in the main non-confidence motion but I just thought I would talk about some of these particular issues in a way that people could understand because we do have a problem with myth-making on the other side. I think that hon. members opposite are just as taken in by it as the Minister of Finance would like to make the public taken in by it, but, fortunately, Mr. Speaker, there are facts. There are letters. There are documents. There are people who understand these things who know different and we are here to make sure that side, the true facts as opposed to the myth, is put before the House. We will use our opportunities to do that as the debate goes on.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is important for me to begin today by taking the time to thank the people of the Terra Nova District for their support during the election last fall. Mr. Speaker, I feel honoured that they would choose me to represent them in this hon. House. I would also like to thank the many people who helped me by working on my campaign. In fact, there were in excess of 200 individuals who participated in this marvelous example of teamwork. Truly, the motto of the team that was the focus of our party's campaign platform was put into practice. It was heartwarming, indeed, that so many would want to help me get elected to represent the Terra Nova District.

Mr. Speaker, all my working life I have been involved in business where people are paid for everything they do, and rightfully so. Last fall's campaign showed me that when people believe in a cause and have faith in an individual they are willing to give their time and energy. When people believe that a change is necessary, when their needs are not being met, when they feel unheard and ignored, they are not only willing to vote but they are ready and willing to volunteer.

Mr. Speaker, my deepest and most sincere thanks is reserved, of course, for my family, for without their support I would have neither run in the first place or be standing in this hon. House today. My wife, Karen, walked from house to house, in community after community with me knocking on doors and taking the good with the bad. She has always been my strongest supporter in everything that I have attempted to do. I want to publicly thank her today.

I am also grateful to my two teenage daughters, Crystal and Victoria, who have supported my decision to run and were very much involved with my campaign themselves. My sister Pauline, my parents, my in-laws and other members of my family for their help also.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss today if I did not just take a moment to mention my father-in-law, Harold Greenham, who helped me with my campaign very much. However, on the day of election, October 21, he had to have major surgery. Unfortunately, he never did recover and on December 16, he passed away. Harold was a vital part of our family and will always be remembered.

Mr. Speaker, I remember clearly the day that I decided to get involved in provincial politics. I decided to put my name on a ballot because I wanted to make a positive difference in the lives of the people of the Terra Nova District and by extension, in the lives of the people of our wonderful Province, Newfoundland and Labrador. My intention is to be accessible to the people of the district, to work hard at representing them in this government, a government that is willing to make tough choices now because it cares deeply about the future.

Last year, Mr. Speaker, I remember sitting by the bedside of my grandfather who required twenty-four hour care. The situation was desperate. My grandmother, who had suffered a heart attack at age eighty-four, had been caring for him for over four years without any government home care assistance. She had applied for home care when the previous government was in power. What did they do for her, Mr. Speaker? I will tell you what they did for her, Mr. Speaker. Absolutely nothing! That is what they did. They did nothing to help. Their answer over and over again was the same: There is nothing we can do. It is no wonder that I feel disgusted when the members opposite look across and question our approach. Their approach was so that my grandmother of eighty-four years, with a heart condition, bear the responsibility of caring for my grandfather who required care around the clock. Even after she ended up in the hospital herself, still no help came from the government of the day. This is the approach that that government took and this is why on October 21, the people of the Terra Nova District and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador voted for a new approach and a new way.

I tried to get my grandfather into a nursing home only to find that there was no room available. This is a sad story that is told everyday in many communities throughout our Province. Mr. Speaker, I sat by my grandfather's bedside as he drew his last breath and I swore at that time that I would do my upmost, my best to help create a system where seniors would be able to spend their last days with dignity and the right that they deserve to dignity.

Mr. Speaker, for far too long the previous government got away with treating people with arrogance. I know what it is like to try to find enough work as a small businessman in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I know what it is like to try and find ten, twelve, or even fourteen weeks work in order to qualify for EI benefits to help get me through the winter. Like so many others in the rural economy of Newfoundland and Labrador, I had to go through that.

Time and time again, Mr. Speaker, I was frustrated of having to go through a silly six week waiting period because I was a shareholder as well as an employee. While I had to suffer through a routine check, my family's income was drastically affected and making ends meet was difficult to say the least.

Mr. Speaker, I also know what it is like to sit behind the desk as a successful businessman only to face the challenges of trying to make a business succeed in a rural area. Being a businessperson in this Province is not easy. One of the reasons I ran for the Progressive Conservatives was because our leaders vast experience and building and running successful businesses impressed me.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe that small businesses is the fuel that will drive the economic engine of this Province and will make us a have Province. On second thought, maybe I should not use the phrase, make us a have Province, because we already have a Province. I believe this government fully realizes that and is demonstrating that in the decisions and policies it has put forward in its first few months of mandate.

We have people that are second to none. Our people are renowned for their generosity, ingenuity, integrity and perseverance. We have a culture that is the envy of all who get to experience it. We have an abundance of resources including: tourism, minerals, oil and gas, fishery and hydro electricity that are unparallel. This government, Mr. Speaker, is committed to our people. This government is committed to stop the giveaways and realize our great potential.

I was pleased when I heard the Leader of the national NDP, Mr. Jack Layton, in his comments on Open Line - I think it was a couple of days ago. It was something like this: Well, it is very good to be speaking with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Of Course, one of the key messages I am bringing is that it is time that the federal government weighed in here with the kind of support that really should be due to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. When we look at things like equalization payments, and we look at the principles of the Atlantic Accord, and how they should be put into place when it comes to resources and resource revenues; when we look at Hibernia and the ownership share.

It was very interesting to see, of course, Madam Speaker, that the Leader of the National NDP sees the inequities that we face as the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. As I said, I was very glad to see that he saw through that.

Madam Speaker, this government will also take a pro-active approach with the federal government to ensure that we get our fair share within Confederation and become principal beneficiaries of our Province's resources, which is something we do not have right now. We will not take the approach of putting off a grandstand show just before an election to try and make the people think that all is well.

I want to use the experience that I have gained in business to help others in business in this Province get through the red tape that government has traditionally been so famous for. With the vast experience that the Premier has in his business concerns, I know that we can make a very positive difference in my district and throughout this Province.

Madam Speaker, I also know what it means to sit around a boardroom table for health and community service and have government cut programs with no vision and no idea about what we need to do to improve health care and community services. Madam Speaker, I also know what it is to sit around a town council table, when the current Opposition was the government of the day. It was frustrating to have our hands tied by their policies that were driven by lack of vision and concern for smaller communities of this Province. Madam Speaker, many small communities in our district still have no basic services, like water and sewer. Some residents still have to bring water in buckets or pump it from a stream or a pond or take it from a well. All of these sources are untested and may be unhealthy. I remember, Madam Speaker, as I was campaigning, going to a community within my district where children could not get access to water for a shower to go to school because there was no water in the community. These, Madam Speaker, are some of the reasons why I decided to run for the office.

Today we are talking about our Budget. We have to, and intend to, lead this Province. Every single member on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, would wish for nothing more than to be able to deliver a budget that could provide for every request and every need that came before us. However, because of fiscal mismanagement and reckless spending practices in the past, and particularly over the life of the last Administration, this day had to come. Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is, we will do everything we can to improve the lives of the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, that will be better for them in the long-term interest.

We know, Madam Speaker, that every need that is presented to us is a worthy one. However, the reality is that we cannot afford to do everything at this time, and the key is "at this time".

Madam Speaker, our new approach, the approach of this government as witnessed to in the Budget, will ensure that our children and their children will not be saddled with a burden of a crippling debt that has been our inheritance. They will enjoy the prosperity and potential that this marvelous Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has to offer. Already we are at work putting in place measures to help us walk down that road.

Madam Speaker, I will highlight the following from our Budget that we are going to do for the children of this Province. I was pleased when this Budget was brought down, for these particular items, especially, Madam Speaker. In education we are going to spend $22.1 million in 2004-2005, on major capital construction projects to improve existing schools and construct new facilities; $13.9 million of this for projects already underway, including new Francophone school community centre and extension and renovations at Northshore Elementary School; $8.2 million is for major maintenance projects.

Funding is allocated for the creation of a Ministerial Council on Early Childhood Learning to foster comprehensive programs across all government departments and agencies that focus on the learning needs of children and their families. Things for children, things for our families, Madam Speaker, in this Province. Two hundred and fifty thousand dollars to proceed with a White Paper on Post Secondary Education. Tuition is frozen at Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic.

"Help for Those Who Need it Most", it says right here in a copy of our Budget. Commencing in the 2005 taxation year, a Low Income Tax Credit will be instituted; individuals with net income up to $12,000 and families with net income up to $19,000 will pay no provincial personal income tax. The annual cost of this measure will be $5.3 million. Why, Madam Speaker? To help the children and to help families in this Province. That is what I am about. That is the reason I am here, is to help families in this Province and in my district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Madam Speaker, we also see in this Budget an Indexing of Seniors' Benefits, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Child Benefit to the Consumer Price Index will start in 2004 at a cost of $400,000. I can go on and on with the different things that we have in this Budget that are exclusive and inclusive to the children of our Province.

What we are doing in this House, as a government today, Madam Speaker, is for the people of this Province. I recall the words of wisdom that say: Without a vision the people perish. This is not a new revelation or a political slogan but rather a truth that has been understood and practiced by progressive societies down through human history.

Madam Speaker, I might also want to point out today that not only does our Province see fit to do things for children and for families, but we also know that business is the driving force in our Province, and we also know that small businesses is a very important part of our Province. In our Budget again, I notice we have a new Department of Business that will be established and lead by the Premier with an annual budget of $1 million. Again, a commitment to small business in this Province.

Three and fifty thousand dollars provided for a Newfoundland and Labrador Office of Federal-Provincial Relations in Ottawa, a very positive step in building a new relationship with Ottawa.

One point two five million will be spent to implement the recommendations of the Dunne report on fish processing policy. We all know, Madam Speaker, that the fishery is a very vital and important part of our Province's economy, and, of course, of the people in this Province and the lives of the people in this Province.

Madam Speaker, $500,000 for land development, allowing farmers to lease land not currently being used for agricultural purposes. That is a very important point for my district where agriculture is a big part of the employment in our district.

Seven point three million for a silviculture program to help promote sustainable development in our forest resources,

Three point five million for the Forest Resource Roads Program, allowing access to hard to harvest forestry stands and for infrastructure development for the coastal Labrador ferry service.

Seven million dollars for tourism marketing initiatives. This is a $1 million increase over the last year and further increases will be made each year until our marketing efforts match that of the Maritime Provinces.

Madam Speaker, I stand today as somebody who has come to this House to represent my district and this Province. Even when we look at this Budget and we look at the things, of course, in the Budget that are a little hard to take some times - there is no doubt about it, there are things in the Budget that certainly are a bitter pill to swallow because nobody likes cutting, nobody likes having to do things like that. We realize today that this is for the good of our children, of our grandchildren, and I would implore everyone in this Province today to stand behind this government, to stand behind the members of this House, not only the members on this side of the House, of course, but the members on the other side of the House as well, because they have all been elected by the people to do a job, and our job, Madam Speaker, is to make sure that we have a prosperous, bright future for our children, for this Province, so that when people look at Newfoundland and Labrador, they will realize that Newfoundland and Labrador is the best Province in Canada to live in. I , for one, will do everything in my power to make sure that is what Newfoundland and Labrador will be.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition Leader.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in this Budget Debate and make a few comments. I understand again that, by virtue of being Leader of the Official Opposition, I do have one hour available, and the Government House Leader has indicated that if I need a little more time than that, he is willing to provide it. I do not expect that I will need it.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: No, not this time?

MR. E. BYRNE: No. I mean, you are great but we do not want to be here forever.

MR. GRIMES: Okay. Thank you.

Madam Speaker, I congratulate, again, the Member for Terra Nova, who just gave what is described as the maiden speech, and talked about the fact that he is proud to be here and the initiatives that he sees worthy of some positive comment with respect to the Budget, because I have not seen very many. I recognize there are a couple that he did highlight. It is the problem with the rest of it that I am going to talk about today.

Again, it is unfortunate, because what we are witnessing again today is we have had some speakers today and some others who have been talking a bit from their seats even though they are not recognized speakers, like the Member for Trinity North. We have seen no sign of that in the last couple of days. We have seen none of them talk about an issue like Bill 18, back-to-work legislation, which they voted for at two different stages in a bill without saying a word about why they support it or if they have any reservations or if they see any problems.

Now that we are back to the Budget Debate, which is recognized to be fairly wide-ranging, I will make some comments, Madam Speaker, as to how the negotiations and how the back-to-work legislation ties into the Budget, because it is all one big piece. I understand, and everybody recognizes, that it is completely in order, because when you are talking about the fiscal policy of the government, which is what the Budget Debate is, that, in fact, negotiations and whether or not they are going to put new clauses or extra money and so on, that is clearly tied to the fiscal policy of the government and that makes it all in order.

I would invite the members opposite - because, you see, Madam Speaker, I think it is recognized that, other than for the third and final reading of the back-to-work legislation, we have all lost our chance - some of us used it - but everyone on the other side has lost their chance to speak at second reading which is a process that says why you agree with a particular bill, a particular piece of legislation in principle, in theory, in concept, as a part of philosophy, why you think it is a good idea. None of them spoke to that.

The Finance Minister introduced it and did not really say why he was doing it. He talked about what was in it, but he could not even defend why it was being done, why it was such a wonderful thing, what merits it had. We had two other speakers from the other side, the Government House Leader, who used twenty minutes to say nothing, did not even mention -and the record of the House will show that - did not mention once, in his twenty minutes that he took to speak to the back-to-work legislation, never mentioned back-to-work legislation. He talked about the debt, he talked about the fiscal circumstance, he talked about the past, he talked about ten or fifteen years ago, he talked about twenty years ago, he talked about months ago, he talked about before the election, but never said a word, not one word came out of his cheeks, about why he supported the back-to-work legislation.

Then we had, I think, a representation and a presentation by the Minister of Transportation and Works and the Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs who spoke at the end of the debate and, again, ended up spending twenty minutes and just before he sat down he made this comment. He said: Mr. Speaker, I would have spoken about Bill 18, the back-to-work legislation, except the Opposition kept interrupting me and would not let me. He admitted that he had used twenty minutes and said absolutely nothing about the bill again - absolutely nothing!

We have gone through the second reading where you talk about the merits of it in a broad principled statement and nobody on the government.... Notice one other absentee from that list of speakers: the Premier. The Premier of this Province, who is running the whole show over there, did not say a word for the record in this Legislature about why he thought it was the right thing. Not even the Premier, as the leader of the group, and the leader of the government, said anything about the bill, Madam Speaker. In fact, that is the circumstance.

I would offer this invitation to all of the members opposite - it is too late now for the Member for Terra Nova, but they are speaking a bit today. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs did speak earlier today on this non-confidence motion and the sub-amendment. Again, there was an opportunity then, because you can speak about just about anything and I would invite the rest, now that you have your tongues back, now that you have freedom of speech again, now that you are willing to stand up and say something again, put in a few words in your twenty minutes about why you have already voted for Bill 18. Let the people know, because you know yourselves you are being called by your own members. You are being asked: Why didn't you say anything? Why didn't you stand on your feet? Why did you sit in your seat and let the Opposition spend twelve or thirteen hours talking about why they were against it and not one single soul of you, who are so proud to be the government, so proud to be in charge, so proud, as your Premier says, to be running the Province - not governing - in control of the Province, not governing on behalf of the people, why they were so proud, and not a word. There is an opportunity for them now, at least after the fact, to at least tell their own constituents when they are up, like the Member for Terra Nova just said: I am proud to represent.

I have e-mails from his constituents whom he is proud to represent in Terra Nova, saying how they disappointed they are in electing such a good man, that they were all convinced that he is, and how come he did not even take two minutes to stand up and say why he voted fifteen or sixteen times -

MR. PARSONS: Eighteen times.

MR. GRIMES: Eighteen times? Why he voted eighteen times, in total, two nights ago, for back-to-work legislation for people who are already back to work.

Madam, Speaker, I would again invite them, because they can do it in this debate. I do not think any more of them will speak today, but when we get back to debate in the future -

MR. E. BYRNE: You are going to bring us to (inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: I may sit down before 5:30. It is unlikely, I admit, Madam Speaker, that I would sit down before 5:30.

Given the opportunity that I have to speak - and let me make this point about that, because it is important - even on Tuesday evening the government used a procedural rule that we used before when I was in the government for fifteen years, and every time we used it, the Member for Lewisporte, the Minister of Transportation and Works, Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs, called it the hobnail boot, the government forcing its way through, the government choking off and stifling debate, but it is a legitimate procedure and they used it. The government used it on Tuesday so that we had this principal debate. Then we had what is called the Committee stage, where you are actually supposed to be able to look at each of the separate clauses of the bill, discuss them individually, and suggest some amendments.

At that stage the government used a procedure, referred to as closure, which prohibits even the introduction of an amendment for consideration. They also knew it would run out the time -

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

MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Just so the Leader of the Opposition is clear, even though you are operating under a closure motion in Committee, it does not prohibit any member from putting forward an amendment. All it does, it says that the debate will close at 1:00 a.m.

If you had to put forward one amendment, or ten or fifteen or fifty, all those amendments would have been voted on at 1 o'clock. It does not prohibit any member or the Official Opposition or anybody else from making an amendment or proposing or suggesting one. Just so the rules are clear.

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

MR. GRIMES: Did you want to rule on the point of order, Madam Speaker?

MADAM SPEAKER: Thank you.

There is no point of order, just a point of clarification.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The Chair, in case some people did not notice, ruled that was not a point of order, so that the record makes it absolutely clear.

Let me continue to make the point, Madam Speaker. The point that I was making was this, and the Government House Leader just confirmed it, that it did not matter what you said, or it did not matter what you did, there was going to be a vote taken on all of it at 1 o'clock in the morning and not one of those had spoken.

The normal process, compared to that - and this is what is important and instructive, Madam Speaker - the normal process is that we would have spoken for ten minutes at a time, and if I wanted to propose an amendment - and I will give you an example of one - we could speak for ten minutes at a time, I would probably talk about an amendment that I would like to suggest, and then someone from the government would stand up and say whether they thought that amendment made any sense or whether they might support it or not. That is the normal procedure. Then I could speak, by the way, as one member of the House, for ten minutes, an unlimited number of times. If I had fifty amendments to make, I could take ten-minute sections fifty times, and that is under the normal rules, but they had put us in a position that because they had invoked this closure motion to prohibit and limit debate, people like myself were entitled to speak once for twenty minutes with no response from the opposite side. It did not matter what you presented anyway; they had the closure motion on us but they had the gag order on themselves, so we would never get any indication of whether they agreed.

Let me give an example, because I used it on Open Line, I think, yesterday. One of the clauses in the bill was the clause that if you did not show up for work when you were ordered back, you were fired. The Opposition House Leader, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, had even asked the Justice Minister in Question Period: Well, what about some kind of appeal? Because the firing, by the way, the firing piece, has surfaced twice in Newfoundland and Labrador. Once from this Tory government and once from the previous Administration, the Tory government of Brian Peckford back in the early 1980s. Those are the only two times there has ever been a piece of legislation that said: If you do not do as I say, you are fired.

I can understand why it is there, because I have heard the current day Premier speak several times about how much respect he has for the former Premier who is so proud of what he has done that he is living in B.C. He is so proud of it. He is so far away from here, you cannot get any further from here than where he is. You cannot get any further, physically, on this continent, away from Newfoundland and Labrador than where the former Premier Peckford is.

The example, Madam Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: Madam Speaker, I invite the members opposite to stand up and use their time to talk about the things they are proud of and make any point they want, if they want to stand up. They are getting a bit braver today. At least there were a few of them up today. They are still not talking about Bill 18, you will notice that, even though they could under today's rule.

Let me give the example, Madam Speaker. The example was about being fired and having no recourse whatsoever: You are fired if you don't show up at the minute we tell you to go back to work. Now, put that aside. The folly of it, the absolute idiocy of even talking about a bill to tell people you have to go back to work, when they were already there - I dealt with that a couple of days ago. The fact was we had a bill, and we were being told by the government: You must stay here and debate it tonight, and you only chance to speak to it is until one o'clock in the morning and then it is over. We don't care what you say anymore, we are voting for it, you are going to vote against it - and it happened eighteen times.

Put that aside. The example we wanted to give is this: Supposing a member, a valued public employee, the same ones who were offered pizza, chicken and chips and fish and chips yesterday as their signing bonus, as a thank you for coming back to work - no signing bonuses said the Premier, unless it is under the value of fish and chips. That is a signing bonus we can afford. A slice of pizza is a signing bonus we can afford. So those kinds of things, Madam Speaker.

Supposing I was one of those valued employees and I said, yes, I am going to comply with the law, as much as I think it is distasteful. I will comply and I am going to work. There are a lot of people, by the way, right in this building, who we know, who live not in St. John's but in the surrounding area, out in the district of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, out in the district of the Member for Mount Pearl, out in Conception Bay North. They drive, now, with the new roads and they get here in about an hour. Quite a number decide to live out there. The Member for Harbour Main Whitbourne - quite a few who actually live out there and work right in this building. The Member for Kilbride does it himself, comes in every day and faces some fair traffic. Mini-Me, himself, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, people from his District of Ferryland come here every day.

Supposing I was one of those and I was driving in, I had decided to put aside my pride and go back to work because I was ordered to do so, and I had a car accident and went off the road and ended up in the hospital instead, and didn't show up. The point we were trying to make was: Wouldn't you want - just out of decency and just out of fairness and a matter of justice - to have some kind of provision in that says, before you are fired at least you will be able to explain why you did not show up? That was an amendment we wanted to move and talk about, Madam Speaker, but we could not do it because it was all over at 1:00 a.m. As a matter of fact, I think only four of us got to speak. There are fourteen of us over here who wanted to speak and because they put the rules in, they used the procedure rule, only four got to speak. We did not get to talk about sensible, possible amendments like that. I just seen members opposite nodding their heads and saying: Yes, what you just said makes sense. If a person was going into work and they actually end up in the hospital and said: We should not fire them, we should give them a chance to say: Well, I was on my way in but the car blew a tire, I went out in the ditch, and I had to get taken to the hospital. Can I come in tomorrow and not be fired? There was no provision in the act to even talk about that. They did not talk about it and we did not get a chance to talk about it.

Madam Speaker, let me get back though, more specific, to the Budget Debate. I do invite them to use some time - if they speak again when we get back to this debate next week - to talk about retroactively, after the fact, why it is they supported that particular bill because they voted for it eighteen times so far without ever saying that they even had an reservation.

Yes, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs will, he said. I am glad to hear that, because he has always been a man of integrity. He has always been a man who stood on his own two feet. He has always been a man who did not kowtow to anybody. He has always been a man that would refuse to be muzzled, until two nights ago. Maybe he is going to get his tongue back. Maybe the tongue transplants are in big time the last week. We have some people starting to talk, which is good to see.

Madam Speaker, let me go through the Budget chronology again. We have a Budget Debate which says the government presents a motion saying: I support the budgetary policy of the government. We spoke against that. I spoke against that. When I was speaking against it I introduced an amendment normally referred to as a non-confidence motion, but I introduced an amendment which I then spoke to which says: I move, seconded by the Opposition House Leader, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, that this House not support the government budgetary policy at all, but, in fact, we condemn it and we condemn the government for its failure to accurately represent the true state of the economy, because they have not, you see.

The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi just spoke most eloquently about the other side of the story that nobody over there has heard. They do not want to hear, Mini-Me himself, the Finance Minister does not want a single soul to ever hear it because it does not fit their agenda. The Premier, himself, does not want to hear it because it does not fit the myth, does not fit at all, what he wants people in Newfoundland and Labrador to believe. He wants it all buried. He wants it all to go away because they have not reflected the true state of the economy.

Notice one thing, normally when there is good news in the Province a minister of the Crown gets up and makes a ministerial statement and talks about it so the people would hear the good news and will know that the government is pleased with it. What was the good news yesterday, Madam Speaker? That no minister of the Crown spoke about yesterday and nobody raised to talk about today. Newfoundland and Labrador, again - just announced by the way - for about five of the last six years led the country in economic growth. Not only did we lead the country - the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's is looking at me as if he is astonished, as if he did not hear this in the news even. He certainly did not hear it from his Premier. He certainly did not hear it from Mini-Me, the Minister of Finance. I thought he might have heard it in the news, because the news reported that we led the country in economic growth again. The numbers were staggering. The growth here was 6.5 per cent. Guess what it was? Three times - and I will get to what the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development just said, because I am glad she said it. Three times, Madam Speaker, the national average. Now, isn't that good news?

The Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne is shaking his head, saying: Yes, that is good news. That is good news that the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador grew three times as fast as the national average. The highest in the country, three times the average. Not just a smidgen over, but triple it. I mean three times the national average in Canada, by the way, is doing very well in the world. Canada is close to leading the whole world in growth still, outstripping the great, powerful, rich United States of America; Canada is. Newfoundland and Labrador is growing its economy three times the national rate, three times that.

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: And, of course, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture does not like to hear that, the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs, because even today he got up and talked about a billion dollar fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador and said: The former Ministers of Fisheries presided over nothing - $1 billion. Now, do you see the pattern? He wants to talk about a billion dollar economic sector in the Province as nothing.

Let me tell you, Madam Speaker, and let me tell the rest of the House, and let me tell those who might be watching, what the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development just said when I was making these comments.

MR. TAYLOR: A point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works and Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I say to the hon. -

MADAM SPEAKER: Pardon me.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and Labrador Affairs.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I say to the hon. member that he can have whatever time I take, which will be short.

When I said that the former ministers, the last two ministers, presided over nothing, I meant not that they presided over nothing from an industry perspective. They presided over nothing in that they did nothing while they were ministers, Madam Speaker, to address the fundamental problems in the industry. I said they presided over nothing. They presided over nothing in the form of their actions while they served their mandate, Madam Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order, merely a point of clarification.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Again, with the aid of some tongue looseners that he did not have a couple of nights ago, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture got up again and did confirm that he made the comment that the two former ministers presided over nothing.

The Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, when I was talking about the fact that the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador just reported - because normally she would be the minister who would get up and make a statement to tell the whole world that, so the people across the country, people in the Province, could take some pride in what is going on in Newfoundland and Labrador, that we have a growing economy, we do not have a shrinking economy. It is actually growing. It is the fastest growing in the country, three times the national average, 6.5 per cent.

Now, if it is three times the national average, that means the rest of the provinces in the country are only averaging just over 2 per cent. What did she say about 6.5 per cent? Because it is exactly what they say about everything, because it fits the myth. She said: Oh, only a little more than half as much as it was last year - and guess who was the government last year? We were. Guess how much the economy grew last year? Twelve per cent!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Now, she is over there and wants to tell the world that 6.5 per cent growth, which is three times the national average - oh, telling her people because that is what they say to each other. They are in this negative mindset. They say: That is no good. That is no good. Convince yourself, that is no good. Do not ever let yourself be fooled into believing that there is anything good happening in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Madam Speaker, that is why we have the motion that we put in, the non-confidence motion that I moved and I already spoke to, talking about they have not represented the true state of the economy because they have not. Today we further amended it, which is why I am speaking again, and glad to do so, to say, and further amend it to say, "...this House rejects the Government's Budget statement because it is predicated upon mythical and inaccurate information."

We have witnessed it again by virtue of two Ministers of the Crown who have made interventions and interjections today to diminish a $1 billion fishery as if it is nothing; and the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, who is supposed to be creating the jobs that are going to save the rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador through a new Rural Secretariat, who is diminishing record growth again, triple the national average, 6.5 per cent growth when the country is only averaging 2 per cent, and she wants to go out.... I guess she will be making a speech somewhere next week saying: Oh, people of Newfoundland and Labrador, don't dare get excited about having growth in your economy three times the national average because by the time I am finished it will be three times below the national average. That is the one she is about to make, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Madam Speaker, I tell you, that is why we are in this debate and where we are today, and I would recommend reading - I do not often do this, but recommended reading - because I do not like to give credit to the other parties. I like to try to say we have some sensible ideas ourselves, but a good idea, no matter where it comes from, is a good idea. Recommended reading is the presentation that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, made here about half an hour ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Because, I am telling you, even with the information in their hands - and I covered some of this ground last week suggesting that the economy was growing, the economy was strong, the outlook is good, your bond rating has been reconfirmed at the highest level it has been for seventy years, the outlook for any bond rating changes is stable - with that information, as the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi pointed out, that did not fit the story they wanted to tell. So, Mini-Me himself, the Minister of Finance, went out and got their own report, which they altered. Their own report, because it even showed that there was going to be a bit of problem for a couple of years and then it was going to get better in terms of deficits. All of a sudden that was not good enough, so they got a new report after the interim one which showed that the deficit was going to go like this and keep getting worse because that is what they wanted. That fit the story.

The Federation of Labour, through its President, Mr. Anstey, put out some ads that said it was a phony report and that they planned these things all along. It struck right to the heart, right to the core, right to the nerve, because as soon as he saw the ads, what did the Premier do? And I talked about this before. In an angry snit, in an angry fit, he ran downstairs to the media centre with some charts of his own and he absolutely lambasted the President of the Federation of Labour for daring to suggest something other than what their own phony reports - that they had to go and get done because the ones they already had did not suit the story. He lambasted him and he used this kind of language, which is when we started to see the real Premier of the Province. Not the one that people thought they were voting for but the real one. He used language - very telling. Let me say this, and recount this one, Mr. Speaker, because for me this was the first time we got a real look at the real Premier.

He went downstairs, angry, very angry, upset and he said to the people -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

I ask members if they would co-operate. There is altogether too much noise in the Chamber.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not mind hearing some noise from opposite because it does convince me they have tongues. They do speak. They can talk. Now, they will not talk about things that are important to the people of the Province, but they will sit over there when there is no microphone on and banter. At least it is refreshing to know that they do have a voice, even though they will not stand up and speak to the real issues.

Let me finish the story, because it is very telling, Mr. Speaker. It is part of the public record of the Province, recorded on video tape. It is now going to be played over and over again. The President of the Federation of Labour exposed that it was a myth. That he did not think the government's description of the economic circumstance was true at all. He described it as being phony. The Premier did not like that, so angrily he went downstairs, held a press conference with the Minister of Finance, Mini-Me. The only reason I am saying that, Mr. Speaker, is because this is being well and widely circulated on the Internet, Dr. Evil and Mini-Me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member knows there is a rule against using props. Also, the member would know that he has no right to table things in the House as a member not in the Cabinet.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize for the indiscretion.

Let me make this point. I know I have no right to table it, but I will offer it to the members opposite. Even if they do not take it here and they do not want to see it on a hard copy, they cannot prevent the fact - I might not be able to show this, what is inside here, because of the rules of this House, but it cannot stop the fact that it is widely circulated on the Internet, I say to the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, who has seen it and does not like it. I will tell you one thing, it had more hits, it has had more visits to that Web site than anything else in the last little while.

MS DUNDERDALE: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: The Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, who is so proud of the bill and the actions taken that she will not say a word, is now over there expressing some disgust about the fact that the Leader of the Opposition will want to tell people about something that is in the public domain. What do you want, censorship? Are we not allowed to talk about things that are on the Internet, that are widely circulated, that everybody in the Province has seen? By the way, everybody in the Province who sees it, agrees with it, and laughs out loud at it.

I will say to the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I would love for her to get up and say some of the things she is saying right now from her seat. I would love for her to stand up with a microphone turned on, activated, so she can be proud enough to say it to the people of the Province. I will make a prediction, we will not hear it. At least it is nice to know that she can speak, even though it is from her seat and it is not about anything important and it is not relevant to anything, but it is nice to know that she does have her voice back after a few days of being mute.

So let me make the point again before I conclude for the day, Mr. Speaker. Again, I did not expect to speak this long. Mr. Anstey said what he thought to be the truth. By the way, he is a respected member of the society in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: He has given thirty-five years of his life to public service in Newfoundland and Labrador. The members opposite, by the way, who have known of him, who have worked with him, confided in him, have done business with him over the years, they know that he is well respected. He is not some yahoo that came out of nowhere. He is not some imbecile. He is not some idiot that does not have a brain, that does not think. This is a very well respected member of this Province. He is very well known, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture knows, in the fishing communities all over Newfoundland and Labrador. He is nodding his head saying that he acknowledges he is very well respected in the fishing communities of Newfoundland and Labrador; one of the most respected leaders ever to come on the scene.

He, on behalf of the Federation of Labour, came to his own conclusion that the government's report was phony. The Premier angrily went downstairs and here are the words. The words are what is telling. He rushed into the press conference, sat up to the table and, when asked the question, said to the media: I do not have time for this nonsense. I have a Province to run.

I do not have time to deal with a serious issue, by the way, raised by the President of the Federation of Labour, who speaks for 35,000 to 40,000 unionized workers in the public and private sector of the Province. He is their elected representative.

Now, I know that the Premier would like to decide who would speak for everybody, only the ones who would agree with him. You are not allowed to have elections. You are not allowed to elect your own speaker. That is nonsense, he said. I do not have time to deal with this foolishness. I have a Province to run.

Then he went further - and this is when he started lambasting, the old tour of reach out, lash out, slam anyone who dares speak against the Premier - and he said, I have a Province to run, but fellows like him, they have nothing better to do.

Don't members opposite see how condescending that sounds, how condescending that is? That is your leader. That is your Premier. The problem with it is, he is also our Premier. He is not our leader. He is not the leader of our party. He is not our choice, but he is the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador - all of us - and that is his attitude, I say to the Minister of Government Services. That is his attitude.

I will tell you one thing. He did get elected, rightfully so, through a process, and had he shown his true colours, had people known that was his real attitude, had people known that he looked down his nose at anyone who dare say anything against him, then do you think he would have gotten elected? Do you think you would have gotten elected, I say?

MS WHALEN: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, it is great to hear the Minister of Government Services also speak, the first time in weeks. Not allowed to stand up, I will say to the Minister of Government Services, and answer a question that says: When might we see the promised piece of legislation with respect to automobile insurance reform? I will tell you how much of a voice she had then. She sat in her seat and did not answer the question as the minister responsible. I will tell you one thing, she has a voice today. She has a voice today. Now, she hasn't got a voice with the microphone on. She hasn't got a voice to stand up for the public record, to be recorded in Hansard to say what she is saying from her seat, but maybe she will stand up next week.

Mr. Speaker, let me conclude today before I adjourn the debate, because I understand I will have some time left to come back to it again. I have not used my full hour yet. I would like to adjourn the debate on this particular sub-amendment to the non-confidence motion, which is an amendment to the budgetary motion. Before I do that, as we near the normal closing time for today, let me make one other prediction about what happened today, and this is important.

Today, the Premier tried to suggest that he voluntarily withdrew Bill 18 from the Legislature because he had an active negotiation going on with Mr. Puddister - the parking lot negotiation. He knew before he came to the House that he already had his answer about the parking lot proposal. It was no go, but he tried to suggest that there was an active negotiation and that is why he did it.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the real reasons are but I can tell you this. He went outside the House and said, we could have passed Bill 18 today if we wanted to. The real answer is this: They could not. They could not, because we already knew that we had the right under Petitions to present Petitions to this House until 10 o'clock tonight if we had to, and we could never get to this debate, and the Speaker will confirm that. We had a plan to do so, because we said to the public: Now that there is no need for this bill anyway, we will filibuster and do everything we can to stop this. Yesterday, we saw the truth. Yesterday, the government could not present the private member's motion because they had not followed the right procedures, and they had not followed the necessary and right procedures for today either. If they wanted to guarantee passage of Bill 18 today they had failed to present the right motions. Let me make this prediction, Mr. Speaker. Now the Premier wants everyone to believe: Oh, I am going to be very gracious. I am going to extend the hanging of people. I was going to hang them today, but I will not hang them until Monday. I will make this prediction, Mr. Speaker. When I sit down in a minute or so I will predict, and glad to be wrong, that the House Leader today will make the right motions to make sure that the government can pass Bill 18 on Monday because they did not make them for today and they could not pass the bill today. It could not be done.

The Member for Lewisporte, the Minister of Transportation and Works, the Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs, he knows it. He is nodding in agreement. He knows that they did not present the right motions.

Mr. Speaker, I will make the prediction, however, I will make the prediction that he -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: Pardon me, Mr. Speaker. I am laughing. I am sorry but I am laughing because the Member for Lewisporte, the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs is over there protesting that he was not nodding his head. In fact, he said, my head is immobile. If that is the case, it is the first time I ever saw it. I am sure I saw it moving there a few minutes ago.

Mr. Speaker, let me do this, as I adjourn the debate. There will be, I expect, the right motions passed today. I hope I am wrong. I am willing to be wrong. I was not wrong yesterday; not wrong today. I hope I am wrong on Monday, but I think we will see the closure motions introduced for Monday because the government's intention always was to pass this unnecessary bill. What they could not do today because they did not follow the right procedure, they will get the procedure right now upon adjournment and they will do it on Monday.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would move the adjournment of the debate on this sub-amendment so that I can resume my place when we return to this spot on the agenda in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that this debate now be adjourned.

All those in favour say ‘aye'?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, nay.

The motion is carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

It is always interesting to listen to the Leader of the Opposition because he - more than anybody else in the ten years that I have seen here - can take a corner of a picture and describe it as the whole world. It is really interesting. For example, here is one prediction he will make. He said that today I am going to stand up and move a closure motion. Well, I am going to say to the Leader of the Opposition -

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised. Are we agreed to stop the clock?

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, yes we are.

I just want to make this point, I understood the Leader of the Opposition was up to deal with the adjournment, not to make a speech.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, let me say this. I will make the correction, and that is what they need to do to find a bit of levity because they are under such stress. I am glad I provided it for them.

Mr. Speaker, I understood that we are dealing with the adjournment, which does not provide an opportunity for the Government House Leader to make a speech. We are at the adjournment time, we have stopped the clock. Let's proceed and find out whether I am right or whether he is going to make some other adjournment motion.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

I invite the Government House Leader now to complete his business.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I will be very quick.

I will not be making a closure motion today, so he is wrong on that account.

I am going to move that the House sit beyond 5:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., and I will tell you why, because we plan to put a motion next week to adjourn the House up until Monday, May10. His Opposition House Leader told me that they plan to debate it, and it is a debatable motion. He also told me that everyone of them are going to debate it. So, in order to do that and facilitate that and give them all the time they want, I am going to move, according to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday nor at 10:00 p.m. on Monday.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that this House will now adjourn. This House is adjourned until Monday at 1:30 p.m. in the afternoon.

This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30 p.m.