MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon the Speaker would like to welcome to the Speaker's gallery Mrs. Leona Aglukkaq, Minister of Finance and Chairperson of the Financial Management Board in the Territory of Nunavut, and Robert Vardy, the Deputy Minister.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker has members' statements today as follows: The hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Buchans; the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's Centre; the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's North; and the hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Sterling Thomas, a longtime resident of Grand Falls-Windsor, on being recognized at the Provincial Elks Association conference held recently in Grand Falls-Windsor, for fifty years of dedicated service to not only Grand Falls Lodge 59, but to the entire provincial group.

Mr. Speaker, over the past fifty years, Sterling has serviced as past Exalted Ruler of Lodge 59 for three terms, was past District Deputy of Number 1 District Newfoundland and Labrador and has sat on many committees. He claims his most enjoyable activity is when he was Chairman of the Sick Committee. This has enabled him to visit the Central Newfoundland Regional Health Care Centre on Christmas Eve every year, and can you imagine that he has not missed a Christmas Eve since 1963.

Sterling Thomas will be ninety-one years old in July. He is a remarkable citizen and a living legend for Grand Falls-Windsor. His hard work and dedication towards his community and Province, even to this day, is extraordinary. In fact, he has been named Grand Falls-Windsor Citizen of the Year twice.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating Mr. Sterling Thomas on being recognized for his many years of service and extend gratitude to him for his commitment to the people of Grand Falls-Windsor, and indeed the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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 recognize fifty-five years of volunteer service given by Mrs. Blanche Byrne to the Royal Canadian Legion, St. John's Branch.

Mrs. Byrne is a resident of St. John's Centre who, since 1949, has given thousands of hours of volunteer service to the Royal Canadian Legion in the Province and, in particular, to the Royal Canadian Legions here in St. John's.

Fifty-five years of dedicated volunteerism to one organization, Mr. Speaker. Fifty-five years of giving, fifty-five years of helping others, fifty-five years of contribution to her fellow citizens. Mrs. Byrne is an example to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and has been recognized for her efforts by the Royal Canadian Legion. She has received many meritorious awards and commendations from the Legion but, most significantly, she has been awarded the Palm Leaf Award for meritorious service, the highest commendation that one can receive from the Legion.

Mrs. Byrne has held many positions within the Legion over the years and has worked on numerous committees and campaigns on behalf of the Royal Canadian Legion. As well, she has found time over those fifty-five years to give time to other organizations such as the Girl Guides, the CNIB, the Red Cross, the Salvation Army and the Kidney Foundation, to name a few.

I ask all hon. Members of the House of Assembly to join me in thanking and recognizing the contribution of Mrs. Blanche Byrne for her fifty-five years of volunteerism.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate the fortieth graduating class of Ascension Collegiate in Bay Roberts.

I attended this graduation ceremony on Saturday evening and was delighted to see the enthusiasm and interest of the graduates, their families and their friends. The church service was held at St. Matthew's Anglican Church which can accommodate a congregation of 1,100 people, and, Mr. Speaker, 1,100 people packed this church on Saturday for their graduation service.

The theme for this year's graduation was: The Places You'll Go. The valedictorian was Megan Dawe, and the banquet was held at the Bay Area in Bay Roberts. The total number of graduates this year was 250, and of that number 234 were in attendance.

Mr. Speaker, this very high turnout shows the tremendous interest of our students for all aspects of their school life. Again, congratulations to the fortieth graduating class of Ascension Collegiate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: Mr. Speaker, on Friday evening, I was honoured to attend a ceremony at Government House where His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor presented awards for the provincial association of Canadian Parents for French. These awards are to honour those who have been judged as having done exemplary work to promote the French language in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The core French teacher of the year was Debbie Olson from Xavier Junior High in Deer Lake, while the French immersion teacher of the year was Susan Forward, vice-principal of Brother Rice Junior High in St. John's.

The third award was for volunteer of the year, and this went to Jordan Wright, a young resident of St. John's North. Jordan is a student at Memorial University and will receive his Bachelor of Arts degree this year. He is a member of the Northeast Avalon Chapter of Canadian Parents for French and is youth representative on the provincial board of CPF. Jordan dedicates a great deal of time to encouraging young people to learn French, and this award was recognition of his efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating these three people for their efforts in promoting French in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize a business in my district who recently took part in a trade mission to Chicago in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, Labrador Preserves of Forteau , which produces bakeapples and partridgeberry spreads and syrups from Labrador, was one of twelve Newfoundland and Labrador companies that comprised a Team Canada Atlantic Trade Mission to Chicago.

Larry Stephen, who is the Marketing Director, stated that they are targeting upscale gourmet retail chains. This trip also allowed Labrador Preserves to locate an importer/exporter, which is key to this business. He said they have found three retailers who have agreed to take their products, providing they are available through a distributor in the region. Mr. Stephen stated that he has found two interested distributors and a deal is close to being made which will see top-notch Labrador product distributed to the U.S. market by as early as next month.

Mr. Speaker, the success of Labrador Preserves is an excellent example of the fine business sense that exists in Southern Labrador, and I am sure this business will continue to boom as word of their top-notch product continues to spread throughout North America.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join with me in congratulating Stelman Flynn, the owner of Labrador Preserves, on their determination to make their rural Newfoundland and Labrador business a success, and wish them all the best in their future endeavours.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in honour of National Nursing Week, to recognize a dedicated group of caregivers - our nurses, who continue to make a difference for patients every day.

This year's theme, "Nursing: Patients First, Safety Always", appropriately reflects the selfless professional commitment that all nurses share in the delivery of safe care every day. We most often think of nurses as front-line care providers delivering urgent and emergency care in hospitals, but they play key roles in many other areas of health care delivery. For example, public health nurses immunize our children, they educate communities about healthy lifestyle choices, and they seek to improve our wellness in partnership with other health care professionals. In rural communities, nurses are often a main point of contact for daily health issues.

Our Province is proud to have over 8,000 practicing members of the nursing profession, representing one of the largest groups of health care providers in the Province. Close to 100 per cent of nurses who work in this Province were also educated here, and we are fortunate to be among the lowest in average ages of nurses in the country. We also have the highest rate of full-time employment of nurses in the country. Each of these facts will positively impact the future of our health care system.

Our government recognizes that the nursing profession is a cornerstone of our health care system. Nurses are well placed to advise government on changes needed in our health system to put patients first and build upon the safe, quality care currently delivered. Who else is as close to the front lines and as close to patient needs as are nurses?

Today, I am proud to say that we have honoured our Blueprint commitment to establish a provincial Chief Nurse position and announced that Ms Anita Ludlow has been selected to fill this position.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: We look forward to her contribution and working in partnership with the Nurses Union, whose president is with us today, with the Association of Registered Nurses and the Council of Licensed Practical Nurses, as we continue our primary health care renewal, health human resource planning and the implementation of a new Selfcare-Telecare initiative that was announced in Budget 2005 to improve access to services in rural and remote communities.

Please join me to pay tribute to the nursing profession, and thank them for their contributions to our health, our families and communities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to congratulate Ms Anita Ludlow on her new position as the Chief Nurse for the Province, Mr. Speaker, but it is so ironic that you sit here today and listen to the minister who stands and proclaims that he is so proud of the nursing profession in this Province, and to know that in the last year they have not had the opportunity, or tried to have the opportunity, to have respectful, dignified negotiations with nurses in this Province. It is only because of the regressive, heavy-handed negotiating tactics of the government opposite that nurses in our Province this year went without a contract. They have not come to the negotiating table.

Mr. Speaker, a time like this is probably a good time for the minister to stand in his place and tell us what the future of the nursing profession is going to be in this Province. When are nurse practitioners going to be able to practice the full scope of their work? What is the plan for the new compromise, or the new configuration, of LPNs, of nurses within our health care system for the future?

Mr. Speaker, to stand here today - and I acknowledge the great work that nurses do in this Province, because their work is invaluable. It is invaluable in our society, it is invaluable in our health care system; but, in recent weeks, I followed the president of the nursing union in the media as she travelled around this Province, from rally to rally, trying to put forward the views of nurses and health care in this Province, out trying to stop recommendations put forward by groups like the HayGroup.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

MR. E. BYRNE: A few seconds to clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted for some concluding comments.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

- out trying to stop recommendations in a report, like the HayGroup report, that will compromise health care in this Province in the future.

I think if they really honoured the profession, and say that they want to dignify the profession in the way that they do, they will remove some of those recommendations from the table. They will have good negotiations with nurses in our Province and give them the benefits that they deserve, 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 am pleased to join in recognizing National Nursing Week, and to honour and thank the 5,600 registered nurses in Newfoundland and Labrador who provide invaluable service to patients throughout the Province, Mr. Speaker, and to also congratulate Anita Ludlow on her appointment as head nurse for the Province.

I, too, Mr. Speaker, am concerned that these 5,600 nurses are afraid to sit down with this government and negotiate a collective agreement, because they are afraid of what concessions this government will insist upon and impose upon them as they did to the public sector workers a year ago, Mr. Speaker. We also have the problem of nurse practitioners who have been trained in this Province for a role that they are not being given by this government because government has not moved forward in terms of ensuring -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Has leave been granted?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. HARRIS: - has not moved forward, Mr. Speaker, in ensuring that the primary health care role of nurse practitioners is fostered and developed. That needs to be done. It is unfortunate that they are still trying to find their place and many are unemployed in this Province, in that role as nurse practitioner, despite their training.

I would like to see those things change, Mr. Speaker, and have a more welcoming position for nurses in relation to dealings with this government so they don't fear collective bargaining which is supposed to be an opportunity for them to improve their working conditions and wages so that they can have a decent life too.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today and announce that today, Monday, May 9, is Municipal Awareness Day.

This is a time for residents of our Province to reflect on what their councils do for them. Municipal governments provide many essential services such as water and sewer, fire protection, waste management and countless other services.

The benefits of municipal councils to residents is sometimes not clear. For instance, having community organized fire protection services helps keep the cost of insurance down for this type of coverage. Municipal councils ensure that communities have orderly and controlled planning. They provide basic services such as clean water, street lighting, garbage collection, and recreational areas of children and families. All of these are important services which councils provide for residents on a daily basis. Every day councils and staff work hard so that residents get the best possible service for the best possible price. In Budget 2005, the provincial government recognized the importance of our municipalities by providing funding under the Municipal Capital Works Program, the Multi-year Capital Works Program and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Infrastructure Program to the tune of $83 million and through $19 million in Municipal Operating Grants.

This year, Mr. Speaker, in particular, Municipal Awareness Day has important meaning because this September residents in our municipalities will once again go before the polls and vote for their councils. Not only should we reflect on what our councils do for us, but we should consider how important they are to our democratic society. This is the opportunity for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to voice their opinion and elect whom they want to represent them on the local level.

However, the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities has conducted a poll which states that only 43.2 per cent of councillors and mayors will seek re-election. We have partnered with the NLFM to promote how important it is for people to run for council.

Mr. Speaker, as a former mayor, I can certainly vouch for how important it is to sit on municipal councils. There are members on this side of the House of Assembly and on the other side who have also participated in municipal government. Most people volunteer their time and effort to sit on municipal councils. It is a difficult job but very rewarding.

I want to take this time to encourage anyone who is even remotely considering running for council to give it serious thought, and to ask my colleagues on both sides of this House to encourage constituents in their districts to consider running. Municipal government is a backbone of our strong, democratic society. We need as many candidates as possible to ensure that on September 27, voters will have a choice on who will represent them.

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: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement. No doubt, from time to time we do reflect on the work that is being done by municipal councils, local service districts within our Province. Many of these councillors, Mr. Speaker, are there, volunteering their time, without any opportunity for remuneration because, really, there has been difficulty in being able to balance a budget.

I am not surprised, Mr. Speaker, when the minister said that only 43 per cent of their current councillors and mayors will seek re-election. I would like to see another poll done, that of the urban municipalities versus that of the rural municipalities. I would think that in the rural municipalities you would see even fewer of these people recognized, giving themselves for service, because I have never seen it - and I am being honest when I say that. Any time when the morale has been any lower than what it is, the apprehension is there, the uncertainty is there, and this is also confirmed by the Federation of Municipalities. I could use a number of quotes, but I will just use one. The President, Mr. Brett, feels the Province was also in a position to postpone the plan, $1.9 million cut to Municipal Operating Grants in the Budget, and this is what he said: We have always felt this was -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. LANGDON: We have always felt this was a shortsighted decision and we stand by our assessment, said Brett. While the cuts were focused on municipalities with growing tax bases, no new revenues were offered by the provincial government to make up for the cut. We strongly urge that no further cuts in municipal operations be imposed until an agreement is finalized on municipal revenue. He also said: Unless we start paying attention to the crumbling municipal infrastructure in most rural communities, economic development will remain a pipe dream.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is a day for reflection and I am sure that many of the smaller councils out there, as I said, are really finding the toughness going in their communities and I would be very surprised if very many of them volunteer their services in the fall.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement, and be associated with the comments that others have made in the valuable service that are provided by municipal leaders in our Province. They are the form of government that are closest to the people and have the pulse on what is happening in our Province, particularly in rural areas of our Province. It is very difficult, Mr. Speaker, for people to become involved because they are taking the heat for things that are not happening in rural parts of our Province. It is surprising that not even greater numbers are not stepping forward because one of the things that are happening in -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you.

In rural areas of our Province we see, with out migration, the tax base being eroded. We also see the dwindling populations, Mr. Speaker. What we have to acknowledge in our Province is that as people leave, it is mainly the younger people - we are an aging population and we need the younger people to remain in our Province in order to pick up and take over and provide the leadership that is going to be required for the future.

So, Mr. Speaker, I encourage this government, by way of the ads that they have been running lately, to increase awareness of the importance of municipal government in our Province and do what we can in order to make sure that we have a full slate of candidates to run in the September election and that we have good contests so that people have a choice of who will lead their communities.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture made a clear, unmistakable, written promise to fish harvesters to consult before implementing production quotas.

I ask the Premier again today: Doesn't he believe, as a matter of principle, that a promise is a promise and that promises made by him, as the Premier, and his government should be kept? Why is he insisting today on breaking his promise to fish harvesters and their union?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have indicated previously in this House, when the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question on several occasions, that we have in fact consulted. We have gone around the Province. Our members, our MHAs have consulted. The Minister of Fisheries has consulted. We have all had discussions with representatives of the industry through the course of our role as MHAs. We have also basically taken the advice of people who have written reports on this. You know, unlike the hon. members opposite, we do not like leaving reports on the shelves. We look at them, we take them under advisement, and then we act on them. That is what this government is about. It is about action, and we are proceeding forward and on this basis, Mr. Speaker.

[Comments from the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the security if they would ask this gentleman to leave the gallery immediately.

[Comments from the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker further orders that the gentleman be identified and barred from the gallery for the next ten sitting days.

[Comments from the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker further orders that this gentleman also be identified and that he be barred for the next ten sitting days.

[Disturbance in the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This House is in recess. The Speaker orders that the galleries be cleared, and that they stay cleared for the rest of this sitting day.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Before the House recessed, the Chair notes that about three minutes had expired in Question Period. When we start now we will go for the balance of the half-hour allocation, about twenty-seven minutes.

The Chair had recognized the Leader of the Opposition. I recognize him again now for a supplementary question.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, along with the promise to consult, the Premier also promised on many occasions that he would not spend money on advertising campaigns to promote government's position on issues.

I ask the Premier: Why did he once again break this promise, go back on his word again, and begin an advertising campaign on production quotas this past weekend?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I think what we indicated when we were in Opposition was that we would not spend money promoting ourselves, as the hon. gentleman did when he had his own campaign and the face of the Premier, at that particular time, was throughout the ads.

From time to time government has a duty and an obligation to explain exactly what its position is to the general public on various issues. As well, of course, when we came out of the Accord - which was a very successful undertaking, a very successful exercise - what we tried to do was reinforce the pride in Newfoundland and Labrador for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as a result of that exercise, and to try and basically build on the good feeling and the momentum that had been created through the Atlantic Accord.

When government does that, you will notice that government does not do it on a self-promotion basis, as the hon. gentleman opposite did when he was Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We all know that the Premier is pretty slick with words and he must be mighty proud of the circumstance that he has created in the Province today, of his own making.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday the Premier said he could not tolerate or support fish harvesters protesting by occupying government buildings. I ask the Premier: Why did he condone support and encourage protesting fish harvesters to occupy the offices of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans when he visited with them on April 29, 2003? I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Why was it right, in his mind, for protesters to occupy a government office then but it is wrong now?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have said time and time again in his hon. House that this government is not going to condone law-breaking; nor would I expect the hon. gentleman opposite. Nor would I expect, when he was the unelected Premier of the Province, that he, in fact, would condone law-breaking himself, even though from time to time during the Friede Goldman issues he tried to incite people, as he has been doing in the House of Assembly recently, but we do not condone that.

When hundreds of people take over a government building and they enter the building, a building which is locked, you know, these things are contrary to the Criminal Code and, as a result, action has to be taken. We cannot allow lawlessness to happen in this Province. We will not condone it, we will not put up with it, and we will allow the justice officials and the police of the Province to take the appropriate action.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The more the Premier speaks, the more people will see through him. It is okay one day and not okay the next day, depending on what he wants to happen.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier continuously states that a production quota system is, in his view, in the best interest of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I ask the Premier today: How is the landing of crab in Nova Scotia in the best interest of this Province, especially the rural communities that depend and rely upon processing that crab? How is that in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. gentleman asked that question because he is quite right; the landing of crab in Nova Scotia is certainly not in the best interests of Newfoundland and Labrador and we certainly do not approve of it. As a matter of fact, we are quite disappointed in the fact that it is happening. You know, if harvesters decide to take a resource which is a resource of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and decide to land it in Nova Scotia where it will be processed by processors in Nova Scotia, whereby plant workers in Nova Scotia will get the work from that, whereby truckers in Nova Scotia will get the benefit of that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: From our perspective, we are against giveaways in this Province. We are also against take-aways. We regret that they have decided to take this action, and it is very, very unfortunate.

I agree, it is certainly not in the best interest of the Province, but that is not a decision that this government has made. We have made a decision to do what is in the best interest of rural Newfoundland and Labrador in order to spread this resource evenly around this Province from an adjacency perspective. So, we are doing it in the best interest of the people of the Province. The harvesters are deciding to take it - on their own decision, on their own back - to take the product elsewhere, and that is very unfortunate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Very unfortunate, and everybody in the Province knows it was caused by the Premier himself. So, it is not in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador. Another good reason maybe to reconsider, as he was asked by the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's last week.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier continuously states that a production quota system is in the best interest of plant workers in the Province. He says that as well, and so does the minister. But on Thursday, the Minister of Fisheries confirmed that fish plant workers would be negatively affected by the issuance of a new licence in St. Anthony.

I ask the Premier again: How is the new licence for St. Anthony in the best interest of the other plant workers in the Province, especially in the year where there are also quota reductions already impacting negatively?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the plant licence - the crab licence in St. Anthony has nothing to do with the raw material sharing system. It is a completely different issue. The crab licence in St. Anthony was issued based on an order by the Supreme Court -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: - to reconsider a patently unreasonable decision by the patently unreasonable minister from Twillingate & Fogo, Mr. Speaker. That is where that came from. The raw material sharing system, yes, it does, over time, provide us with the opportunity to ensure that regional balance takes place in this Province, that people in plants have the stability of knowing what the supplies to their plants will be. That, Mr. Speaker, is what some people on the other side of the House were advocating over the past number of years.

Last year at this time, or a little earlier than this time, about a week earlier than now, members on the opposite side, like the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, were making the same accusations about crab going to Nova Scotia and we were being blamed for not doing it. Now we are trying to do something and now they are telling us not to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pretty telling, too, that anytime you mention St. Anthony, the Premier does not want to answer the question. He lets the member for the area answer the question.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier continuously states that a production quota system is in the best interest of our fishing industry, generally. On Friday he stated, in a very flippant, arrogant manner outside the House, that if a season has to be lost, basically, too bad. The hardest kind of luck.

I ask the Premier: How does he explain that losing $500 million worth of activity is in the best interest of the fishing industry and the economy of rural communities?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Leader of the Opposition is putting words into a quote from me that are not what I said. I did not basically say it is too bad in that kind of a flippant and arrogant manner. I am basically stating the facts. If, in fact, this season is lost, we regret that. We do not want that to happen. The Minister of Fisheries does not want that to happen. Nobody in this House wants this to happen, under any circumstances. Hon. members opposite want it to happen because it is in their political best interest to make it happen. They are trying to maximize it and do what they can, but that is not what I said. If it happens, it is not because of this government. The government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Leader of the Opposition has asked a question and the Premier is replying. I ask all members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Premier, time to complete your answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this government is trying to bring, what we said, stability and sustainability to this industry. Now, because the harvesters decide that they are going to protest that or they disagree with that, they have a right to have a reasonable protest, but they do not have any right to do what they are doing and what they have done in this particular House here. So, that is ongoing, but the people of the Province need to know that what we are trying to do is to try and do what is in the best interest of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the general public of Newfoundland and Labrador need to know that we have not told them that they cannot land their product in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is a decision that they have made themselves and they are taking it to Nova Scotia, and that is unfortunate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What the people want is for the Premier to be reasonable, to be human about it and admit that he has made a mistake and start over and live to his promises that he gave in writing.

Mr. Speaker, this government's strategy, as clearly stated by the Minister of Fisheries and confirmed by the Premier on Friday, is to have fewer plants and a rationalized industry. The short-term plan - because he talked about the short-term and long-term - consists of an attempt to force production quotas down the throats of harvesters. The long-term plan will be to force the closure of smaller community plants. Will the Premier now advise this House and the people of the Province which plants will have to close, and in what order, in order for him to reach his long-term plan that he talked about on Friday?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province know that is not the long-term plan; there is no such long-term plan. What is, in fact, happening out there, and the people understand it, is that you have a declining resource. The crab resource is actually shrinking. We have to try and manage that resource to the best of our ability.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: What we are trying to do is to make sure that there is not a concentration, just the opposite of what the Leader of the Opposition is saying. We want to make sure there is not a very small concentration in one or two or three parts of the Province. We want to make sure that it is properly allocated around the Province in accordance with the principle of adjacency, which is a principle which your government spoke to - you never followed, but you spoke to it when you were in government - but we are, in fact, going to implement it. We are acting, and we are doing everything we can, in the best interest of the people of the Province.

The other thing you need to know - the people of the Province know - is that two Fridays ago we came up with a very, very, very reasonable compromise in this position. What we did was, we took the pilot project, we cut it in half, from two years to one year, reduced it down, basically, to what -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier to complete his answer quickly.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We took it down, which basically is a three-month pilot project. We said we will have an independent committee oversee it and manage it, and then they will make a recommendation. In other words, we took the decision out of our hands and we put it into the hands of an independent committee, which would be approved by the union and government, and then that would be followed. We cannot do any more than that. That was a very reasonable position.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier has not yet caught on, that one of the big problems is his own credibility. Nobody believes him any more when he talks about anything related to this.

Mr. Speaker, we will be introducing a private member's motion later today that will ask government to withdraw the production quota system from the table until consultations with fish harvesters take place, as was promised in writing by the government.

I ask the Premier: If he is so confident that there is such strong support in his caucus for this ill-conceived plan, will he permit a free vote on our motion so that each member can send a direct message to their constituents as to where they stand on this most important issue of the crab quotas?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we abide by the rules of this House. If the hon. member opposite wants to put a motion before this House, then it will be put before the House in the normal course of business and it will be voted upon in the normal course. We are not doing anything to prevent him from doing whatever he wants. Whatever political games or maneuvers he wants to play, he can go right ahead and he can do it. If he wants to do it, we will play by the rules of this House as we always do.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Fisheries has abused his position and thrown the crab industry into crisis in a politically motivated attempt to benefit his own district and some of the Premier's business buddies.

Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment. What is your plan to deal with the serious problem that thousands of plant workers are facing because of this government's stubborn attempt to impose an ill-conceived raw material sharing plan?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the government, through the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries, has stated on a number of occasions that we will be there for the plant workers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A question has been asked by the hon. the Member for Port de Grave. The Chair has recognized the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Colleagues, I ask you for your co-operation on both sides of the House.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the government, through the Premier and through the Minister of Fisheries, have stated on a number of occasions that we will be there for the plant workers if and when they are needed and a program is needed. Mr. Speaker, we will be there for the plant workers. We are doing the number crunching. We have the numbers in place now. As time progresses, we will do what we said we would do; we will have a program in place for the plant workers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: I guess, Mr. Speaker, at this point in time there is no plan.

The Premier said he is willing to see this season be lost, to get his way on this issue. Thousands of people find themselves in a serious financial situation and do not know where to look. I ask the new Minister of Labour and the new minister responsible for income support if you can tell the people of this Province - and ask your government to get their act together to see that no one is denied the financial support they need because of this crisis in the crab fishery?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I can only reiterate what we have said in past, what the Premier has said, what the government has said, and what the Minister of Fisheries has said: The plant workers will be taken care of. We will be there for the plant workers in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador if the fish harvesters do not go out and do the fishing; and, Mr. Speaker, that remains to be seen at this point in time.

We know that the large boats have left the Province to go fishing, and land fish in Nova Scotia, which is unfair to the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the plant workers themselves, but, make no mistake about it, we are there. We have the numbers done, we have the number crunching done, and a plan will be put in place to take care of the plant workers in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. member if he could provide this hon. House with the dollar value of the numbers. I am sure they must have something put in place for this program.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries has abused his position and thrown the crab industry into crisis - I am sorry, wrong one, boys! My apologies, Mr. Speaker, I picked up the wrong paper.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess, when you call upon a minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BUTLER: Colleagues, I am recognizing the Member for Port de Grave District.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I guess it gets a bit confusing when you call upon a minister who was sworn in as the Minister of Labour and Human Resources and the Status of Women and they can't get to their feet and you don't get any answers. It becomes confusing what you are asking, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Members of the House will know that they have every right to ask questions, however, it is the government that decides who will give the response.

The Chair recognizes, again, the hon. the Member for Port de Grave District.

MR. BUTLER: We fully understand that, Mr. Speaker, because there are not too many over there who answer any questions.

I ask the Minister of Human Resources, Labour, and Employment: What is your plan to deal with the thousands of people in other sectors of the economy who are being negatively impacted by the crisis this government has caused in the fishery?

The Premier may be willing to lose the season, but these people, Mr. Speaker, cannot afford it.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, what this government has committed to, and what this Premier has committed to, is that we would be there for the plant workers in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Why I am answering questions, Mr. Speaker, of course, as in any job creation program, when they were in administration and as we are in administration today, the job creation programs are administered through the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, which this one will be. We have the numbers done and it will be in the tens of millions of dollars which we will be committing to the plant workers in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, in the House I am sure we all glib back and forth across the hall. That is the way the political situation is. I don't find it very amusing, because I have three questions here and they might be in the wrong order. You cannot ask the three of them the one time. You have people laughing because the member picked up the wrong question. I don't think that is called for. It is not very nice, I don't think, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, as mentioned earlier today, this is Municipal Awareness Day. During the Estimates for the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I was really surprised and couldn't believe the government has cancelled a program called the water disinfectant program that was intended for small rural communities that could not otherwise afford to upgrade and replace chlorination systems.

Mr. Speaker, the government that I was part of put in millions of dollars to start to address the problem. There are still more than 200 small rural communities that are still on the boil order and cannot drink their water even though some of them are charging residents more than $365 a year. My question to the minister is, how can the government justify cancelling this program and endangering the lives of these people in the communities?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I am quite - what is the right word, I wonder - amazed that the former Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs would be fearmongering in this form. Mr. Speaker, this department has a Municipal Capital Works Program, we have the Canada-Newfoundland Infrastructure Program, we have the Multi-Year Program. The Disinfection Assistance Program that he is talking about, yes, funded water projects in the various communities in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we still do it, Mr. Speaker. At this point in time, if there is a situation, an emergency situation - as the Member for Grand Bank knows from last year. If there is an emergency situation here we will work with the municipalities, as we have always have done in the past, Mr. Speaker. If need be, we will finance up to 100 per cent of those projects. I don't know why the member is getting on with what he is getting on with.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to fearmonger anything. I asked the minister that question during estimates and that was the answer I got. I am very surprised that the program is still not there.

This government also cut back on the rate that was given to many of the smaller communities to install new or upgrade existing water and sewer systems. There were examples where the provincial government in the past picked up as much as 90 per cent of the small municipality share. Now we see the government is asking these small communities to pick up the full one-third of the cost of the system.

My question to the minister is: Isn't this another example of government turning its back on the most vulnerable municipalities in the Province, our rural communities?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the former minister got that information. The department now, as we now stand under the Canada-Newfoundland Infrastructure Program, will finance up to 70 per cent of the 66 per cent that the Province will have. So, in actual fact, Mr. Speaker, the municipalities now have to come up with 10 per cent or 20 per cent, as they have done in the past.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, the Municipal Capital Works Program, we finance 50 per cent of the projects. Under the Multi-Year Plan, Mr. Speaker, it is 50-50, and the municipalities in this Province, the larger municipalities, fourteen have taken advantage of that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: The members opposite, Mr. Speaker, obviously do not understand what they are talking about because under the Canada-Newfoundland Infrastructure Program, to make it clearer for the members opposite, the feds cover 33 per cent, the Province and the municipalities are supposed to come up with 33 per cent, but we take 70 per cent of the 66 per cent. It is not hard math.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Under our time allocations, the Chair now will have to go the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier, who said on Friday he is prepared to lose an entire crab season if he does not get his way on plant production quotas. Mr. Speaker, the Dunne report said, at page 148: "...the claimed benefits of individual raw material shares in fish processing have not been observed anywhere because no such model has yet been used." They go on to say, "...that it is worth trying on a cautious trial basis to determine which of the claimed beneficial results will occur." But only, of course, when three-quarters of the active processors agree and there is no substantive and reasonable objections by plant workers and harvesters.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me get this right. Is the Premier now saying that he is willing to see this Province lose a whole crab fishing season in order for him and the Minister of Fisheries to conduct an experiment, on a trial basis, to see what the benefits are, despite the overwhelming objection to the plan which is already not working in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has been doing too many press conferences with the Member for Exploits because they seem to act alike, think alike and they practice the same politics. Basically, what he is trying to do is to say - he said that my quote -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - I prepared to lose the fishery if I did not get my way. I did not say that, Mr. Speaker. Under no circumstances did I say that. That is not what I said. The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is hanging around with the Member for Exploits too long. He is getting just like him. He should practice good politics here in this Province and be responsible and ask proper questions. Give to me the words that I said exactly and I will give you an answer, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Member for Bellevue if he would stand and withdraw the comment he just made.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw and return at a later date.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the member to withdraw his comment unequivocally, without any commentary whatsoever. I ask the member, again, to withdraw his comment.

MR. BARRETT: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has time for another question.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Premier not recognize that it is totally irresponsible on his part to destroy an entire crab season at a cost of more than half a billion dollars in revenue alone, and cause hardship to thousands of families in hundreds of communities around the Province so he can conduct this experiment - because that is what a pilot project is. Will he not acknowledge that his plan is not going to be accepted and try to find another way to help the crab industry move forward and thereby avoid the disaster that is sure to follow if he does not change his mind?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of 365 days of the year in the government there are hundreds of plans and hundreds of policies that are put in place. If this government decided that every single time somebody who has a vested interest, and not seeing them going forward, objects to those particular policies, and as a result we do not proceed with those policies than the general public can just run the government and we would not be here. We would serve no purpose.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: We were elected to govern this Province. We take that responsibility very seriously. We take leadership in this Province very seriously. We have taken this project underway on the best possible advice that we can get. The fact that something has not been tried anywhere else in world - there is certainly no reason not to try it, but raw material sharing is certainly being tried in this Province. The principles have been looked at in other jurisdictions. We have followed the recommendations of the Dunne report and we are proceeding with that recommendation.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune; time for a very brief question and an equally brief answer.

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, the NLFM President, Mr. Brett, has suggested that the proposed federal gas initiative to the municipalities should involve a formula that would share the first 10 per cent equally among all municipalities and 90 per cent should be divided by population. The City of St. John's totally opposes this and wants the full 100 per cent to be divided based on population. The City of St. John's here is acting like the Ontario's of the world, having no time for small jurisdictions.

I ask the minister: Is he going to stand behind the Federation and support the hundreds of small communities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador that would benefit greatly from the federal initiative?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the smaller municipalities in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador know that I stand behind them and have been standing behind them for the past eighteen months.

With respect to the gas tax, Mr. Speaker, we are still in bilateral negotiations with the federal government on this. We do not have all the criteria in place. We do not have the conditions that the federal government will be putting on the gas tax and how it is going to be implemented. As I said on Open Line the other day, where he probably got his question, Mr. Speaker, that once we have all the information in place we will be putting a formula in place that will be fair to all the municipalities in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, both rural and urban.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time assigned to Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports -

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Approximately two weeks ago the Chair made a ruling that the Premier had made an unparliamentary remark, and the Premier gave somewhat of a speech in the course of withdrawing. I brought it to your attention at that time that withdrawals of unparliamentary remarks are supposed to be, under the rules of this House, unequivocal and without comment. I know that Your Honour made no bones about that today in the case of the Member for Bellevue, and I am just wondering when we might expect a ruling regarding the Premier's unparliamentary remarks.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The Chair will make the ruling when the Chair deems it to be appropriate.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PARSONS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We had a comment from the Chair today, just before Your Honour ruled that the galleries were to be cleared and closed for the day. Your Honour made a comment regarding one individual in the galleries, that he should be removed from the galleries and would be kept from the galleries for a period of ten days. I believe that was the comment of Your Honour.

I am just wondering if Your Honour might enlighten us, as members of the House who are supposed to be aware of rules here, when that rule might come into effect, where we might find it, because it is the first that we have heard that there has been such a ten-day rule that would be imposed for anyone who was removed from the gallery.

MR. SPEAKER: It isn't usual that the Speaker participates in a debate; however, under the rules in which the Speakers across this country operate, the Speaker has very wide discretionary powers. In Legislatures, for example, in the Province of Quebec, the president of the National Assembly regularly will suspend members not only for ten sitting days but sometimes indefinitely. It is also done in Ontario. It is done in all provinces in Australia and in New Zealand. Therefore, the Speaker is well within his rights to make the ruling today, and did so based on precedents in other jurisdictions.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: If the point of order relates to the decisions of the Chair, I cannot accept it.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: I guess, given your ruling, Your Honour, there is not much point in asking any questions here. I thought this was, again, a democracy whereby if someone needed some information or direction we would be allowed to ask.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The member knows that, if he wishes to challenge the decision of the Chair, there is a methodology to do that. I would certainly recommend that he be familiar with the rules. The Chair has absolute authority to ban one person or two persons or a group of persons from the gallery at any time, for a cause.

Present Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I table the Annual Report 2004 of the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation.

MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion.

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

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

I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Natural Products Marketing Act And The Farm Practices Protection Act. (Bill 2)

I want to give notice today, according to Motion 5 and Motion 6 on the Order Paper, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 this evening nor at 10:00 this evening either.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to Standing Order 63.(3), I give notice of the following private member's motion to be debated on Wednesday:

WHEREAS government has not met the conditions outlined in recommendation 9.12 of the Dunne report prior to implementing raw material sharing in the crab industry of this Province; and

WHEREAS in a letter to fish harvesters dated April 21, 2004, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture promised consultations before raw material sharing would be implemented in this Province; and

WHEREAS the 2005 crab fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, valued at $500 million to the provincial economy, is in jeopardy;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls on government to drop the raw material sharing system for this year and do the proper consultations with harvesters and processors before bringing the plan forward again.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Smoking In Public Places And The Workplace. (Bill 20)

I also give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Medicine In The Province. (Bill 21)

I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act. (Bill 18)

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

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

I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Wildlife Act. (Bill 13)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents in the communities of La Scie, Woodstock, Nippers Harbour, in the district of Baie Verte, because their member, for some reason, does not seem to want to present it on their behalf, even though it has been presented, Mr. Speaker. It is about the crab fishery again, and basically it is most telling in terms of a couple of the whereases.

WHEREAS in the Speech from the Throne last year, government stated that it would consult before it acted, and, when it did consult, that consultation would be inclusive; and

WHEREAS harvesters and plant workers have clearly not been consulted and not included in this process.

They are calling upon the government, as other petitions have, to live to the written promise of April 21, last year, which was that there would be a full consultation of all the stakeholders, the union, the harvesters, the plant workers, before the government ever really seriously thought about implementing raw material sharing or production quotas - a promise, Mr. Speaker, that these petitioners from the district of Baie Verte....

The Premier might be slick with words, but, I can tell you, he has not convinced anybody in the district of Baie Verte, who signed this petition, that he has done anything other than broken a promise, and a promise that was in writing, Mr. Speaker, a promise in writing, signed by the Minister of Fisheries. When asked about it last week: What about your letter? Why didn't you do the consultation? Oh, it wasn't important, he said, I just gave them that letter because we had to get the fishery going last year. So, he gave them a letter to stop an impasse last year and obviously, by inference, he was saying: We had no intention of doing this consultation.

In questions and answers today, you find that many people are finding a lack of credibility at this point in time with anything that the Premier or the Minister of Fisheries or anyone speaking for the government says with respect to this crab harvesting issue.

Mr. Speaker, clearly what the people want is this: They want the Premier to be something other than flippant and arrogant when he says: Well, if the summer has to be lost, I guess it has to be lost - quoted right in The Telegram for everybody to see.

When I say that, as the member, he says: Oh, no, I didn't say that. Again, he brings into question his own credibility because people who read the paper saw that. People who saw it on television saw that, when he said: If the season has to be lost, too bad.

Just like when Minister Efford said: Do you want it, Mr. Williams? Do you want it, Premier? Take it or leave it. Now, John Efford spent weeks going around saying: I didn't say take it or leave it, but everybody knew what he said; and when the Premier said, if the summer has to be lost then the summer has to be lost - because we say that means, if the summer has to be lost, too bad as far as the Premier is concerned. He is saying, I didn't say that, but everybody knows he said that. Everybody heard the words. Everybody saw the body language. Everybody saw the real arrogance into it, and these petitioners are saying: Stop being arrogant. (Inaudible). Do the right thing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I also have a petition from residents of the communities of La Scie and Shoe Cove in Baie Verte. These petitioners are concerned about what the government has done with respect to the imposition of production quotas. The petitioners actually say they pray and call upon the House to urge government to only impose production quotas if it is agreed upon by the FFAW and the processors recommended by the Dunne report.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier and others opposite continue to say they are following the recommendations of the Dunne report, but this is absolutely and totally not the case. It is not the case because the Dunne report, Commissioner Dunne - whom we all know as a long-standing fisheries bureaucrat, he was the Director for Newfoundland for Fisheries and Oceans for many, many years, an expert in this industry. He would not recommend that the government do what they are doing, Mr. Speaker, in the face of the kind of opposition that we have seen every single day in this Province, shove this down their throats and impose a system on people that they do not want. What he said, Mr. Speaker, is that there is no - if three-quarters of the processors are supportive of such a system and if there are no substantive and reasonable objections to the fish harvesters and plant workers then it should be done on a cautious and trial basis.

Mr. Speaker, caution and a trial basis is totally opposite of what this government is doing. They are throwing caution to the winds and, in fact, are prepared to do, as the Premier said - although he seemed to deny it today - that he did not really say that we are prepared to lose a season, but what I have quoted: If the summer has to be lost, it has to be lost and the fishermen have to understand that. Now, there is nothing clearer than that, Mr. Speaker, but something has to be understood here. We are not dealing with the NHL losing a season of hockey, Mr. Speaker. We are talking about the livelihood of thousands of families in hundreds of communities in this Province and a tremendous amount of hardship that is going to be caused if this industry is lost. That is exactly what is going to happen, Mr. Speaker, because this government is so adamant that they are going to have their way, despite the fact that the fishermen and the fish harvesters see this as turning the clock back fifty or seventy-five years to the old system where they have no control, their bargaining power is lost and they are back in the clutches of the fish merchants once again.

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that this Premier, in the face of that kind of objection, is prepared to insist on this production quota system at the cost to this economy of what appears to be half a billion dollars of the export value of the fish, plus the consequential loss of UI and other things that go with it. We are looking at a huge amount of hardship imposed upon the people of rural Newfoundland as a result of this government's intransigence, as a result of their insistence on carrying out this plan, which is not supported -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

Further petitions.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of my constituents and, of course, it has to do with the health care facility that is under construction in Grand Bank.

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken in the House before, presented petitions on this particular matter, and today I am presenting a petition on behalf of residents of Fortune and Grand Bank who have signed the petition. On the weekend I was presented with a 3,000 - in fact, in excess of 3,000 names on a petition from six communities that actually use the health care facility in Grand Bank.

When we look at the health care facility as it is today in Grand Bank, I think the consensus would have to be, from anyone who has visited there, and certainly from the previous government in which I was a member, that it needed to be badly replaced. It is not a hospital. I have repeated this time and time again, both for the Member for Burin-Placentia West and for the Minister of Finance and the Acting Minister of Health, that it is a clinic that we have in Grand Bank with holding beds only. In fact, you cannot stay there any longer than twenty-four hours. I think anybody who has had a heart attack would know how important it is to have such a facility there in good condition so that when you need to be stabilized before being sent on to the regional hospital in Burin, there is a place that you can go to get the proper care in order to be stabilized.

Part of the health care facility, of course, is the seniors' home, the Blue Crest seniors' home which today is caring for people who require acute care Levels III and IV. It was never intended for that. It was, in fact, intended for those who require acute care Levels I and II. Today, what we are seeing are employees in that facility trying to care for those patients who require a lot of care and having to do it in a facility that was not meant to accommodate these particular patients. It is not good for the residents and it certainly is not good for the employees there, and it is not good for the families who go to visit them, to see their loved ones trying to exist under such trying circumstances.

When the Leader of the Opposition today said that the Premier has lost any credibility with respect to the crab fishery in the Province, I can tell you, that his lack of credibility goes a lot deeper than just the crab fishery. On the weekend I heard from any number of people, who just find it difficult to understand how the leader of the government - who is, in fact, the Premier for all of us - could make a promise during an election and then decide he is not going to follow through on that promise. In fact, having promised it on three occasions, they firmly believed that he would deliver. Today, of course, we see that is not the case. We have $3.5 million that has been spent on a facility where all that is standing down in Grand Bank is the steel, and they are hopeful - they are still hopeful, believe it or not - that this government will come through and that the Premier will live up to his promise to, in fact, construct that health care facility.

Again, what it is, it is a combination of a clinic and a seniors home, both of which exist in Grand Bank today, need to be replaced, particularly the old cottage hospital. If you were to walk in there and see the condition, you would all have to agree that it requires a new facility. It isn't good to even look at trying to do something with the existing facility because it would take more money to try and repair that one, to renovate it, than to proceed with the one that is presently under construction - or, I should say, should be under construction, because the government, in its lack of wisdom, decided not to continue with that health care facility. Even though it was a promise made by the Premier, and now we have the president of the local PC association in the district calling on the Premier -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition from residents ranging from New Harbour to Bay Roberts regarding an issue that I raised here in this House before, and that is the two people in Carbonear: Mildred and Clovia Baker. They are in wheelchairs, they are fed through feeding tubes, they require assistance breathing, and cannot preform most tasks that we take for granted. A short time ago, the other night, a neighbour had to come out and turn up the heat for them. The two ladies were cold and left unattended.

Mr. Speaker, a part of this petition says:

WHEREAS the twenty-four-hour home care that is essential to these people once existed and is now taken away; and

WHEREAS this twenty-four-hour home care is essential to the well-being of Mildred and Clovia Baker;

We, the undersigned, request that government reinstate twenty-four-hour home care for Mildred and Clovia Baker of Carbonear.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue that has some great concern for a lot of people in my district. Everywhere I go in Carbonear, Harbour Grace, or the surrounding areas, people are asking me: Will you ask the government to please intervene, to reinstate to those two ladies who have lost five hours a day?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, some of the members opposite may find this funny, but I will guarantee you that the communities in my district do not find this funny. They do not find it funny.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members on both sides for their co-operation.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Whatever district I was in, I would be speaking for these ladies because there is an injustice done here. Every other person we are aware of, in this Province, who is on a feeding tube or breathing assisted, is receiving twelve hours of care a day. Here are these two ladies who are shortchanged five hours by this government.

I have had two ministers come back to me, and the last minister who responded to me said: Maybe other alternatives can be made - referring to putting them into a home, separating a mother and daughter.

I find nothing funny. There has to be some compassion and, surely heavens, with all the money that is being spent on the extra security and even the lunches here for the RNC, we can find a few dollars to help those two ladies to receive the dignity and care they are entitled to. The five hours a day is a pittance to what is being spent right here in this Province right now just in security. This is no joking matter.

I ask the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, who stood last week and gave such a great speech on women's rights, to take it upon herself, for these two women who live in Carbonear, who live unattended, and who need the care. I ask her, would she do that?

I ask the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, who stood today and answered questions for the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, if he would take it upon himself and speak to his seatmate there, when he comes back in, the Acting Minister of Health.

This is a very serious issue, and the whole community out there is very, very concerned about what is happening to these two ladies. It is inconceivable that they would be cut five hours a day, left alone, not able to turn up the thermostat in their house when it gets cold, not able to answer the door when a delivery of medical supplies comes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will be back. I have a lot of other names (inaudible) petitions coming on this issue.

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I present a petition on behalf of the community of Harbour Breton, looking for support so that the portion of FPI's quota that has been traditionally processed in Harbour Breton over the last forty years remain there.

Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity over the weekend, at one of the three functions that I attended, to meet with an action committee in Harbour Breton. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the community is going through a crisis. One of the guys there - and I mentioned the word before - who is co-chairing this action committee, says it is more than a crisis; it is a disaster. Really, in a sense, what is happening is a financial disaster. People who had been used to making - they and their spouses, between them - probably $30 a hour, all of a sudden, without any chance to prepare anything whatsoever, find themselves making $6.25 an hour. There is no way that anybody in this House, or anywhere across the Province, can adjust that quick to the situation that is here.

These people in Harbour Breton think the same way that I do. I should not be presenting petitions here today on behalf of Harbour Breton. Do you know why? Because FPI should still be in Harbour Breton processing, or if they are not there than their quota that has been traditionally done in Newfoundland and Labrador should remain with the community. There is no doubt about that.

Mr. Speaker, them, like me - when I see a comment being made by Mr. Rowe from the FPI - and who is behind this? I am convinced more so than ever, with every bit of fervour in my body, that these are the main people who are driving the crab situation. Make no bones about it, these are the people who are pushing it. This is what he said, Mr. Speaker. Rowe said: FPI is making adjustments to meet the challenge but the strong Canadian dollar and competition from low cost producing companies like China remain a major concern. Just look at the last part of it: from low cost producing companies like China remain a major concern.

Can you tell me how many secondary processing plants that FPI has producing in the Province right now? It is not Harbour Breton. It is not Fortune. It is only Marystown, and I would like to be able to ask Mr. Rowe to provide the information. He is not forthcoming to the IS committee with a lot of it. I would like to ask him, how many million pounds of fish that was allocated to FPI, to be processed in Newfoundland and Labrador plants this year, has been processed in China? Do you know what? You will find more than enough to keep Harbour Breton for 350 people for fifty-two weeks of the year and also keep the people in Fortune producing for fifty-two weeks of the year. That is the situation, and he has the unmitigated gall to say: You know, competition from China remains a major concern. Go down to Costco here, Mr. Speaker, and look at the fish products that are down there in Costco. Do you know what? They are Newfoundland products, but do you know where they are packed to? In China, at very low wages, and our people here are to suffer the humility of having their community (inaudible) and that is not right, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

Orders of the Day.

I am sorry. Is the Member for Twillingate & Fogo rising on a petition?

MR. REID: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to get up and present a petition today on behalf of the fish harvesters and plant workers in the Province who are calling upon government to remove this production quota scheme from the table until the Premier and the minister do what the Dunne report suggested, and that would be only implement production quotas if and when it was agreed to by the fish harvesters and the FFAW in the Province.

I have been watching this debate unfold now for over two months and it is apparent, I think to everybody in the Province, that the vast majority of people are opposed to what the Premier is doing here. What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is the vast majority of the people in the Province all agree that this should be taken off the table and only implemented if and when the fish harvesters agree to it, as was recommended by Mr. Dunne and as was promised by the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the vast majority of fish harvesters are opposed to it. The vast majority of plant workers are opposed to this production quota. In fact, the majority of the fish processors in the Province, if you want to do the math, are opposed to production quotas, yet this government continues to push it down the throats of those who are so adversely affected by it.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of individuals who have held key positions in this Province, who also have voiced their opinions, as of late, regarding this subject. One was the chief adviser that the Premier last year hired to go to Ottawa to speak and to listen on behalf of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; one, Mr. Bill Rowe, who was paid handsomely by the Premier to do his job in Ottawa who recently, as late as Saturday, came out in The Telegram and said that the Premier should back away from this proposal and negotiate, or at least consult with the fish harvesters in the Province at the end of this season.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Jim Morgan, a previous Tory Cabinet Minister, also spoke out against the Premier on this and said that he should withdraw from the table until he has consulted with the fish harvesters. Mr. Tom Hickey, also a previous Tory Cabinet Minister, also has spoken out loudly and said that the Premier and the minister should take this from the table until it is discussed with the fishermen. Mr. Loyola Hearn, in the paper this weekend, also said that what the Premier was doing was not right and that he should withdraw this. Well, the only one in his caucus, I should say, who spoke out publicly, the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's - the only one on that side of the floor who spoke out was told that he could no longer be a member of their party because he had the intestinal fortitude to stand in the caucus and speak that which was presented to him by his constituents, and for that he will be forever banned from this party.

Mr. Speaker, what I find ironic is that all of these individuals that I just mentioned had close ties to the Tory Party in this Province and they are all saying that this should be withdrawn. I ask why -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. REID: By leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave to conclude?

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Government House Leader for it.

What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is you have all of these affluent Tory people who have now spoken up and asked the Premier and the minister to take this off the table. My question for the members opposite: If that is the case, why do they sit so quietly and passively and not raise the issue publicly and ask the Premier why he will not back down, do what he Dunne report recommended, remove this until he has had further consultations with the stakeholders in the industry?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Orders of the Day, Order 2. I move that the House resolve itself into Committee of Supply and consider resolution and Bill 4, respecting the granting of main supply to Her Majesty.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on a supply bill.

Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of Whole on said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The committee is ready to continue debate on the Estimates of Supply.

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to take a few minutes to talk about this Budget again. Actually, I was speaking just Thursday past and, of course, time ran out and I had a few more things I wanted to talk about. In fact, I had a few more positive things that I wanted to talk about in this Budget. Actually, last Thursday I found it very difficult to speak because there were so many interruptions. So I am hoping that the other side of the House are going to give me an opportunity to speak in peace and have my opportunity to talk, as I said, about the positive things in this Budget.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we talked about the other day - I started talking about the money we are going to put into Transportation and Works and how the Budget was addressing Transportation and Works. I was very pleased this year to see more money in road work.

Of course, as I was saying on Thursday past, I have driven across this Island, and I am sure a number of members here have driven across this Province, and found the roads to be sometimes intolerable. It is unfortunate that the previous administration had left the roads in a terrible condition, but I am glad today that this administration is willing to put some funds into the highways to try and make improvements to the highway situation in this Province.

It was just last summer, in fact, that I spoke about this again, that myself and my family drove across the Province in our motor home. I think somebody made some comment about the fact that we did own a motor home. I thought it was very ironic. I really wanted to say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, who actually questioned me on the motor home, that it is for sale and maybe if he is planning on retiring soon I can get him a good deal on that. Just a little bit of levity there. I am sure I can do what I can to give him a good deal.

We drove across the Province and we found the roads to be -

AN HON. MEMBER: Make sure he pays the taxes.

MR. ORAM: Yes, we will make sure he pays the taxes on that.

We did drive across the Island and we found the roads to be, in some places, very difficult to drive over.

The government realizes that we cannot fix all the roads today and we cannot fix all the roads this year, but we do realize, Mr. Chair, that we have to make an effort. We have made an effort because, of course, we are going to put $30 million into the provincial roads improvement program. A large portion of that $30 million will be spent in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We have a commitment to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, we have a positive commitment to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Even when members on the opposite side try to put a spin on what we are doing and try to talk about the negatives that we are trying to do and try to talk about the fact that we don't care about rural Newfoundland and Labrador, let me assure the people of this Province today, that we do care about rural Newfoundland and Labrador and we are going to prove that, of course, with the work we are going to do in this Province through this Budget on the roads.

Another thing, Mr. Chair, that comes up from time to time in my district is the ferry system. Of course, you know, we have a ferry system within this Province that really needs some work, it needs some money put into it. I am glad that the Province has allocated $500,000 to plan the implementation of a provincial vessel replacement strategy. That is a positive initiative for Newfoundland and Labrador. I am quite pleased that we are looking at that, because it is difficult, Mr. Chair, when you look at the fact that many people in my district have to travel to St. Brendan's and they have to use a ferry. It is their own means of transportation. There are times when it is difficult to get across there, more specifically in the winter time and times like that. This government realizes that we need to make a commitment to ferries, not only in St. Brendan's but across the Province. I am very happy, today, that we are going to do that and we are going to make things happen in a positive way as well.

The Province has also seen the fact that we need improvements to our Province's ferry terminals, and $1 million in new funding is earmarked for capital improvements to the Province's ferry terminals. That is a very important aspect as well, because not only do people from this Province use ferries. Of course, there are many people in this Province who use ferries every day, but there are also tourists who want to use the ferry facilities. They need to be able to go in and be able to sit in, maybe, a terminal and be able to find out information about where they are going in this Province. This all ties in with tourism and our plan for rural Newfoundland and Labrador, the positive plan that we have for rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I also want to talk about, just for a few moments, the Municipal and Provincial Affairs strategy. Municipal and Provincial Affairs in this Province is a very important department, of course, in government. We have a minister who cares about rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I must say, and I think all members would agree, that whenever you approach the Minister of Municipal Affairs, whenever you approach that department, they are very approachable. They realize that there are many challenges that face - again, I talk about rural Newfoundland and Labrador because it is where my district is, the District of Terra Nova, but as soon as you approach that department, automatically, they try to do what they can for your district. I appreciate that today, and I appreciate government putting more and more funds into capital works programs that need to be taken care of in this Province.

So many times we forget about the fact that there are many communities that really do not even have water and sewer in this Province; they really don't. I went to a community in my district back during the campaign, during the election time, and there was a community where they were using five-gallon buckets under eavestroughs to try to get enough water to be able to wash during the day. I thought, how sad.

I am very pleased today that we have made strides in that community alone in trying to devise a plan to be able to provide water for that community. We are working on that program right now. Of course, because of the money in this Budget, the Province's share of $46.5 million, this brings the total value of this year's capital works program to $83 million. Those type of initiatives, those type of dollars, are what we need for rural Newfoundland and Labrador communities and all communities, Mr. Chairman. As I said, I am very, very pleased that we are doing things like that.

I just noticed as well, Mr. Chair, it was so funny, when I was speaking on Thursday, we were talking about the fact that I own a motorhome. Big deal! I think one of the members opposite talked about the fact: What about the people in Harbour Breton, and what about the people in these other areas who are finding it very difficult?

I can sympathize with those people today; I really can. I remember days when I had to depend on trying to find ten weeks work in order to get enough stamps to survive through the winter. Absolutely, I remember those days. It was very difficult times, and we found it very difficult. In fact, I remember, Mr. Chair, days when myself and my wife, at the end of the week - we would be going through our waiting period, because you always had a two-week waiting period before you would get any money, and then you would have to wait another two weeks before you get any money. I remember going to the local merchant, the local store there, and asking if I could charge a few groceries just to get us through. I remember those days myself. That is not something that I can talk about that, oh, somebody else may have lived through, just somebody else. I understand what they are saying. I understand where they are coming from, because I have lived that way as well. It is not easy. It is a hard way to live, but I can tell you that we, as a government, intend to do something positive for this Province. We have already made announcements and we have already tried to work with Harbour Breton in trying to find a solution to their problem, and many other communities within this Province.

We were very fortunate, Mr. Chair, to be able to pull ourselves, I guess, out of that situation that we were in, myself and my wife, and get ourselves involved in a business that the people supported and that we did very well with. I am very appreciative of the people of this Province for that, and I am very appreciative today that we can do positive things to help people.

In social investment this year, we are going to allocate $1 million to increase income support benefits for couples without children, and single individuals. These clients have not received an increase in benefits for four years. Now, the first thing I have heard since we have announced that we are going to put a $1 million increase in is: Oh, it is not enough. You are not doing enough. You are not going to do enough.

The fact of the matter is that we are doing something. It was four years before anything was done for these people, and we are going to try and we are going to put something in place that will help people. It may only be $1 million. It may only be a few dollars a month, but at least it is a start. We are going to take that and make people realize that we do care about the social needs that are involved in this Province.

Also, we have a new Stay In School Incentive Allowance that will be established. A total of $600,000 is provided in this Budget to help offset the loss of child benefits for families receiving income support, and to encourage youth to complete high school.

In my district, Mr. Chair, I can tell you that there are some schools where the dropout rate is phenomenal. Very many students, you know, their families just do not have the money, and a lot of times they find themselves in Grade 10, even Grade 9, quitting school and going to work because it is very difficult for them to survive. Will this fix everything for those students? Absolutely not, but this is a start. We are talking about putting money into a young person's life and into a young person's career. The first thing that the young people have to do, of course, we have to encourage them to finish high school because they cannot go any further unless they finish high school first. This is a great incentive in this Budget this year. Again, I think, and I cannot say for sure because I have not done the research, but I would assume that this, again, would probably be something that rural Newfoundland and Labrador citizens will probably use more than anybody else. I am just assuming that, and I think again this is very positive.

We are also providing $6.2 million to the Student Investment and Opportunities Corporation with a target to increase participation of youth at risk from 7 per cent to 50 per cent within three years.

We are reinvesting $2 million over three years in employment and career programming to direct more services to income support clients. Another positive initiative for the most vulnerable people in society, Mr. Chair.

Budget 2005 also contains an $80,000 allocation to increase funding to eight women centres for the second year in a row. We realize today that society, such as it is, everything is not perfect, of course. Life is not perfect. Some people have a very difficult time, and many women are vulnerable to what happens in society. There are all sorts of issues that affect women.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Terra Nova that his speaking time has expired.

MR. ORAM: By leave, just for a second, to clue up, Mr. Chair?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: The hon. member, by leave.

MR. ORAM: Thank you.

As I was saying, the fact of the matter is, we are putting money into this very serious issue in terms of women's issues and children's issues, and we believe, as a government, these are important initiatives.

I could go on and on about the positive things in this Budget, Mr. Chair, but, of course, time will not permit me. I just want to say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador today: Hold firm with this government. We are going to help you. We are going to make things positive happen in this Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just listened to the Member for Terra Nova go on about the positive initiatives in the Budget. The irony in all of this, of course, is that I would assume they got their marching orders from the Premier, because I remember hearing the Premier, on the Open Line show, talking about coming back from somewhere on a flight and how he had to take out the Budget and read it again. It was such a good document that he really felt like patting himself on the back. So, I would expect they all got their marching orders, because he was so disappointed he was not hearing from the people throughout Newfoundland and Labrador about what a wonderful Budget this was, that he really could not understand it. And, lo and behold, within a matter of twenty-four hours on the Open Line show the following morning, you had three, four, five members of the government calling in to talk about the wonderful Budget the government had brought down. Of course, we just heard the same thing now from the Member for Terra Nova.

He goes on and on about what they are doing for rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and all I can think about is all of the people out there who are hurting today in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, when he talked about how he understood the hardships, how he can remember a time when he and his wife really did not know where they were going to find the next meal, how they had to get help from someone else, and how proud he was today that he has been able to make it, and that he owns a car and he owns a truck and he owns a motorhome.

What I do not understand is that if he has gone through these hardships, then why can't he relate to the fish harvesters and to their families. Why is it he is not standing up and taking a stand like the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's did on behalf of his constituents and others who live in rural Newfoundland and Labrador? If he has such an understanding and appreciation for difficult times, then why isn't he among those on this side, and like his former colleague, who had the nerve to stand, speak up and speak out on behalf of his constituents? It is hard to understand how someone, who says he understands and has gone through such hardships, can now turn a blind eye to those in Newfoundland and Labrador who are feeling pain, who do not know where they are going to find the next meal, who are wondering where they are going to go to work, who are looking at their families, looking at their children, wondering if they are going to have to take them out of their schools and move them to Alberta or some other part of our country.

Mr. Chair, how the Member for Terra Nova can go on and on and suggest that he understands, but then fails to represent those very people who are asking him to look at how they are having to survive or trying to survive and then just turn a blind eye to them, I think it is disrespectful of people who live in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and what it says to me is that he really does not understand and does not have an appreciation for how difficult these people are finding it.

It is funny, because we talk about the Premier and the Premier's credibility and how when he gave an ultimatum to the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, it was either going to be the Premier or the member sitting at the table but not both of them. You know, such a statement just smacks of someone who is being so childish, to suggest that it is either him or me, instead of having a discussion, sitting down and trying to iron out your differences. At the end of the day the Premier lacks credibility, not only because of that position he took but on a number of positions; certainly, with respect to health care, the position he took when it came to the health care facility in Grand Bank.

Here we are seeing a Budget brought down, again with no commitment to continue with that facility. When I look at the petitions that have come across my desk and that of my colleague for Bellevue, people who are asking for the government to live up to commitments that were made by the previous administration. In fact, a lot of the good things that they talk about that they did in the Budget were things that the previous government initiated. Now, they want to take credit for continuing on with them. It is only right and proper that you should do so. It is about time that you also continued on with the health care facility in Grand Bank, a replacement facility, no new services, just a replacement facility.

The same with the CT scanner for the Burin Peninsula. The Member for Burin-Placentia West should be standing and asking for it, instead of applauding when the Minister of Health said, you can go to Clarenville, it is only a two-week waiting period, ignore the fact that the roads are closed for days at a time and you may not be able to get there.

There are so many things happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador that this government is responsible for and most of them are negative. When I look at people who are finding it hard to make ends meet, look at this government bringing in $25 million worth of fees - a death certificate today, for instance, costs $25. A birth certificate you pay for, now you have to pay for a death certificate, so they get you coming and going. You look at drivers' licences, you look at vehicle registration - the fees for an ambulance have gone up. Of course, when you look at ambulance fees it affects the most vulnerable, because, primarily, it is our seniors who need to access ambulances, and these people are on fixed incomes. Still, this is a government that says they are conscientious, that they care about seniors, that they care about people. Well, they have yet to show it. I have yet to see the human side of the Premier, any kind of understanding for what people on fixed incomes have to go through, people who are trying to make ends meet.

Of course, we talk about rural Newfoundland and Labrador and the wonderful vision that they campaigned on. Where is the vision today? We have strategies, we have plans, but nothing concrete, nothing that anyone in rural Newfoundland can look to and say: We are going to benefit from that initiative by this government. They have yet to do anything to make a difference in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

One of the crab fisherman said to me today: Well, the Premier is going to get his way because he is going to turn all of rural Newfoundland and Labrador into a museum. So, yes, it will be good for the tourism industry all right. It will only be the tourists who are going there because there will not be anyone living there other than those who get a few weeks work at $6 an hour during the summertime offering tours. These are people who made their living in rural Newfoundland and Labrador fishing, working, trying to make ends meet. It is not an easy way to make a living, but they do it. We all benefit from it because these are new dollars that go back into the economy. This is not recycled money. These are new dollars that they bring into the economy of this Province. Of course, we all get to benefit and they get to go out on the ocean and do the hard work on behalf of all of us.

Mr. Chair, when you look at any member on the government side trying to say that they are making a difference in rural Newfoundland and Labrador - maybe I could understand it from members who represent urban centres in our Province, but not people who represent rural districts. People who can dare stand on their feet who represent rural districts and say, oh, we are making a difference, things are different - they are not. They are, obviously, not listening to their constituents or they are not going back to their districts enough to even hear what is being said. My fear is that the Premier has done to them exactly what he did to the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's and said: Hey, guys, it is either me or you. They have all chosen, of course, to toe the party line, to be a part of the government, and not to speak out and speak up on behalf of their constituents.

It is funny, because the Premier himself when you talk about credibility - this is the man who is the Minister of the Department of Business for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the man who has refused to appear before the Estimates Committee, a Budget Estimates Committee, to talk about this wonderful new department. Today we really do not know what the department does. There was $750,000 allocated for grants or subsidies. We do not know how the money was spent. We have no idea what happened to it. We do not know how many positions have been created. We have a Department of Business that, who knows, we really cannot get a handle on it. He refuses to appear before the committee to answer questions and so we really do not know whether the department exists. It exists on paper but we have seen nothing concrete come out of it; another example of where the Premier has lost all credibility.

He keeps standing on the Atlantic Accord. You know: Look what I did, I brought home the Atlantic Accord. You know, we all supported him. We all supported him getting what he could out of Ottawa for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but at some point in time you have to do more. You have to do more! You cannot ride on that for the rest of your term in office. People expect you to deliver and you are not delivering. As a government you are not delivering in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

When I go to my district, I hear time and time again: What is this government doing? Is there anything we can do to get rid of this Premier? What did we do in electing him to lead the Province? I keep saying there is not a thing you can do. The only people that can get rid of this Premier are those who sit in government with him. They could do if they all stood up and were counted, like the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's did. They could, because clearly if they looked at him and said, Premier what you are doing is not in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador, it is certainly not in the best interests of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, he would have to listen. It would have to be either all of you or him. Certainly heavens, a leader, if he is a leader in the true sense of the word, would have to listen. He would have to listen to those people who got elected, who helped him form a government. You were not appointed, you were elected by your constituents, and it is those very people who are today telling you that the decisions you are making are harming rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Talk about health care - and I am so glad the Acting Minister of Health just walked in, because on the weekend-

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Grand Bank that her speaking time has expired.

MS FOOTE: Time to clue up, Mr. Chair?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

CHAIR: The hon. member, by leave.

MS FOOTE: Just one example that I wanted to give before I sit down with respect to health care. This is a patient who I met on the weekend, in fact, who has prostate cancer, in fact was diagnosed last November, has had four appointments cancelled and one was ten minutes before he was to leave to come in to St. John's. They are telling him they don't have the necessary equipment, they need another piece of equipment to be able to accommodate all of the needs over there, or else they just cancel the appointment and then reschedule. This is very difficult on this particular patient.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Chair, it gives me pleasure to get up and speak this afternoon. In particular, it gives me pleasure to follow the Member for Grand Bank, because I have been listening to her and following the points that she has put across for the last number of weeks and months, I guess. I am glad that she is going to sit and listen to me for a few minutes.

In fact, Mr. Chair, I might enlighten her a little as to some of the things that are happening on the Peninsula, in particular as this Budget and this government speak to rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Chair, the problem that -

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Chair, it seems now that she has become a little bit irate that I am following her. I am going to take her to task and challenge her on some of the comments that she has made.

She speaks about health care on the Burin Peninsula, and I can assure her, Mr. Chair, one thing: As sure as I am standing here the people on the Burin Peninsula, if they care to listen to me or not, what they decide to do in a few years time will be entirely up to them. Mr. Chair, I can assure you one thing, that the moves that I make and the initiatives that I support on the Burin Peninsula will be in the best interests of the people and will be in the best interests of health care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Chair, they will not be politically motivated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: These announcements, if I can carry it through to the Cabinet Ministers and the officials and get moves made on behalf of health care, they won't be announced, Mr. Chair, one month before the next election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: They will be announced, Mr. Chair, when all of the experts in the field have been consulted and the decisions, then, have been made respective to those initiatives that are being brought forward. If the people in the field decide that the best move is to support the initiative that she brings forward the petitions on, I will be the first one who will be out there to support it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Chair, we sit here and we listen, and I do agree that opposite members have had their time. Most of them have been ministers and they have the experience in the House that I may not have and they bring that forward. But I guess it is -

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible).

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Chair, I have to say, I must really have her hyped up this evening because she is over there continually heckling and I am having a problem even hearing myself.

Mr. Chair, I guess it is for the people of the Province to decide if all of the issues as they relate to - whether it be health care or education or transportation, you know, we have to ask ourselves: Did these things happen within the last eighteen months? People with sound, logical reasoning will say to you that a CT scan must not - you know, if the issue arose eighteen months ago or nineteen months ago, a month before the election, we have to question - I am not saying that the piece of equipment is not needed. I am certainly not saying that, but for it to arise itself a month before the election, it brings into question the credibility of the people opposite and the initiatives that they are putting forward.

Maybe I should, like I said before, enlighten the Member for Grand Bank as to what has been happening. I should let her know that I met with the foundation and other members and other representatives from government on Friday past. Today I met with another group, in terms of health care on the Burin Peninsula. I was really glad to hear, a week or so ago, the Member for Bellevue speak to the health care issue because I have said over and over, Mr. Chair, once you top the mile hill going to the Burin Peninsula, we are unique, as an entity, geographically. When I speak for the Burin Peninsula, I am not only speaking for the District of Burin-Placentia West. We have the District of Grand Bank. We have a portion of the Member for Bellevue's district. Sometimes I think that this is a group which does not deserve its just attention in terms of health care and it is time that we start to work together to attend to the needs of that portion of his district as it relates to the Burin Peninsula.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Chair, if you are talking to the issues as they relate to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, I would ask the members opposite to just consider some of the initiatives.

I heard the Member for Grand Bank mention she has not seen concrete evidence of what this government is doing for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, Mr. Chair, let me list two things just for her reference. Maybe, Mr. Chair, she might want to get up at some point in the very near future and recognize these two initiatives. The Regional Diversification Fund -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JACKMAN: - it is $5 million aimed at community and regional partners as they plan and as they build on the strengths of the communities, the various communities in the district. Mr. Chair, I am very pleased to report to her - if she wants something concrete, I know of two groups already that are submitting applications for funding support. You know, this $5 million fund, whether people know it or not - I guess the onus is on us to get that information out - is a non-repayable contribution. If groups in our communities, working with our regional development associations want to put applications in, the offices are open for that type of thing.

The second thing, Mr. Chair, if she is looking to concrete things again -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Chair, I do not know, I cannot -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Chair, as I said before, she seems to be getting rather upset and she is looking for concrete evidence. I have just given her a concrete example of $5 million. Well, I am going to give her another one now. Mr. Chair, the truth is bothering them. It is hurting them.

Mr. Chair, we have set forth a plan for a $10 million revolving fund. What is that money for? That money is to support small to medium businesses; those businesses that are looking to start up or those businesses that are looking to expand. Well, we are now offering them financial support so that they can improve upon their business. What are we looking for? We are looking for - we know that small to medium-sized businesses are the economy movers. They are the economy movers and we are looking at - people who want to put applications into this fund, that they can improve their businesses, further develop their business plans. Mr. Chair, the bottom line, that we hire additional people so that if we have people in our districts who have businesses that are operational, that they look to bring into the workforce other people and hire these people. There is no doubt about it, Mr. Chair, the face of rural Newfoundland and Labrador is changing. There is no doubt about that. So, we can either sit back - and I would ask the people of the Province to consider, again, that this stuff did not just happen in the last number of months. Within the last eighteen months, Mr Chair, this government has brought in initiatives, like I said, with a $5 million fund or the $10 million fund that are helping to support these initiatives and further improve the situation in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

As this continues to roll out, Mr. Chair -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Burin-Placentia West that his time has expired.

MR. JACKMAN: Just a minute to conclude, Mr. Chair?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Chair, I conclude by saying this, it seems to bother the members opposite when - as my colleague for Terra Nova said, as we start to bring forward some positive points they seem to get a little irrate. So, I look forward to expanding further on some of these initiatives.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to rise and say a few words with regard to the Budget. I sat here, Mr. Chair, and I could not believe what I am hearing today. I cannot believe what I am hearing today, especially coming out of the mouth of the Member for Burin-Placentia West. I sat back here and I listened to the member get up and say to the Member for Grand Bank, I am going to enlighten you now he said. Well, I can guarantee you, I have sat in this House with the Member for Grand Bank for almost ten years and I can say to the hon. member, she does not need you to enlighten her today or any other day. I can say that to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Chairman, he got up today in the Legislature and said: When it comes to health care on the Burin Peninsula, I am going to do what is in the best interests of the people in the area. I am going to do what is in the best interests of health care for people of the Burin Peninsula.

Yet, we have seen, day after day, petitions coming to this hon. House to have a facility, a seventy-year-old facility in Grand Bank, replaced, a clinic that is aging and old, a long-term care facility that needs to be replaced for the welfare and the betterment of health care in that region. Where has the member stood? He has not stood in his place and supported that for the Burin Peninsula. Indeed he has not, Mr. Chairman.

A resolution in this House of Assembly asking for a CAT scan for the Burin Peninsula - the member feels the one in Clarenville will serve the area adequately. Mr. Chairman, that was his response. Can you honestly tell me that is in the best interest of health care for the people on the Burin Peninsula? I think not, Mr. Chairman. I think not.

Mr. Chairman, he got up and said: I am going to give you the concrete evidence of what is happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Let me show you the concrete evidence, he said. Well, I can tell the hon. member that the concrete evidence is stone cold in attitude. That is what is out there. That is what they are giving to rural Newfoundland and Labrador right now, the stone cold attitude, the attitude that has left 10,000 of our plant workers without a job to go to tomorrow morning. That is the attitude, that is the concrete evidence, of what this government has done to rural Newfoundland, I say to the Member for Burin-Placentia West. That is some proud legacy to stand on in this Legislature today.

Not only are there 10,000 plants workers out there with EI benefit that have run out, and no job to go to in the morning, but there are equally as many people in the fishing industry, I say to the members opposite - equally as many in the fishing industry - who have no job to go to as well. Why? Because this government is insistent on having it: My way or the highway. This government is insistent on saying: We have a temporary pilot project. We want to see how it is going to work for the next two years, and we are going to make sure that we get that opportunity. So, while we do this experiment, while we have this pilot project in the Province, we are satisfied to sit back and let 20,000 people in this Province go without employment in rural communities. We are satisfied to have a $500 million industry shut down for the entire season because we want to try a pilot project.

Mr. Chairman, I have never heard of such a thing in all my days, in all my days in this Legislature or in all my days in dealing with the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Then, Mr. Chairman, I sit here today and listen to members opposite stand in their place and want to brag about the concrete evidence of what they are doing for rural communities in this Province. What a farce, I say to them. What a farce! Let's look at the real facts of what you are doing. The real fact is that, as we speak, there are people in fishing communities in this Province today who are packing up and moving, and they are not moving to the town down the road; they are moving across the Gulf. They are moving to other parts of Canada to look for employment. Those are the cold, hard, concrete facts of what you are doing in rural Newfoundland and Labrador today. Those are the cold, hard facts.

Mr. Chairman, the last time we had such a major exodus of fisheries workers in this Province was when the federal government closed the fishery in 1991, I say to the Member for Mount Pearl. Now, today, we are going to have another exodus of fisheries workers, crab plant workers, crew members, who have no job to go to, I say to the hon. Member for Mount Pearl. He may not feel the smert of it in his community and in his town, but there are a good many towns in this Province that you will. Ask your colleague there, the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde. Ask her how the people in her district feel today, how the people in her district feel, who woke up this morning knowing their unemployment cheque is cut off and they have no job to go to in the local fish plant. They have no way to pay their bills at the end of the month. That is the legacy and the cold hard fact of what is going on in rural Newfoundland today.

Mr. Chairman, it could all be changed if the Premier of the Province would say: I will put my temporary pilot project on hold for one year - my temporary pilot project that I just want to try and see, is it going to work? I will put it on hold for a year so that we can get this $500 million industry off the ground, we can get people in rural communities in this Province to work, and we can start growing an economy in rural Newfoundland and Labrador again.

Mr. Chairman, one of the members, the Member for Burin-Placentia West, said rural Newfoundland is changing. I can guarantee you, it is changing, I say to the member. It is changing because there is more anxiety and there is more stress in those communities than you have seen for an awful long time, an awful long time. A lot of these communities are one-industry towns and you people know it. They are in your districts. They are your constituents, your constituents who sent you here to stand in your place and to represent their issues and their concerns. You have the gall to stand up today and say, look at all the great things we are doing for you in your community, when they are going without a paycheque, I say to the Member for Terra Nova, going without a paycheque, going without a job, packing up their stuff and leaving their communities, and the Member for Terra Nova thinks this is wonderful. The Member for Terra Nova thinks that there are all kinds of great things happening out there in those rural communities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: Well, Mr. Chairman, I bet you any money, I could drive through the District of Terra Nova today and I could hear a whole different story than I am hearing from the member across the way. Indeed, I could. I can guarantee you, it would be a whole different story.

I have not seen the members opposite stand in their place and talk about how raw material sharing is affecting the communities and their constituents. I have not heard them stand up and tell me how the community of Bonavista, how the community of Old Perlican, how those communities are going to function this summer with no employment. I haven't heard that since I have been here. I heard the member for St. Mary's-The Capes speak out, but look where that got him. Look where that got him. It got him a seat on the other side of the House, thrown out of a caucus because he dared to speak for his constituents, dared to speak for his constituents, and he was told: You take the walk.

That is what he was told, because it was making the rest of his colleagues look inept because they were not speaking up for their constituents. They were not speaking up. They were not laying it on the line for the members of their district, so he was told to take the walk. Ten years of commitment to the caucus, ten years of commitment to the party, meant absolutely nothing because he dared to speak for the people who sent him here to represent them.

What do we see, Mr. Chairman? All the rest of them over there, they are not going to say anything now. They are all scared. They are all nervous. After all, the report that came out from their colleague said: He who dares to speak against the Premier, it is almost as if they are committing treason. That was the word he used, yes, indeed: Consider this treason, Mr. Chair. That is the word that their x-colleague, their friend who stood in the House many days praising the government, Mr. Chair - he made the powerful speeches for the PC Party. I was here for years listening to him, I say to the members. He supported his party, he believed in his government, and when he made his speeches they all tapped on the desk over there, Mr. Chair, praising him up until he dared to do his job. When he dared to do his job and stand up for the poor fisheries workers in this Province, Mr. Chair, he was given the boot. He was told to take the walk across the House, Mr Chair. They were not over there then tapping their desks and praising him up for the great speeches he was making; indeed, they were not.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair that her speaking time has expired.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will certainly have another opportunity.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is certainly a delight for me to stand up today and have a few words on the Budget and the Budget process. I did not hear a lot of it from our last speaker, Mr. Chair, but I am going to try to enlighten the House and enlighten the people of my district, and indeed the people of the Province, of some of the history that has happened and transpired over the last number of years in this Province. I guess you do not have to go back very far to find out.

Recently, Mr. Chair, on March 16, 2005, it appeared in The Telegram. "Contract Stands" was the heading. "Liberal government had no right to award a ferry contract the second time..." This is the type of stuff that the hon. crowd on the other side of this House have been doing, Mr. Chair. No wonder we are currently in the financial mess that we are in. We were literally on the verge of bankruptcy. Since 1989, Mr. Chairman, we have had tens of thousands - I believe 43,000 people exited this Province. Our debt has grown from several billion dollars to the current $12 billion debt, Mr. Chair.

MR. DENINE: Who was in government then?

MR. FRENCH: Our hon. crowd on the other side of the House I believe had control of the purse strings at the time.

What we see now, we see twenty-five cents out of every dollar going to service the debt. If we had continued on, by 2008 we would have been looking at forty cents out of every dollar this government collected to service the debt, Mr. Chair. Certainly every cent that we use to service the debt means one less penney we have for services for the residents of this Province, Mr. Chair.

This article, Mr. Chair, goes on to say, and I quote, " The Newfoundland Supreme Court ruled Canship Ltd. had a valid contract to provide freight services along the Labrador coast in June 2003 - two weeks before the provincial government handed a $5 million contract to another shipping company. Canship sued the then-Liberal government for breach of contract." I certainly do not blame them, Mr. Chair. They received a letter on June 12, 2003, accepting its bid. Within thirty minutes, Mr. Chair, another letter was issued. They had a phone call saying it had been issued prematurely. Mr. Chair, these are the kind of people we had running this Province at the time. Two weeks later the Province issued a new letter of acceptance to another company. Can you imagine? If it was not so serious it would be absolute comedy; comedy hour.

Mr. Chair, the Justice, at the time, argued "...Canship had an enforceable contract and is owed damages that will be decided in future court proceedings." Mr. Chair, is it any wonder that we are currently in the financial mess we are in?

Mr. Chair, I read the article and I have heard members speak opposite, and it reminds me of a story. I say to the Member for Bellevue, this is a good one, he should listen to this one. This is a real good story. You are one of the characters in this story that I am about to tell.

There was a gentleman who lived not far from me, Mr. Chair, not far from me at all. The story goes that he was getting up there in years. He had a few vegetables he planted every year and he had an old horse that he used to plow up the vegetables. He was getting up in years and decided he had to get out of the vegetable business. He had this old horse and he did not know what to do with it. Talk got around the community that he was selling this horse. A gentleman went in to see him one day. He was sitting to his kitchen table. He used to enjoy a little drop of stuff every now and again, he used to pour it up in a small water glass. He knocked on the door and the gentleman bawled out: Come in, come in. You had to know the house, it was a small house and you kind of had to duck in. This was a big tall man who went to see him about buying the horse. You kind of had to duck down to get in through the door.

He went into the house, he was sitting there having a drink, and he said: Skipper, I hear you have a horse for sale. He said: Yes, boy, I have a horse up there. I was thinking about selling it. He said: Boy, come on we goes up and haves a look at it. No, he said, we don't have to go up, we will call him down. Out he goes through the door and made the big whistle. His house was kind of on the bottom of a hill and the barn was up on the back. He looked up, went back in the house and poured another little snort. They must have been there five minutes talking about the weather and one thing and another. Finally, he said: Boy, are we going to go up and have a look at that horse? He said: No, the horse will be down in a minute. He said: Boy, he never showed up. What am I going to do? Out he goes again, another big whistle, and still no sign of the horse. Another ten minutes passed.

Buddy who was there to buy the horse was getting a bit agitated by this, so he said: Boy, we are going to have to go up and see this horse. I haven't all day to wait here. Don't worry, he said, he will definitely be down. Out he goes, sure enough, one more big whistle. With that, the old horse come out of the barn, come down over the hill all out, and run face and eyes into the side of the house. He went down in a pile, was down on the ground for two or three minutes, and finally he got up and the horse shook himself off. Buddy who was there to buy the horse and the old fellow went back in to get a drink again. Back in they go and sit down to the table. He said: I do not know about that horse. I don't know if I am too interested in buying that. The way that just came down there, boy, he must have something wrong with his legs. He can't stop, to run face and eyes into the side of the house like that.

He said: There is nothing wrong with that horse. He can plough fields and plough crops with the best of them. Very good, he said, I will tell you what, I will give you $60 for the horse. With that, the old fellow jumped to his feet. What, $60? Well, he drove him out of his house and he told him never to step foot in his yard again. You offering me $60 for that horse. He said: That horse will starve to death in the barn if I do not get $40 for it.

This is the kind of people who have ruined this Province. That the kind of financial decision these people opposite make. The kind of financial mess that this crowd left us in was because of decisions like that elderly gentlemen made over a few drinks, about how much he should get for the horse.

Mr. Chair, I have to say - the Member for Bellevue, I am not sure which one of the characters in this story he reminds me of the most, Mr. Chair, but certainly one of them.

AN HON. MEMBER: I would say it was the horse.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Part of the horse.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FRENCH: My hon. colleagues are having some fun with this.

Also, Mr. Chair, I would like to point out - we have heard numerous times from that side of the House how terrible it was to pay off a loan and a mortgage, a loan from the Student Loan Corporation, and the other one was for The Rooms. Why did we pay that off? Now, it was ridiculous. Here we are, we went and paid a mortgage.

Mr. Chair, I say to members opposite, every time you pay off a mortgage or pay off a debt, that means more money you will have for more services. It is great economics to me. It makes total sense. This is a long term effect this will have. We are saving literally millions of dollars in interest over the long-haul, over the twenty-years or so. Mr. Chair, it makes absolutely no sense when I see members opposite talk and criticize a government for paying down debt.

Mr. Chair, nothing is more evident than in the Wednesday, May 4, business section of The Telegram when the Dominion Bond Rating Service - and I will read a short clip of this, "Dominion Bond Rating Service has bumped up Newfoundland and Labrador's credit rating a notice to BBB-high-noting the Atlantic Accord deal completed last February has "considerably brightened" the Province's..." financial situation.

Mr. Chair, obviously with that Atlantic Accord - and we have all heard about the Atlantic Accord and certainly there is a story to be told there and one we should tell a lot. How could I not mention the Atlantic Accord without congratulating our Minister of Finance and the Premier of this Province, who, when we talk about credibility - we had a lecture here earlier about credibility. You talk about credibility and look at what these two gentlemen delivered for the people of this Province, Mr. Chair, it is certainly a remarkable feat. I take my hat off to both of them. I know that the people of this Province will never forget it. Some day, with time, the real benefits will hit this Province, Mr. Chair, and we will be thankful for it. It has certainly given us a leg up. It has given us an opportunity to expand and to grow. It gives us a feeling of pride like the people in this Province have never had before. Finally, Mr. Chair, no more giveaways is a reality.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: I say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to stay tuned, the Lower Churchill is around the corner, and there will be no more giveaways on the Lower Churchill as well.

Mr. Chair, if I can get back to this article from the Bond Rating Agency, and this is very important, very, very important, "Despite the fiscal improvements, the agency points out the Province maintains the highest debt level of all the provinces." Mr. Chair, is it any wonder that we are doing what we are doing. Is there any wonder that we still have to be very frugal fiscally in this Province. It is certainly, Mr. Chair, something we have to do, we have to continue to do. As much as we would like, we have a $4.5 billion Budget which sounds like a large amount of money, and certainly it is, but we still can't be everything to everybody. It is about picking priorities, and there are tough priorities and tough choices to be made. I say we are on the right track, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Conception Bay South that his time has expired.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was just getting going. I have a number of items I would like to discuss on my district and so on, but hopefully I have given our listeners some history on the people opposite and what they have faced. Hopefully I will get to speak later in the day, Mr. Chair, and expand on that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Fall-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It was interesting to be part of the audience here that was just listening to the Member for CBS. He spoke about how his government made a decision to pay off The Rooms because of long-term debt commitments. He also said - this will show you how the members are not informed, the members on the back benches - that his government decided to pay off the student loan investment portfolio. Well, let me tell you, what your government paid off was the construction for school construction. This is what they paid off, which was long-term commitments. They had no need to pay them off, no requirement. This is what they chose to do, rather than put the money in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. This is what they chose to do.

Unfortunately, I only have nine minutes so I am going to use my nine minutes to let the viewing public know how ineffective members of the Tory government are who sit on the back benches immediately opposite. We have witnessed, in a drama last week, how ineffective members of the Tory caucus are, and why it is pointless for constituents to bring forward any problem that they have to a Tory Member of the House of Assembly. We witnessed that last week.

I was looking back over some of the maiden speeches that were made in this House of Assembly last year. The Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde said, last year - she said it April 13, 2004 - I entered politics because I wanted to be part of a positive change in this Province. She said: Under a Liberal government, I had to go to Nova Scotia to get a job.

She said, under a Liberal government, she had to go to Nova Scotia to get a job. Is she pleased that, under a Progressive Conservative government in this Province, crab harvesters are going to Nova Scotia to sell their catch? Is she pleased about that? That is the kind of question I would like to ask the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde.

We witnessed, last week, here in this House of Assembly, how a member who spoke up for his constituents - the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's spoke up for his constituents and he was ousted. Now, what kind of a message does that leave for the remaining backbenchers in this House? Do you think they have freedom to bring up an issue that is different from what the Premier's policy will be on a certain issue? They are not going to bring up anything in this House of Assembly, or in their own caucus room, that is going to be controversial to the Premier's thinking.

We already saw today that the Member for CBS lost his position. The Member for CBS lost his position as Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier because he did not speak up enough. He did not go on the Open Line shows and say how great the Premier was, and how great the Budget was, and how great every policy of his government was. He lost his job because he did not do that, but the Member for Gander saw what was going on and he dominated Open Line for awhile and, because of that, he got a reward. He got the job as Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier, and the Member for CBS got demoted.

Well, I can tell you, as one member standing here in this House, I was never afraid to speak up on behalf of my constituents. In fact, I was at odds with my very own government while I sat on the back benches of this House of Assembly, on several issues. I made my views known in the caucus room and I made my views known in public, and I had no fear of being ousted out of the caucus. In fact, I was not even reprimanded. Government realized, on a couple of issues that I spoke out about in public, that they needed to reconsider. I was never afraid to speak up on behalf of my constituents, but what we see here now is they are a bunch of puppets. They are going: Yes, sir, yes, sir, three bags full. Whatever you say, sir, that is what I am going to do.

Whatever freedom they had was taken away last week. Whatever freedom they thought they had was taken away last week.

I remember when the Member for Windsor-Springdale thought he was going to receive so much criticism - and he did, rightfully so - for the cancer clinic that he never spoke up on. He went to the Open Line with Linda Swain one night and he dared to say: I had several e-mails. In fact, I must have had 100, and they all went to the Premier.

Now, if that was this week, sir, you would not be sitting where you are today. You would be joining your friend from Placentia & St. Mary's, because nobody speaks out about this Premier and keeps their job in the back benches. Nobody speaks out about this Premier.

I must say, I was looking over some of the things this Premier has done and this Premier has ruined careers in this government and in this House of Assembly. He has ruined the career of the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, just simply because he spoke up on behalf of the people in his district. He has ruined the career of Florence Delaney, a top civil servant whom he was at odds with over a Budget decision a month before the Budget was brought down. He was ready to demote that woman just because he did not value her opinion; he was at odds with her opinion - an influential, powerful woman, Florence Delaney.

He ousted Debbie Fry, the top civil servant in our Province. I have them all here. He ousted Deborah Fry. It is not known at this point how much it is going to cost the taxpayers of our Province to make our Premier look like he was the one in the right. He will do whatever it takes to maintain his ego and his credibility. It does not matter about slashing the jobs of the top civil servants in this Province. That does not matter. It does not matter how much it costs the taxpayers. It does not matter that he has to pay out about $30 million or $40 million of the taxpayers' money right now to plant workers because his ego is so large he cannot say that he made an error and he wants to bring back the harvesters, the processors, the plant workers, and talk it over, that he has made an error in judgement. He is so rigid, he is always right.

I read in The Telegram, the Minister of Finance, when he was questioned about the leaving of Florence Delaney, the top civil servant - he is now departing this House - he said that whatever decision the Premier makes is always right and he will stand by the Premier's decision, no matter what it is.

Is that the kind of a person you want to have in Cabinet next to you? Whatever decision the Premier makes is right and you have no opinion yourself.

This is a Premier that - officials who are supposed to be neutral in this Province, officials who are supposed to be neutral in this government, after doing their research, give their opinion to the Premier, to the Cabinet, and then the Premier and the Cabinet make the final decision. Do you know something? Anyone who disagrees with the Premier finds themselves on the other side of the fence.

Look at what happened to the Member for Topsail. That is the biggest disgrace yet. Even Bob Benson said in his column a couple of months ago, the provincial Cabinet are not using the talent of the Member for Topsail to its full potential. This is a woman who has so much that she could offer in the way of recommendations and guidance in financial matters and policy matters. Because the Premier has a management style that she could not accept, because she is a woman of integrity - she was out in the public and made a statement on the VON nurses. In her mind, she was making the right statement. She could not go back and say that she was in agreement with the Premier because she knows the Premier made his decision on the fly to avert a protest at a golf tournament for the PC Party. Now, she is a woman of principle and I respect her for doing it. She was the only one that I can see who had the guts to stand up to the Premier.

How much is this Premier going to put the people of this Province through? Then again -

MADAM CHAIR( Osborne): Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her speaking time has expired.

MS THISTLE: Are you telling me ten minutes is gone already?

MADAM CHAIR: Ten minutes is gone already.

MS THISTLE: Well, I will take my leave and I will hopefully return again after supper.

Thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am pleased to stand here today to speak on the Budget. Over the last number of days, I have heard the Opposition talk about what we have not included, and that is their job, that is what they have to do, but, Madam Chair, what is most disconcerting about this whole thing over there is this: In the thirteen years they made no mistakes; not one.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fifteen.

MR. DENINE: Fifteen! Thirteen is bad enough, fifteen is even worse. Not one mistake did they make. You would swear that everything was all super fantastic in Newfoundland and Labrador. Well let me tell you, Madam Chair, it was not. It did not take thirteen months to destroy rural Newfoundland. It took thirteen years of inaction by the previous Administration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: It was not the things that we did. We are in the process, we are turning the corner, and we will make things happen in rural Newfoundland. Just sit back, wait and see.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Madam Chair, I want to just point out one thing. The hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans got up here and talked about the cancer treatment clinic in Grand Falls, which to me is a very important issue. She berated our Member for Windsor-Springdale saying he was not doing it. Well, Madam Chair, I will challenge you-

MS THISTLE: Point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, on a point of order.

MS THISTLE: The Member for Mount Pearl is totally wrong in his accusation. What I said was the Member for Windsor-Springdale sent e-mails to the Premier, and if that had been done after the member's incident from Placentia-St. Mary's, he would have found himself on the other side for speaking up. That is what I said.

MADAM CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. DENINE: As usual, Madam Chair, there is no point of order.

What I am trying to say to you, Madam Chair, is this: I heard more about the Grand Falls cancer treatment clinic from the Windsor-Springdale member than anyone else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: The problem over there, Madam Chair, is that when Question Period came up they thought they were on TV and they were able to play to the audience. This member over here went to our government members, put the case forward, and guess what we had? We do not have one, we have two now in Central Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Two! Now, you mean to tell me that is not good economics. I do not hear the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans saying what a great job the Member for Windsor-Springdale did. No, but that member had to go up and try to shake hands with the Premier when he made the announcements so she would get credit. That credit goes to this gentleman over here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: A photo opportunity, that is all it was.

Madam Chair -

MS THISTLE: A point of order, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think what needs to be understood in this House today is that the cancer clinic was a very important issue to the people of Central Newfoundland. It is not an economic issue, it is a health issue. I said to the Premier: If you can see it, that it is important to the people of -

MADAM CHAIR: There is no point of order.

MS THISTLE: - rural Newfoundland and Labrador and Central Newfoundland -

MADAM CHAIR: There is no point of order.

MS THISTLE: - and if you see it as important, I asked him if he would go ahead and proceed. I am a woman of my word. I said if he did it, I would thank him, and I thanked him and that is all there is to it.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. DENINE: I guess the proof is in the pudding. I make a statement that is true, accurate, and now the member opposite wishes to take credit for that too. I cannot believe it.

Anyhow, let's move on to the Budget. The tuition freeze: and I have mentioned it time and time and time again here, that we are freezing the tuition this year and probably for the next two years if nothing comes in the way of financial burden to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That was a good thing that this government did. The members over there would say, well, we reduced it by 4 per cent or 5 per cent, but they do not tell you that there were major increases in tuition well into 1990s, significant -

MS THISTLE: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans on a point of order.

MS THISTLE: I would like to remind the Member for Mount Pearl to get your facts straight. The former Administration reduced tuition by 25 per cent.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. DENINE: Madam Chair, decreasing it by 25 per cent is little consolation when you increase it over 100 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: And more.

MR. DENINE: And more. Now if you want to argue with that one, she may. I was just being a little bit conservative because I know it is an awful lot more.

The teaching units that are done here this year; I heard a lot of the members up there had a number of teaching units lost. Unfortunately, so many of them have lost - it is not there, but this government has saved seventy-five; fifty-two of them will be going in to help reduce the pupil-teacher ratio in the primary grades, the other twenty-three will be going into the music programs. Now -

MR. REID: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo on a point of order.

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again, we have to make sure that what the member is saying is true. He is saying that they are putting seventy-five teachers in the system this year when, in actual fact, there are 145 fewer teachers in the classroom in September than there was in June of this year, and you took 256 from the classrooms of this Province last year. So in the last two years, I say to the member, you have reduced the number of teachers in the Province by 401. You are not putting teachers in the classroom. You are taking them out, I say.

MADAM CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. DENINE: Madam Chair, I am glad the hon. Member for Twillingate & Fogo spoke up because the next point is this. Since 1996 to 2002, there have been 1,230 teaching positions lost in this Province. Get up on a point of order now! All they know is to get up on a point order now and see if they can defend that. Let me tell you, they get up here and they know it is true because there is no point of order. Now let's talk about the -

MR. REID: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. REID: I say to the Member for Mount Pearl, that his colleagues are doing that much yapping over there I cannot heard what I am saying. I ask them if they would please settle down so I can heard what the hon. gentleman is saying.

MADAM CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. DENINE: Madam Chair, I want to just ask the Opposition: Are there any more points of order they wish to make before I continue on? I have been interrupted three times. Surely, God, it does not take away from my time to speak. I hope it doesn't. I am sure they will give me leave to go on a little bit more.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair is unable to hear what the hon. member is saying. I wonder if you could please keep the noise down or take any private conversations outside the Chamber.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate that. I cannot even hear myself speak either.

Madam Chair, the investment we have made into the culture of Newfoundland and Labrador speaks for itself, the amount of money that has gone into our film industry and our culture. With that, there will be twenty-three people put into the music and that will help out the cultural aspect of Newfoundland and Labrador as we speak. Every now and then - and the members opposite, when they were in government, when there were cuts made, one of the first things that was done were cuts to the music programs. If you listen to the NLTA about the music program, the fact that they were saved, they were delighted. They were absolutely delighted.

Madam Chair, over there on the other side, hon. members speak about the ferry service. I do not have to use the ferry service unless I travel off the Province, and I certainly sympathize with those who have to. Over there, Madam Chair, they do not mention Hull 100. Now, Hull 100 was basically almost a derelict of a vessel purchased by the then Liberal government for $4 million or $5 million. They spent -

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Madam Chair, I do not know if the member saw what happened in the House here just then. The Member for Twillingate & Fogo walks across the House, bows to you, while the member was up speaking, leans over now from his chair and says - corrects him on a point. I have never seen anyone walk across the House and interrupt another member while they are up speaking.

Just a point of order. When the Member for Twillingate & Fogo gets back, I would like to ask him, or someone ask him, what possessed him to go over and interrupt the Member for Mount Pearl while he was up on his feet. He had no right to do that, whatsoever. I have never seen it in the twelve years that I have been in this House. I do not know if any member has ever seen that.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I wasn't here at that time, I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. I wasn't here when Bill Smallwood was in the House in the early 1970s, but, Madam Chair, I think people should be advised that when members are in their seats speaking - it is fine, we all get on with shouting at each other back and forth, sometimes in jest or whatever, and points of order, but I have never seen, in the twelve years in this House, a member get up from his or her seat, walk across the hallway, bow, cross the House, and on the way out the door stop and lean into another member and try to correct him while he is there. Unbelievable! I have never seen it and I think he should be made to apologize for it.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just to the point of order, I did not personally see what happened, and I can assure the Government House Leader I am not suggesting at all that it did not happen. All I am saying is, I don't think anybody need get too uptight about it. When the Member for Twillingate & Fogo comes back, I agree, we should ask him. That is not an issue. Maybe he said something in jest to the Member for Mount Pearl. I am certainly not within earshot. I am not sure how he did it, or what he did. I just say, let's not get too uptight here. Let's wait, ask the gentleman, and I am sure the Member for Twillingate & Fogo will give an explanation of what he did.

MADAM CHAIR: The Chair did not see the incident, so I will take it under advisement.

I remind the hon. Member for Mount Pearl that his speaking time has expired.

Does the hon. member have leave to clue up?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MADAM CHAIR: By leave.

MR. DENINE: Madam Chair, as the House Leader mentioned, I was interrupted by the hon. Member for Twillingate & Fogo, and it really interrupted the train of thought which I had.

What I was trying to say is that Hull 100 was purchased by the previous government for, I think, $4 million or $5 million, and I think there was -

AN HON. MEMBER: Five hundred thousand U.S.

MR. DENINE: Five hundred thousand U.S., and now it is up over $10 million. If we had to have that money back to put it on a ferry service that would be beneficial to Newfoundland and Labrador, then that makes a lot of sense.

Madam Chair, because of the amount of interruptions I have had, and because I might have incited something over there, that they could not take the truth, I did not get to all of what I wanted to say but I am sure -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DENINE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) more time.

MR. DENINE: I will have more time as the night goes on. I will sit here at 1:00 a.m. and talk as much as I wish on this issue.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I rise to speak on a matter directly related to the Province's finances, and this has to do with the collection of money; because, not only does the Province spend money - and I know the Member for Mount Pearl was complaining about the fact that members over here have said that they were not spending enough money in the right places, and that is a common complaint of Opposition members and backbenchers alike, but, Madam Chair, I want to talk about the collection of school tax by this government.

First of all, I find myself in the position that the Member for Port de Grave was earlier; I picked up the wrong piece of paper. What this piece of paper says, Madam Chair, is not about school tax at all. This happens to be a letter that was sent to the Editor of The Telegram on April 25 by Herb Clarke. He said, and I quote, "It is the opinion of the Association of Seafood Producers that the vast majority of harvesters still want to fish and are not fundamentally opposed to the Raw Material Shares system...".

I picked that piece of paper up by mistake, Madam Chair, but I just thought I would remind hon. members that the Association of Seafood Producers, like the government, seem to think that the fishermen are not really protesting, that the 5,000 people who were out here a week ago today were really, in fact, supporting the government, and they did not really oppose the system but somehow or other they were acting as puppets of some kind and were not acting on their own mind. Anyway, that was a piece of paper that I picked up by mistake, Madam Chair, when I rose to speak on the issue of government collecting school tax.

Madam Chair, let's just talk about what this school tax was all about, first of all. It was a tax that was imposed in 1976 for the first time, and was collected on property, was collected on individuals, and there were school tax authorities set up around the Province to collect this tax. In addition, there was also a poll tax associated with it; a poll tax, meaning that individuals, anybody who was living in the community, whether they owned property or not, had to pay tax if they were working. All the school tax authorities were disbanded back in 1992 by the Wells government. In fact, that was one of their campaign promises, they were going to get rid of the hated school tax.

Madam Chair, after disposing of the school tax authorities, all of the accounts were transferred to the central government, to the Department of Finance, and they went about collecting the tax. Not only did they collect the tax - and this is the point that I think sticks in the craw of most people I have talked to in the last number of weeks about this issue - in addition to collecting the tax, they started collecting interest. Interest of a kind which, in my view, is totally unconscionable and, in fact ,outrageous. In fact, so outrageous, Madam Chair, that some of the examples that I will give you will curl your hair in terms of what kind of money people are being expected to pay for a small amount of money that they owe.

Prior to the disposal of the school tax authority, Madam Chair, there was a statutory limit on how much interest could be charged on arrears to school tax, and that was set at 12 per cent. When the new school tax winding up act was introduced, there was a tax imposed on arrears that was stated to be 1.2 per cent per month; 1.2 per cent per month for every month or part of a month. That, Madam Chair, amounts to about 14.4 per cent, or twelve times twelve is 14.4 per cent per year. That was already higher than the interest on arrears that could have been collected when the school tax was in force, but what did this government do? - not this government, the previous government. I am not blaming it all on this government, because it has been accruing for thirteen years now. The previous government started collecting interest on the arrears at the rate of 1.2 per cent compounded monthly. Now, they did not have any legal authority to do that because the regulations were not written that way. They only had the authority to collect 14.4 per cent interest, but they were collecting 1.2 per cent per month, compounded monthly, going on month after month, year after year after year.

What is the result of that? Well, I will give you one example. There is a fellow from Calgary who phoned in to VOCM Open Line a couple of weeks ago. He was from Calgary, an expatriate Newfoundlander who the Department of Finance had been after for years to pay his old school tax arrears. Eventually, after a whole bunch of arguments with the Department of Finance, it turned out that the arrears that they said he owed he did not owe at all, and he only owed $2 - two dollars - in school tax. The $2 in school tax, you would think, that would be what he would have to pay, but no, Madam Chair, he did not have to pay $2; he had to pay $86. He had to pay $86 in school tax because the $2 had grown by compound interest, at 1.2 per cent per month, compounded monthly until it reached $86, with $84 of that being interest. That is an example of how compound interest works.

We have hundreds and hundreds - in fact, 28,000 - people who the Minister of Finance says he wants to collect money from, but how much money is it all together? Well, it would be interesting for you to know that the amount of school tax that is owing by these 28,000 people is $11 million; $11 million in school tax arrears owed by 28,000 people. That works out to about $300 or $400 per person on the average in school tax owing after thirteen years. Some of these people have moved away, they do not live here anymore, they may not owe the tax at all, they may not have been actually working during the period the tax was imposed, and all sorts of anomies like that.

Madam Chair, the minister has on his books, not $11 million but $41 million, $41 million of which $30 million is interest, and interest at the exorbitant rate of 1.2 per month compounded monthly.

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

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I do not mean to interrupt the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and whatever time I am taking, it certainly will be given back to him.

I would like ask the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, what possessed him to cross the floor, on his way out, while the Member for Mount Pearl was speaking and lean in and interrupt the Member for Mount Pearl. In the twelve years in this House, I have never seen it, and I would ask him to explain why he did that, and apologize to the Member for Mount Pearl.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I was called outside the door just then and on my way passing I noticed that the Member for Mount Pearl was talking about hall 100 and I just basically said, that is Hull 100 not hall 100. I certainly would apologize if I caused him any grief or if he took it the wrong way. I certainly did not mean to disrupt him. I just meant to tell him if was Hull 100 not hall 100.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Hon. members may be amused about something else, but I am talking about this government collecting $41 million from a whole series of 28,000 people who have somehow or another fallen through the cracks, probably because they were not working thirteen or fourteen or fifteen years ago when they were supposed to be paying this tax, or they did not know they owed the tax. They are now getting this Minister of Finance taking their income tax returns from them and keeping the money despite the fact people want to argue with him about the outrageous and exorbitant interest rate they are charging.

Madam Chair, I have letters here from individuals who are being done by this government. Actually, they did not even know about it, they did not even know they owed the tax. One individual, for example, tells me - and he has been on the radio talking about this - that he owed $300 in school tax going back to 1990, 1991, 1992. He did not even know about it. He has not moved in the last nine years. He received no notices, no information whatsoever, and all of a sudden he gets notice from the government that they are going to take his income return because he owes $1,800 to the government. When he inquires, he find out that it is $300 he owes to the government and the other $1,500 is interest compounded at the rate of 1.2 per cent per month for the last thirteen years. Madam Chair, when he inquired about that and said, I did not know about this, you did not tell me, you did not give me any reminders, and what are you doing taking all of this money, while he was doing that, Madam Chair, the government actually took his money from the income tax and now they will not give it back.

I do not know how this government is prepared to justify that kind of ripoff - and I call it a ripoff consciously, Madam Chair. That is a ripoff of a taxpayer and citizen of this Province who was quite happy to pay his taxes if he only knew about them. He was not notified any time until the government was taking it out of his income tax. I think that is outrageous, Madam Chair. He one of 28,000 people who this government is trying to take money from at a rate of interest which is unconscionable.

I will give you an example of how this interest rate works, Madam Chair: 1.2 per cent per month, if you compound that monthly, if you take 1.2 per cent of the $1,800 that the arrears are up to now that works out to about $20 for a month after that. If you took 1.2 per cent of the $300 that he owed initially, going back to 1992, that 1.2 per cent would work out to about $4. Instead of charging $4 at 1.2 per cent per month on the $1,800 of arrears, they are going to charge $22 each and every month that goes unpaid. That is the difference between compound interest and simple interest at 1.2 per cent. Not only, Madam Chair, is this an individual who is being ripped off by being charged an exorbitant and outrageous interest rate, but he is also being ripped off because he did not even know about the tax in the first place.

Madam Chair, this is a situation that I intend to talk about some more. These are a couple of examples of people who are being taken by this government. The response of the Minister of Finance to date is that they are going to go out and hire six, seven or eight more people to go after these people until they get them all, all 28,000 of them. This, he claims, to be some virtue of his government, that they are doing something that the Liberals over here did not do when they were in office. Madam Chair, I am sure glad they did not do it. Unfortunately, what they were doing during their term in office was that they were compounding the interest rate at 1.2 per cent every single month for the last 150 or 160 months to the point where individuals like this chap, this citizen of Newfoundland, was being taken for $1,500 in interest by this Minister of Finance in a very unconscionable manner.

Madam Chair, there are lots of examples of this. I see you are looking at me with your eye on your clock hand. I will end my speech now and I will get up again to talk about this, because I think there are a lot of people affected by this and there are going to be a lot more people finding out about it when they get their tax returns, or they find out that they are not getting their tax returns because this government is reaching into their pockets and taking their money in a very unconscionable and, I think, illegal manner.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, and Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Madam Chair, I would like to take a few minutes today to address some of the Budget initiatives within the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment. I had the opportunity to speak previously on the Budget, as well, and I focused a lot on the Women's Policy Office and some of the initiatives we have undertaken in that office. Today I would like to be more specific with regards to the actual Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment and outline some of the initiatives that this department is taking.

Madam Chair, what is important to note with this department is that in 1997 this department was formed at that time as Human Resources and Employment and it came from the former social services. At that time, a lot of the human services that involved professional social work engagement went to health and community services and the income support program came in to become the Department of Human Resources and Employment. This department, right now, has a focus on income support and the mandate of the department is to try to assist people who are on income support to develop a labour market attachment and eventually move into the workforce.

Madam Chair, we have been working within the department to see how we can better serve the clients to ensure that they have the opportunities to make the labour market attachment that they need. One thing that we have been rolling out in the last couple of years, certainly, is the new service delivery model. It is not appropriate that we spend an abundant of our resources and time merely doing the administrative work associated with determining people's eligibility for income support. What we need to be able to do is take more active measures with regards to the income support program. We need to be able to free up staff so that they can do the actual employment and career counseling services that are also an integral part of this department. Madam Chair, we certainly are a department that wants to move into more active measures to deal with clients as opposed to being a passive department where we merely determine eligibility and make sure that people receive the payments of their income support.

In an effort, Madam Chair, to be able to address the employment and career initiatives of this department, I am certainly pleased to indicate that we will be investing, over the next three years, $2 million in our employment and career services. This is certainly a move in the right direction as we are able to redirect staff into providing this type of service, and also be able to invest in our initiatives that will certainly assist people as they make that labour market attachment.

One thing, Madam Chair, that is very important to note is that, up until this point in time, when a person turns eighteen, if they were living in a family that was collecting income support, they were no longer eligible to receive income support within the family unit and therefore had to apply as a single adult when they turned eighteen. What that actually meant was, there were a lot of young people who were actually in high school when they turned eighteen, maybe in Level I, Level II or Level III, and at that time their family would lose approximately $246 off their income support cheque. Then the individual, once they turned eighteen, would do their own application and would receive $96. Therefore the family, in essence, would be short about $150 a month for no reason other than the fact that their child, who is in school, turned eighteen.

Madam Chair, this year we have put approximately $600,000 into a Stay in School initiative which will assist families on income support so that they do not lose money when one of their children who is attending high school turns eighteen. What we will do is, we will continue the level of assistance to this family while the child is in school, and we will verify they are in school, and we will also make sure that for the months of July and August the family will continue not to see a reduction in benefits.

Madam Chair, this came directly from a study that we had on intergenerational dependency on income support, and at that time it indicated that the single most determining factor as to whether or not somebody stays in the cycle of income support is whether or not they receive a high school education. Now, this new initiative certainly is not going to keep people in school but it will certainly take away a barrier for some families as they try to keep their children in school and try to reach their high school education which, I said, is a key determinant in whether or not they are able to break the cycle of income support.

Madam Chair, there are also some other initiatives that I think focus on young people, on the youth in this Province, and certainly initiatives that I would like to speak to at this time. Right now, 25 per cent of the income support caseload is determined as a youth. So, that could be anywhere from eighteen to twenty-nine years old. Fifty per cent of new applicants are also youth. So, what we needed to do was look at: these are the people who have potential to move into the labour market, and address some of the barriers as to why they are not moving into the labour market.

Madam Chair, what was really interesting is when we had a look at some of our employment programming opportunities that we offer within the department. We looked at it, and youth at risk of poverty were taking up approximately 7 per cent of the program participation in our employment programs for youth. What that showed was exactly the programs that were being offered by the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, specifically under our youth services, were just not providing the services to the intended client. So, we have set a goal that we will increase the take-up on program participation of young people who are at risk of poverty from 7 per cent to 50 per cent in the next three years. Madam Chair, I think that is an admirable goal, if we are able to reach it, with our employment programs. That will certainly assist the young people who need this labour market attachment to be able to access the programs and make the attachment that they need.

Madam Chair, what is also significant, we often hear that this government is not looking out for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. This particular program and this initiative where we are trying to increase the participation of youth at risk from 7 per cent to 50 per cent, Madam Chair, it is interesting to note that 75 per cent of this program funding will be spent in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Madam Chair, there are also some other initiatives that I want to speak of that we are going to be initiating within the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment. One program or one initiative particularly that I think will assist the youth in Newfoundland and Labrador, and specifically the youth in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, is the $250,000 that we have set aside to look at ways to address poverty through social inclusion. Madam Chair, it is very important that young people feel a part of their community and they have the capacity to become a part of their community.

Madam Chair, what is important is that sometimes our youth, due to their level of incomes within the family, are unable to participate in extracurricular or recreational activities. Madam Chair, when a young person is unable to participate in these extracurricular or recreational activities, they all of a sudden do not necessarily have the confidence or the self-esteem they need to truly represent the capacity that they have within the community. So, Madam Chair, we do have $250,000 set aside that will address poverty initiatives specifically in the area of social inclusion.

In addition to that, Madam Chair, we have also set aside $200,000 to develop our strategy on poverty. Madam Chair, this government has made a commitment that we will bring the rates of poverty for children in Newfoundland and Labrador from being the highest rates in Canada to the lowest over ten years. Madam Chair, in being able to do that, we certainly need a strategy so that one policy of government does not necessarily impact on another policy. We need a cross-departmental strategy so that we can look at the links between poverty and gender, poverty and health , poverty and housing, poverty and education, taxation or financial policies. Madam Chair, what we need to be able to do is have some co-ordination, some strategy, so that one department does not necessarily undo the work of another department. Madam Chair, we are certainly pleased, as the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, to take the lead in this particular strategy.

Madam Chair, is it also important to note that, as we talk about poverty, there are a number of different measures that we often use in talking about poverty. Although I assume we will probably be using the LICOs after tax when we determine our strategy and we set some measurable outcomes for ourselves, however, lots of times when you look at the statistics on poverty, many times they look at the LICOs pre-tax or the market basket survey. When these numbers come out, sometimes they are thrown out there and we compare one type of statistics to another. This strategy will certainly set some baseline data for us with some measurable outcomes. Then, we will also be able to strategize within the different departments of what initiatives we need that are really, truly, going to impact poverty in this Province.

In saying that, Madam Chair, I also acknowledge that it takes time to develop a strategy, and we are hoping to do it this year. We have people working on it. It will be a cross-departmental initiative. Madam Chair, as I speak, it is certainly noteworthy to say that Quebec spent about six years developing their strategy on poverty and they certainly have some very interesting initiatives that we could probably look at as well.

Madam Chair, there are also some other good things going on within this department to help people who face barriers to employment and their labour market attachment. We have also increased funding for people with disabilities, under the LMDA, of $400,000 to assist people with disabilities, either physical or mental disabilities or challenges, to help them enter the workplace. Madam Chair, one thing this department needs to do is be able to address the barriers, whether -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. minister that her speaking time has expired.

MS BURKE: Madam Chair, I will clue up right now with this.

I certainly want to acknowledge that we want to work with the barriers for the labour market. That is what this department is all about. I certainly hope I get the opportunity to speak further about some of the initiatives this department has in this Budget.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

First of all, before I start, I would like to ask all members on both sides of the House if they would try to be quiet because I get confused very easily today, as you noticed in Question Period.

Madam Chair, I want to just touch base on a couple of the issues that the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment just touched on. No doubt, there are some good initiatives in that department; however, I call upon her today to bring forward more information with the program that was mentioned by the Premier to assist the fish plant workers in this Province. I did get some response back from the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, but I am sure we are looking forward to a more updated approach in the next few days.

I would also like to say to the minister that I know there are people around this Province who had to go to her department for income support over the last few days in this past week. The people, now, their EI has been discontinued and they are not back fishing yet. They went to the department looking for assistance, and they have been told that they are on strike and they cannot receive assistance while being on strike.

I am sure the Minister for Human Resources, Labour and Employment, who looks after the income support, knows full well that there is no strike because she is also the Minister of Labour. Madam Chair, I think that has to be resolved fairly soon because time is running out for those people. She mentioned the strategy when it comes to poverty and I suggest that we are looking forward to this strategy program. I hope it does not take too long because October, 2007, is fast approaching and we are hoping to see something on it by that time.

Madam Chair, I would also like to comment on some of the remarks made by the Member for Mount Pearl. I guess he was just following up on comments that were made by the Member for St. John's North last week when he was up debating the Budget. The Member for Mount Pearl today got up and looked across the House and said: Make no wonder this Province is in such a mess, thirteen years of inactivity. I guess it is catching because this is what the Member for St. John's North said last week when he stood in his place. He said: There is a bottom line always, and the bottom line with this government is that we have in fact done more in seventeen months than the members opposite did in fourteen years. I do not think for a minute that he meant to say that, but it is in print, Madam Chair. I have to say, God help the people of this Province. What is going to happen to them, according to what has happened in the last eighteen months, by the time we reach October, 2007? Because, I have to say, this government does not have a heart, they have no compassion for the people. We see that each and everyday when the people of this Province come to the public galleries and have to be asked to move on.

Madam Chair, I cannot help but go back to the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde, when she was up speaking last week and referencing the Budget and health care. No doubt about it, I will be the first one to admit, that there are many good things in health care, but she got up and led on to believe that the $650,000 for the dialysis unit in the Carbonear hospital - she was referring to the that. She said it took a long time for this to take place. She, more or less, led into it some of the comments that I have made over the last several months, that I was spreading fear and was wondering if it ever went ahead.

I want to say to the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde, there are many people who were involved in getting that off the ground. That announcement was made by the former Minister of Health, in the former Administration, Mr. Gerald Smith. Members on this side, when we were in government, attended that announcement. The Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne was there when that announcement was made.

I have to say, Madam Chair, there were two individuals - one lady who kept that dream alive was a Mrs. Gosse from Brians Cove, because at the time the workers at the Carbonear hospital, the management said: We are not going in for that. We cannot get that. That has been turned down so many times. Then again, I think why we really got it and it was not placed on hold, like many other projects, the election took place in October, 2003, and on November 24, 2003, I wrote a letter to the former Minister of Health. I have to say, she was a good Minister of Health. It is too bad she is not there today, but like others, she got the boot out of that position. I asked her, the commitment that was made in conjunction with the officials within the department and those around the Province, would that proposal still be going ahead? I received a reply back from her, dated December 23, 2003, and she said: Yes, that commitment will be kept. I honestly believe today, Madam Chair, why that commitment was kept, it was before it reached the chopping blocks when things were changed around like happened in many other areas of the Province, and I refer to Central Newfoundland and the Burin Peninsula.

Also at that time, in these remarks here, the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde was going on talking about the rumours that I was spreading, that there was a full unit going to close at the Carbonear hospital. I did hear that at the time but I hope she stands in her place, when she gets the opportunity to speak to this Budget again, and say that she has brought back to this government, brought back to the caucus table, the concerns that are expressed in Conception Bay North today.

This is no rumour, Madam Chair. There is one doctor who has left Carbonear. He is gone, moved to the mainland. There is another doctor moving out this month, May month. The exact date I do not know. In June, the third doctor is leaving Carbonear. So I hope the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde is going to stand in her place and do a better job speaking up for the health care in our area, trying to get new doctors there or the ones that are left there to stay behind, than she is doing for the fishers in her district. She has been given petitions day after day, asked to stand and she says she is bringing the message to government, but then she came on Open Line on Friday and said: Yes, my people want me to stand for this but I am standing firm with the Premier. Madam Chair, I think that says a lot.

The other thing I asked with regard to this Budget and the former Administration, there was an assessment and a survey done with regards to long-term care facilities in this Province. I know for a fact, and I brought this up in the Estimates to the Acting Minister of Health. I asked him what happened to the placement, where Carbonear stood on that list. I could not get an answer from his officials or from him, and I understand he is only new in the position, filling in, but Carbonear, the Conception Bay North area, was listed to be number one when it came to long-term health care facilities in this Province. I have been asking and trying to find out ever since what happened. The care that is being provided by the care givers is next to none, but the facilities in that area have to be changed. They need a new facility. It was not a political thing when it was announced before. There was an assessment done. The people within the department who did the work knew the need was there. Madam Chair, I stand today and say for political reasons, it is why it is not there now. It was definitely taken off the table, and I ask the government if they would have another look at that.

We talk about reducing services, and we come to human resources again. During the Estimates I asked questions about the twenty offices that were closed around this Province. I was told that there was approximately $200,000 that was saved by the closure of those twenty offices. I want to say that $200,000 for the heartache, the compassion, and services that was taken away from the people in those areas was worth more than $200,000. We could save $200,000 but we had enough money to put $350,000 to $500,000 in an office in Ottawa, that I understand has been vacated. There is nobody there since Mr. Rowe has returned home.

Madam Chair, also the offices that were closed, one of them happened to be in my district. They did not move that far away. It did not cause all that much problems. They moved to Carbonear, which is probably ten or twelve kilometres away. It was, for some people, very much inconvenienced by that. The big thing, I want to say - and I did not get the full answer during the Estimates, but the word is that income support, which is being provided at the Carbonear hospital for all of Trinity Conception Bay, and takes in out as far as Whitbourne and that area, the income support portion of it will be moved to St. John's. Madam Chair, it may not have been that bad when the Bay Roberts office moved to Carbonear, but I am going to tell you, if everybody in Trinity Bay and Conception Bay - and you cannot do it all by telephone. That is not reasonable at all. Some things can be done, yes, but I am saying for services where people have to go in, bring in documents. They say they are all going to be moved to St. John's. I think it is coming fairly soon, within the matter of months.

Madam Chair, the other item I want to bring up, and I guess it is with relation to health care again. The facility in Carbonear has been there for quite some time and the services that are being provided there - initially when that all started a lot of people in my area would just as soon go to St. John's.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his speaking time has expired.

MR. BUTLER: Okay, Madam Chair. I am sure I will have the opportunity again this evening.

Thank you, very much.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Madam Chair, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MADAM CHAIR: It has been moved that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's West and Deputy Chair of Committees.

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Committee of Supply reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

When shall the Committee have leave to sit again?

AN HON. MEMBER: Later in the day, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Later in the day.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again presently, by leave.

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

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

Before we move forward for adjourn for the supper hour, I want to- there has obviously been some confusion. Today, under Notices of motion I wanted to give notice according to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn tomorrow at 5:30 p.m., and further move according to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn tomorrow at 10:00 p.m. I did not do that and I have the right to do that now. I am giving notice of that today.

Further, Mr. Speaker, I move Motion 5, pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, and Motion 6, pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. That will give all members the opportunity to clue up with the Budget debate today.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I do move now that the House recess for the supper break and back at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader has moved pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 5:30 of the clock today.

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader has also moved pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock today, Monday, May 9.

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

MR. SPEAKER: This House is now in recess, I do believe by agreement, until 7:00 o'clock for the supper break.

MR. SPEAKER (Mr. Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider a certain resolution relating to granting Her Majesty's Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on the granting of Her Majesty's Supply.

Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on said bills?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The Committee of the Whole is ready to hear continuing debate on the Supply motion of the Budget.

The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to take a few minutes this evening to talk about the Budget and particularly, to talk about some of the good things that are happening in the great District of Lake Melville.

One of the many challenges that I have as an MHA in Labrador, and indeed, in my district, is when we talk about health care and education. I want to say that for over many years students from Labrador have had to have great cost in order to get an education, to attend universities elsewhere. It has always been a big challenge for the people of Labrador, for the students there. I am happy that in this year's Budget we will see an investment regarding education in the Province and in particular, in Labrador, and I want to say that we have so many challenges. Certainly, at the College of the North Atlantic in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, we need more space, more infrastructure to look at the increasing needs of students in Labrador.

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that when it comes to health care, that is probably the most pressing issue that I, as an MHA, deal with each and every day. I want to say here this evening that certainly a priority for us and for me, and for our government, is to look at the long-term health care facility. I was happy that our government has basically put aside $200,000 this year to start that process, so that the senior citizens in Labrador will have a long-term health care facility where they can go to in their latter years, close to a hospital, close to medical care and to, indeed, be with their families at home in Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, when it comes to travel, travel is - probably one of the greatest challenges we have in Labrador is getting in and out. I can tell you, as an MHA, that the numbers of people who come to my office looking for help, it is just tremendous. But I am happy to say here today that we have put the $167,000 recently announced - and at the advice of the MHA for Labrador West, we have put together the $167,000 and we have introduced a $40 round trip from Labrador West to Happy Valley-Goose Bay for the people of Labrador West who need CT scans and other types of procedures.

Also, there is $500,000 that we put aside for the Philpott report and to address some of the issues that are pressing the Innu people and the Innu communities of Labrador. I can tell you, having read the Philpott report we have many challenges there, but working with the Aboriginal leaders - in particular: Anastasia Qupee, Simon Pokue from Natuashish, and Ben Michel from the Innu Nation - we will be able to look at these issues; to look at a day in the very near future where the educational system will be turned over, and we will turn that over to the Innu people so that they can manage their system in their schools, certainly with the view that the culture and the heritage of the Innu people is brought into the classrooms and into the schools.

Mr. Chairman, I want to spend a number of moments tonight to talk about 5 Wing Goose Bay because if there was ever an issue that affects my district, that affects the people of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and indeed, the people of Labrador, it is 5 Wing Goose Bay. This past Saturday I was pleased to attend a rally that was put together by the Union of National Defence Employees in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and I want to commend them here this evening on a fine job. We had a great turnout from the community, and I can tell you the message is loud and it is clear. The Prime Minister must come and give a commitment to the people of Happy Valley-Goose Bay in writing before May 24. We have it from Stephen Harper, the Leader of the Conservative Party, to make 5 Wing Goose Bay an operational base. We also have it from the defence critic, Gordon O'Connor, that he wants to see 5 Wing Goose Bay an operational base and to deploy units at that particular base. We have heard empty promises from the Prime Minister and from the Minister of National Defence. I can tell you, the men and women who work at 5 Wing Goose Bay, they want to see action and they want to see it now. They want to see the plan ahead, and the sooner the better.

We have over 350 jobs at stake at 5 Wing Goose Bay. I can tell you the history of the base when we look through the years and the different allies that have flown there and worked there. Just let me go through that for a minute. The current military presence at 5 Wing Goose Bay is not encouraging. Let us look at the history. The United States Air Force left in 1992. The Dutch Air Force was gone in 2003. The German Air Force is gone in 2005. The Canadian Air Force contingent at Goose Bay has been drastically reduced. The Royal Air Force is gone as of this year, and we are not sure where the Italian Air Force will be in the future.

Here we have a $1 billion piece of infrastructure, in probably one of the best locations anywhere in the world to train. Yet, the Government of Canada has not - we have gotten words. We got $10 million in an announcement to put new paving on the runways up there, but I can tell you, $10 million of asphalt on the runway is not going to bring the allies back. I can tell you that we are going to continue this fight with the federal government on this issue. I want to say to the people of Lake Melville, and indeed, to the people of Labrador, it is time for us to send a message to the federal government that we are not happy with the representation that we have gotten, particularly since the passing of my good friend, the late Lawrence O'Brien, who was steadfast on this file and kept the federal government's toes to the fire when it comes to 5 Wing Goose Bay.

Mr. Chairman, 5 Wing Goose Bay is one of the bases we have in this Province, and when we look at some of the issues -

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. HICKEY: For instance, I just want to talk for a few minutes about it, if the Member for Bellevue would give me a chance over there.

I just want to talk a little bit about the investment there and the fact that for many, many years, since the 1940s, Goose Bay has been a strategic location for military training, both from our allies or from all over the world. I have to say, as we move forward down the road we want to see more happening at 5 Wing Goose Bay, and I can tell you that this government and this Premier have been dead set. We have not seen an interesting 5 Wing file by previous governments, I can tell you, that we have seen by this government and this Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: I must say that I am happy, tomorrow we will have top executives from Serco here in St. John's to meet with myself and the Premier and other officials as we talk about other opportunities for 5 Wing Goose Bay and, indeed, opportunities in which Serco may be able to work with the Province to ensure a long-term future for the base and for the men and women who work there.

Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of other items I want to talk about, and that is the Labrador Winter Games. One issue I want to talk about this evening is the Labrador Winter Games. Next year, in 2006, we will be, again, hosting the Labrador Winter Games in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and I am happy that we had a $500,000 investment in this particular event; a very, very important event for the people of Labrador and for the athletes of Labrador. I hope that as this moves along - I have spoken to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation and he is very excited about putting the new board in place and the new chair in place so that we can get the Labrador Winter Games organizing committee on track and ongoing for the year 2006.

Mr. Chairman, another very important issue in Labrador and, indeed, throughout the Province is protecting children. I am happy that in this particular Budget, we, as a government, have seen fit to put monies into this particular issue, protection of children. Particularly, I want to talk about the money we have invested in five social workers' positions for the Coast of Labrador, in the communities of Nain, Hopedale, Makkovik, Sheshatshiu and Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Some $500,000 will be put into social services new positions, and this, in turn, will certainly be a great help to deal with some of the pressing issues that we have when it comes to children and our youth in some of these communities.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Lake Melville that his time for speaking has lapsed.

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. HICKEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Just to clue up a few comments. I want to say, another big initiative here in Labrador that we have is the work that we are doing in agriculture in the Lake Melville area, and I want to commend the minister and our government for the contribution that we have put into the farmers of Lake Melville to get the agriculture sector going. I must say, I am happy with the $165,000 for the new farm tractor. There are many, many other issues that I would like to talk about, but I will be up again on my feet a little later.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What a treat to be here this evening to hear the Member for Lake Melville speak so eloquently about the Budget. I hope, in fact, that there are a number of his constituents from the Lake Melville area tuning in because they would find it quite startling and quite a change that metamorphous has occurred in the last little while. We noticed that he is spending more time in the Legislature now. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I think they must be a little bit surprised by it.

MR. HICKEY: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Chairman, I take exception to those remarks by the Leader of the Opposition because I spend my time here in the Legislature and I spend my time in my district serving my constituents. I will not have him, on the other side of the House, dictate to me when I should or should not be, or I am here because or because not. I just want to make that point, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Members ought to know that it is unparliamentary to speak about a member in his or her absence. Members have many reasons to be away from this Chamber. So, I remind members to consider that fact and to adhere to those longstanding parliamentary rules.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, a little bit of sensitivity I picked up right there. I was actually complimenting the member for spending so much time in the House. I do not understand what the objection was. I basically said it is nice to see the member spending so much time here in the House, and he gets up and talks about the fact that he is not here. I guess if he wants to talk about that he can.

Mr. Chairman, let me make this point. That is why I am hoping that there are some members in his riding, and some residents of Lake Melville in particular, and in parts of Labrador, who have heard him speak when he has been doing constituency work lately, where he has been known to say, because it is widely reported, that I will not be down there in that Legislature very much praising up that Budget because I am very upset over the fact that the number one priority that I put forward to the government, which is the auditorium at Mealy Mountain Collegiate in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, was ignored by the government, my number one priority that I spelled out in a letter to my own government. I felt so strongly about it that I wrote to the government to make sure that they heard it. He said: I am very, very disappointed and upset. Do not expect me to be in St. John's very often praising up the government, praising up the Premier, praising up the Budget, because I am upset about it - he tells the group at the A and W club in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, where he goes occasionally.

He is really, he said, upset, so much so over the Budget omission for the auditorium that the people there, his constituents, he was going to stand up for them. He was going to stand up on their behalf and make sure that his own government that he was a part of understood full well, but I guess we have seen what happens to Parliamentary Secretaries with a $25,000 stipend who speak out for their constituents. They end up nailed to the floor over behind the third party in the Legislature.

I guess there has been quiet a change. There has been a bit of change on the road to Damascus for the Member for Lake Melville. I look forward to more of his enthusiastic endorsements of the Budget, contrary to what he has said to his constituents: that he will not be doing that because he is so upset over the omission of the auditorium.

I guess maybe he does not understand, Mr. Chairman, the fact that the electronic media nowadays is such that you cannot say one thing in Happy Valley-Goose Bay one day and then stand up on a televised showing of the Legislature a couple of weeks later and say something completely different.

His own constituents will judge as to whether or not there is a level of consistency there, and whether he is still fighting for the auditorium, or whether now, for some reason - and maybe it has to do with the shot, not only the bullet from Houston but the shot fired across all of their bows to toe the line, stay in line, or you, too, could end up with a different place and location in the House of Assembly than you started out in. I know that the Member for Lake Melville is in a very different location than he had ever hoped for and, as a matter of fact, than his constituents had hoped for.

Let me, Mr. Chairman, in these few minutes, just make a few references to an article on Sunday, December 27, by Mr. Michael Johansen from Labrador, who writes about Labrador and about Labrador issues for The Telegram, and his representation of the Member for Lake Melville on how disappointed and upset he was because he says, in his article: The Lake Melville MHA wanted an auditorium built in Happy Valley-Goose Bay that would serve all of Labrador. He told that to the Premier many times, and even wrote a letter to him and his Cabinet saying so on March 1. He told him that the auditorium was, by far, the single biggest issue which is supported from all communities in Labrador. He goes on in the article to say: The Member for Lake Melville put a long-term health care facility as the region's second priority. Still essential, but not at the top.

Of course, because he has had to spend some time in his constituency, doing constituency work - but we hear things, you see, from people. He went around his district saying to people: I will not be spending much time down in St. John's praising up that government and praising up that Budget. You can count on me to stand up for you.

I guess what we can count on now is taking the $25,000, doing what he is told, get in his place, stand up, read the speech, talk about the wonderful things that are in this Budget, and guess what? Forget all about the auditorium. I never heard him mention the auditorium in the last ten minutes. I listened intently to every word he said. He promised the people he would continue the fight for the auditorium. He just spoke for the first time in weeks and never mentioned the auditorium and his disappointment with respect to the auditorium, so I guess there has been some kind of a change.

Mr. Johansen, in the same article, goes on to talk about the Premier, and how the Premier of the Province is viewed, because we have heard some people try to suggest, what a wonderful Budget. Maybe throughout the remaining parts of the evening I might get up on two or three occasions and talk about some of the clippings here that show where the media and other groups talk about what a sham, what a scam, what a con job this was. This wasn't a legitimate Budget at all. I might reference a few of those, but Mr. Johansen says, by ignoring all the requests for an auditorium, the Premier not only crushed the dreams of many in this region but slapped the face of one of the auditorium's biggest advocates, his party's only MHA in Labrador, the Member for Lake Melville.

That is what Mr. Johansen wrote about it. Let me say it again, Mr. Chairman, in case the crowd at Hansard did not quite get it. Let me say it again, to make sure the record is set straight: By ignoring all the requests for an auditorium, the Premier not only crushed the dreams of many in this region - this being Lake Melville and Labrador generally - but slapped the face of one of the auditorium's advocates, his party's only MHA elected in Labrador, the Member for Lake Melville. The $25,000 Parliamentary Secretary for Labrador who had said he was going to fight for the auditorium, but the fight seems to be gone out of him here tonight. Maybe it will come back before we get to the witching hour at midnight.

The other thing in this article as well, just to deal with this issue for a few minutes, Mr. Johansen, well known and well respected - I would suggest that the Member for Lake Melville would nod in agreement to that, well respected for his concern about Labrador-based issues - goes on to say: People in Labrador don't like the way the Premier is treating the Member for Lake Melville. They think the Member for Lake Melville - listen to this phrase and see if this has a ring - the Member for Lake Melville should stand up for himself. He should stand up for himself. That is what he is being encouraged to do by the editorial writers and others in Labrador.

When the Premier was in the Lake Melville riding recently, the MHA for Lake Melville was pushed to the edge of all the events. The Premier did not stand with him when making any of the announcements about Labrador - the Parliamentary Secretary bought and paid for, sir, kit and caboodle, owned for $25,000 - the Parliamentary Secretary for Labrador. The Premier is up there making announcements, and what happens?

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I have been twelve in the House and I have never seen somebody so intentionally, over a period of time, try to suggest what the Leader of the Opposition continues to suggest. He is not talking about Budget initiatives. He is only interested in running down personalities and I suggest to you, Mr. Chair, that the language that the Leader of the Opposition just used on the Member for Lake Melville, suggesting that he was bought and paid for, for $25,000, is unparliamentary. More than that, I think it is obvious to people who may be watching this tonight, what the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition really are all about.

Mr. Chair, I would ask you to rule on that because I believe it is unparliamentary, it imputes motives on the member, and it causes disruption in this House. It goes against the Standing Orders and the rules that we operate under.

I suggest to him that if he cannot contain himself, let somebody else get up and speak to the issues of the Budget. Whatever criticisms you have, fair enough, but leave personalities out of it, I say to the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Government House Leader is correct. According to our Standing Order 49, it is quite clear that nobody is to use offensive words against any member of this House. I say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I would hope that he would choose his words a little bit more carefully because the words that he has used are clearly offensive and I would ask if he would be kind enough to withdraw those words.

MR. GRIMES: By all means, Mr. Chair. If you, as the Chair, find them offensive, I will certainly withdraw them.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you.

Maybe he is so excited to be the Parliamentary Secretary for Labrador that he will continue to do the job for free. Maybe he does not want the $25,000.

Mr. Chairman, the article goes on to say: The Member for Lake Melville might as well have been an NDPer, for all the attention that the Tories gave him during the meetings they had in Labrador to talk about Labrador initiatives.

Mr. Chairman, I say to you, it is very interesting to see the member in the Legislature tonight doing the exact opposite of what he said he would do for his constituents in Labrador, and I would suggest to the Government House Leader that I am indeed talking about the Budget. I am talking about a member who went to his own constituents repeatedly and said: I will stand up for the auditorium in Labrador. It is the number one priority, even ahead of health care, and here he is mute and silent on the issue tonight.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that his time for speaking has lapsed.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We will be back again.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Since the Leader of the Opposition is passing around little pieces of the editorial, I have one here from Russell Wangersky which I would like to play back to the Leader of the Opposition. Let me take a few quotes from this for the Leader of the Opposition, to put in his pipe and smoke it. The problem is - and this is his quote - the provincial Liberals right now don't have enough credibility to even play the role they are supposed to have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Their opposition to government's position is a necessary part of our political system but, at the moment, they are such a lackluster group that they can't even pull that off.

He goes on to say, I say to the Leader of the Opposition: The truth is that right now the media does not trust the accuracy of the Liberal news releases.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HICKEY: When a release comes that involves internal details, reporters are often not willing to even directly quote the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HICKEY: You need an independent source to confirm the information.

So, I say to the Leader of the Opposition -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Well, it proves one thing, Mr. Chairman: When it gets hot in the kitchen, he gets out. We have just seen that.

The fact is, he goes on to say, the public does not have any time for the Opposition, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, and they do not believe it.

Let me talk about the auditorium. I am not afraid to talk about the auditorium, and I can tell you that right now. Listen, I will make no bones about it, I was absolutely disappointed that did not meet the Budget. There were many things that did not meet the Budget, but, hey, we do not have all the money they squandered on the other side of the House, I can say to you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: I did not take my spouse and go halfway around the world, I can tell you that. I am happy to report to the people of my constituency, and to the people of Lake Melville, that the auditorium is alive and well inside this government. We are going to see an auditorium, I say to the people of Lake Melville, in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, for the people and the children of Labrador.

I want to thank my good friend, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, who just returned from Ottawa, who had senior meetings with senior Cabinet officials. This file, I can say to the hon. members here in this House, and to the people of my district, is alive and well in the District of Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: I can also talk about the auditorium, because there were members on the other side of the House who did not support the auditorium - it was an election gimmick - but we are going to do the auditorium, we are going to do the long-term health care facility, we are going to do the sewage treatment plant for Happy Valley-Goose Bay; because, let me say this, there is no district in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador today that has a future like the Lake Melville District, I can tell you, in forestry, in mining, in hydro, in tourism, and in the base at 5 Wing Goose Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: So, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, nobody is listening to you this evening, but we are going to do the things in Labrador. This is an absolute priority for our government. I can tell you, it is going to be done. I have every confidence in the Premier and the ministers to make this happen inside of this government.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again today I rise to speak to the Budget.

I listened to the members opposite, and the Member for Lake Melville who just got on about his support for the auditorium and how it is alive inside of the government. It is not alive inside of the government it should be; it should be up and running in Labrador. The point is that they should not have to wonder about whether or not it is going to continue. The children need it. It is desperately needed. You should not have to go to Ottawa and try to get more money. If the member was doing his job, and having any influence at all on the government of the day, that auditorium would have been part of the last Budget. It was not, and we all know that, so, for the member to stand and go on ad nauseam about his support for the auditorium, it wasn't in the first part of his speech and it wasn't until the Leader of the Opposition raised it that he decided to get to his feet again and speak for a second time and bring up the auditorium. Alive and well inside of the government is one thing, but it should be alive and well down in Labrador where the children do not have to do performances in a cold place without having a proper facility. Mr. Chair, they can get on and speak all they want about an auditorium being alive inside of the government.

Mr. Chair, we just talked about municipalities in this Province. Let's talk about municipalities, and what Herb Brett had to say, the President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities, and the fact that there is no help in this Budget for municipalities. In fact, what he had hoped to see in the Throne Speech - he said the Throne Speech promises did not carry over into the Budget. That is Mr. Brett who is speaking there, the President of the NLFM. Throne Speech promises did not carry over to Budget.

Today we heard the minister say that only 43 per cent of those who hold positions today in municipal government are going to be seeking re-election; only 43 per cent. There has to be a reason for that. These are volunteers. These are people who like to make a difference, and want to make a difference in their communities, and today we are finding that only 43 per cent of those who presently hold positions will be seeking re-election. Now, that does not bode very well for municipalities in our Province, Mr. Chair. When you look at those small communities who rely on volunteers, really rely on volunteers, to make a difference in their community and to take part in municipal government, I can tell you that today the NLFM are saying the lack of funding is making things very difficult in small communities and we have councillors who are giving so much of their time and energy and their talents but getting no support from this government.

Mr. Chair, you cannot blame volunteers for just going out there and, when they do not get the support they need, deciding not to offer themselves for re-election. It is the Province that will be the big loser when this happens, Mr. Chair. Clearly, these people want to be involved. They know they can make a difference, but if the help is not there from the government then obviously they do not have a choice. It becomes an exercise in futility, and they want so much to be able to get involved. In fact, a lot of those municipal councillors go on into provincial politics and then into federal politics. With this type of support, or the lack of support they are getting, then make no wonder that we are seeing these people just give up and just say, no longer will we get involved on a volunteer basis.

It was interesting today too, after I had a chance to speak earlier in the day, to hear the MHA for Burin-Placentia West get up and go on about how he was disturbed - or maybe perturbed is the better word, or puzzled - how I would be continuing to always talk about the lack of representation for the Burin Peninsula and the fact that I would question his action, or lack of, on behalf of the people of the Burin Peninsula. Well, he was right on one thing, I am going to continue to fight on behalf of the people of the Burin Peninsula whether he likes it or not. It does not matter that he fails to stand up for them, that he fails to give good representation, I am going to do that. I am going to make sure that I will speak out on behalf of not only my constituents, but his and the entire Burin Peninsula. I feel that is the only way we are going to get anything out of this government, is if we shame them into doing the right thing. Shame them into keeping promises that were made and then broken, and there are so many of those around Newfoundland and Labrador. There are certainly a lot of them on the Burin Peninsula.

Enough about the Member for Burin-Placentia West. Clearly, he has decided that he is not going to represent the people to the best of his ability. I am sure he can do better than he has been doing. I have gotten calls from people, his own constituents, who are saying: Where is he? Why is he not speaking out? Why is he not doing the job that he was elected to do? Where is he in terms of representation?

MR. JACKMAN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West on a point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: A point of order, Mr. Chair.

I just want to make a point, Mr. Chair, that I am here by choice. I intend to stay here. I have no federal aspirations. As I have said today, I will continue to work for the people of my district and I will continue to help represent her people, as well. It is in the best interest of the Burin Peninsula.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I can assure the member opposite that if he wants to represent my constituents like he represents his own, I don't think they would welcome his advice or his support whatsoever. I can tell you, all we are asking is for the member opposite to stand up. He is the member of government for the Burin Peninsula, and all we are asking is that he support them and work on their behalf. As I said before, I have had calls from his constituents, let alone my own, asking me: What in the name of heaven is the Member for Burin-Placentia West up to? And what I have had to say is absolutely nothing. Absolutely nothing! When you have someone suggest that for the people on the Burin Peninsula to access a CAT scanner they can go to Clarenville, then people on the Burin Peninsula are starting to wonder if in fact the hub for the Burin Peninsula is going to be Clarenville. Clearly, having seen what is happening now with this government, it just isn't at all the way it should be for the Burin Peninsula.

We will say again, we will keep fighting. The Member for Bellevue and the Member for the District of Grand Bank, we will both work very hard to make sure that the Burin Peninsula is front and center and hopefully there are those in Cabinet, hopefully there are some in Cabinet in this government who will recognize that you know the people on the Burin Peninsula need effective representation. They have needs, they have wants and they need to be addressed, just as the rest of the Province does. It does not matter if these are Liberal districts, Bellevue and the District of Grand Bank, the government is there to represent everyone, including the people who live and work in those two districts. What we are asking the government to do is to recognize that, to know full well that they really should pay attention to what is happening in those districts.

When you look at a seventy-year-old cottage hospital that really needs to be replaced, anybody who has an opportunity to look at that facility would know full well that it is deplorable, that it really is not safe for anyone to go there if they are looking for quality health care. Again, I would say to anyone in a position within government who has the opportunity to make a difference and know that we need to replace that facility, to speak up on behalf of the people on the Burin Peninsula, the same for the Blue Crest senior citizen's home. I would ask anyone within government who has any compassion, any understanding, any appreciation for senior citizens, to stand up on their behalf. The same for the employees at those facilities, recognize that these are people of the Province just as they are in other parts of the Province. They should be recognized and their needs should be addressed as well. That is not happening to date. Eighteen months into a government and still no sign that they are going to come to their senses and agree to continue with the facility down in Grand Bank.

We have petitions. Over 3,000 people signed a petition asking us to ask the government to continue with the CT scanner, to continue with the health care facility and to look at dialysis services for the Burin Peninsula.

When we talk about promises made just before elections; well, the irony in all of that is that it is the only thing they keep raising. You make these promises just before an election. The irony in all of that, of course, is that there were other commitments made and kept. You cannot make and keep them all at one time but here we are, we have a bone density machine down there. We have a mammography unit. We had a radiography unit down there and the CT scanner was the next, but, you know, this government decided, in its wisdom or lack of, not to put that CT scanner on the Burin Peninsula. Again, I keep saying - and I am going to give up on asking the Member for Burin-Placentia West. I am just going to continue to speak to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance and the Premier, and ask them because I know that they must recognize that the need is there. I know the Premier was there during the election. He knows full well the condition of those facilities and he agreed to complete the facility. All we are saying is keep your promise, Premier.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member -

MS FOOTE: Keep your promise.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Grand Bank that her speaking time has lapsed.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Chair, I want to say another few words on the Budget that we brought down this year, this Administration - probably the best Budget, certainly in recent history, if not the best Budget in the past thirty, forty or fifty years since we became a part of Canada.

Now, Mr. Chair, I have to make a few comments with respect to the previous speaker, the Member for Grand Bank. I find it more than passing strange that just less than a year ago she was up trying to get out of the House of Assembly, and now she is up trying to be the defender of the people on the Burin Peninsula. As I said, a year ago trying to get out to run to Ottawa and get away from her responsibilities here in the Province.

Mr. Chair, whenever this member is up, and members on the other side of the House of Assembly, as I said many times before, they are into this fearmongering and they are trying to put it out there that we are anti-rural Newfoundland and Labrador, this Administration. Just the complete opposite of that is true.

Also, we had the Member for Lake Melville on his feet a few minutes ago talking about all the good things that this Budget is bringing down for Labrador. He talked about social workers - five, I think - five new social workers going into Labrador.

We have the member then for Grand Bank, when she was on her feet saying that we are against rural Newfoundland. She is all the time trying to quote the President of the Federation of Municipalities here in Newfoundland and Labrador, saying that the President of the Federation said there is nothing in this Budget for the municipalities in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I had many, many conversations with Mr. Brett, the President of the Federation of Municipalities, and what he did say was that there are no new monies. By that, he meant more monies than in the previous budgets, is what he said. We have not cut at all the municipalities in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. As a matter of fact, we put $83 million in the multi-year program for the municipalities in this Province over the next few years. I think it was $85 million that we put in the Canada-Newfoundland Infrastructure Program. It was 80 per cent funded by the Province. We had the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune on his feet today, saying that there were problems with the infrastructure in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, that we are cutting it. We are not, but any stretch of the imagination. We have been adding to it.

Under municipal capital works, $25 million this year, and the people on the other side of the House are trying to say that we are not supporting rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Far, far from the truth. They are after buying into the Leader of the Opposition. Any time he is on the Open Line show, or in the media, or in the House of Assembly, he is all the time trying to push that.

Some of things that we have done in this Budget, for example, let's talk about the debt relief. It was only last week that I signed, I think it was five different agreements with municipalities in this Province to pay off their debt, to reduce their debt down to pretty well zero - in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for some of these municipalities. Are we now forgetting rural Newfoundland? I do not think so.

As a matter of fact, we had the Member for Grand Bank on her feet, as I said a few minutes ago, talking about the President of the Federation of Municipalities, and quoting him. I think it was only this past fall in Arnold's Cove, where he is the deputy mayor, where the fish plant was in trouble. We had the Minister of Fisheries, the Premier, the Cabinet, and members on this side of the House get together and put $3 million into that plant out there so it could survive again.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where was their member?

MR. J. BYRNE: Where was their member on all of this, Mr. Chair? Nowhere to be seen, nowhere to be heard. Only gets on his feet, the Member for Bellevue, every chance he gets, saying that we are anti-rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and here we are supporting his town, a community in his town, in his district. That is just one thing there.

Mr. Chair, each year we have a fund in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador for special assistance, and many of the volunteer fire departments in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador take advantage of this. We fund fire trucks. As a matter of fact, this year we are funding upwards of eight fire trucks, new fire trucks, for the volunteer fire departments in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. So, are we forgetting it? Are we forgetting rural Newfoundland and Labrador? Not likely, I don't think so, but that is what they want to portray on that side of the House because they think they have something to hold onto now and try to use possibly in the next election, but that is two-and-a-half years away, I say, Mr. Chair, and there are going to be a lot of things done in Newfoundland and Labrador within the next two-and-a-half years.

Again, we are only in power eighteen months and we cannot cure the woes of the world in eighteen months. If you listen to the members on that side of the House, everything negative that is going on in Newfoundland and Labrador they take no responsibility for, Mr. Chair, none. They were there for fourteen or fifteen years, like Pontius Pilate, washing their hands of it. They had not responsibility for these things, Mr. Chair. The reality, Mr. Chair, is that they were the ones who caused a lot of the problems over the years, the problems that we face today in Newfoundland and Labrador, that we are trying to fix.

MR. E. BYRNE: And we will.

MR. J. BYRNE: And we will fix them, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: We, on this side of the House, will make the right decisions for the right reasons in this Province, not political reasons.

As a matter of fact, it was only in the last election, leading up to the last election, what did we see? - and during the last election, I think. Besides having a deficit of over $800 million, we saw the previous Administration promise, I think it was another $260 million or $270 million in promises to try and buy the election. Mr. Chair, what happened? The people saw and understood what was going on, and they knew at the time that they had to put in an Administration to straighten the Province out, to put her back on the right road to prosperity, and we are working on that.

We are accused of making difficult decisions. Well, Mr. Chair, we are. We are making difficult decisions, and we do not apologize for that on this side of the House of Assembly, but we will see the benefits in the long term. We are not into ad hoc crisis management, as the previous Administration had done, Mr. Chair. We want to put plans in place for the long term, for the long-term benefits of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is where we are, not the short-sighted decisions that were made by the previous Administration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: I do not want to go back to this again, but one of the prime examples, of course, Mr. Chair, was the Hull 100. That is a prime example. I think we started out at $500,000 and it ended up over $10 million when the previous Administration bought it. It is about to go in the system now. I hope, anyway, I say to the members on the other side of the House of Assembly. We were that far into when we formed the government that we had to continue on with it. Hopefully, it will be a vessel that will be used for many, many years down the road - I hope, Mr. Chair - but that remains to be seen also.

Let me see, what else? Another one, when we talk about rural Newfoundland and Labrador, over the years when the previous Administration was in, and for last year and this year when we formed the government, was the job creation program, Mr. Chair. We continued on with that. When we formed the government in November of 2003, we were only here a month or two so we had to continue on with the Job Creation Program. We, as an administration, have said from day one: We want to put a program in place that could be for the long-term, for the benefit of the municipalities in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the communities. This year, what did we do? We put in $4.25 million; budgeted for, by the way, Mr. Chair. In previous years all the funds were Special Warrants, ad hoc, do it by the seat of your pants type of thing, but we have budgeted now. Instead of bringing out this Job Creation Program in November, December or possibly January, we will now be announcing it and contacting municipalities and organizations to take advantage of this program as early as June, July and August. So, we can actually use this money, the different organizations, the municipalities, to leverage money out of the feds to get bigger and better projects or long-term things. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chair, we are looking at trying to get projects in place through this program that can be done over two and three-year phases. Long-term planning, it makes sense for us to do this, but the previous administration, no. Fly by the seat of your pants, do what you can, ad hoc, crisis management, and they are over there criticizing us for doing something that we believe in and that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will see the benefits of in the long-term.

Mr. Chair, also we have funding available in emergency situations. We have talked about it here in the past. Where we see flooding out in Badger and these types of things in rural Newfoundland, oftentimes they have to take advantage of this. The money is there for that and we will continue to assist the municipalities around the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Municipal Capital Works, we hit on. In some other departments, under Natural Resources, under agriculture - there is money put in there for agriculture this year that has never been put in the Budget previously; again, for all over the Province to take advantage of. In forestry, money for roads, forest access roads, to put in new roads; creating jobs -

MR. E. BYRNE: An extra $1.5 million this year.

MR. J. BYRNE: How much?

MR. E. BYRNE: An extra $1.5 million for forest roads this year.

MR. J. BYRNE: An extra $1.5 million for forest roads this year, the Minister of Natural Resources just said to me, Mr. Chair.

In Innovation, Trade and Rural Development we have $10 million put in for a small and medium size enterprise fund, for all small businesses across Newfoundland and Labrador to take advantage of, to assist these -

MR. O'BRIEN: Very important.

MR. J. BYRNE: Very, very important, I say to the Member for Gander. Again, to assist small businesses, to get them off the ground in rural Newfoundland. We have had meetings all over the Province, the minister has, with respect to trying to come up again with a long-term regional plan. We have nine regions across this Province; again good long-term planning, not to try and put something in place and within a month or two months forgotten about. The Premier has shown his ability in the past in negotiating with Ottawa, the Atlantic Accord; again long-term planning.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. minister that his time has lapsed.

MR. J. BYRNE: Just -

CHAIR: By leave.

Does the hon. minister have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chair, as I was saying, we have $1 million allocated for a provincial innovation strategy, again, long-term planning for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have to get away, we are getting away, Mr. Chair, from the short-term, short-sighted schemes, I would say, Mr. Chair, of the past. We and-

MR. O'BRIEN: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Schemes they were, I would say to the Member for Gander.

Mr. Chair, with that, I notice other people want to get up and speak and I am sure I will have lots of time before the Budget debate concludes tonight if I decide to get up again.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to join in the debate here this evening on the Budget debate. I could not help but smile when the Minister of Municipal Affairs was up speaking and talked about the criticism from this side of the floor. I kept thinking to myself: You know, he is right because that is one thing the minister never did when he was over here, was criticize the government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: It sounded a bit odd as he was saying that.

I would like to talk this evening, Mr. Chairman, a bit about Labrador issues in this Budget as well. I want to say to the Minister of Transportation that with the Trans Labrador Highway it needs to have one of the highest profiles for any issue in Labrador, because a good highway system is fundamental to any future development that can take place within the region. At the present time, Mr. Chair, with the political system - because I think we all understand, that what needs to happen to the road network within Labrador cannot be done with provincial government money alone. It needs a huge influx of federal government money and right now is an opportune time, with a minority government in Ottawa, with the political climate that exists there, right now is a good time to push the buttons to try and get the federal government to buy into making the Trans Labrador Highway a part of the national highway grid-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: - and getting the attention and the profile that it needs in order to access the funding necessary to finish that road.

Even in the future, Mr. Chair, if there is a general federal election, according to all the polls and all the pundits it will probably end up being the same after with a minority government of some mix. I think that we have an opportunity now, as a Province, to make sure that Ottawa fully understands the importance of getting monies to complete that highway in a faster time frame that has been planned out for many years now and to surface the road as well.

Other things in Labrador, as well, Mr. Chairman, would benefit from such a road network, even the development of the Lower Churchill, tourism, mineral exploration, all of the things that we need to provide jobs for young people in Labrador for the next generation. That is the one thing that has been missing for many, many years. We have been missing an important ingredient when it comes to Labrador, and that is using the wealth that we have to create jobs for our youth and grow our population. That is one thing that we have to concentrate on in the future, Mr. Chairman, to make sure that if there is a Lower Churchill development, if there is such a development, that it is does not happen and will not go ahead without the full benefits of such development going to the people in Labrador to help build our population. Twenty-eight thousand people in that vast area is a pretty sparse population. There is no excuse whatsoever why that population should not be double that given the activity that has happened within the last fifteen or twenty years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Voisey's Bay is a classic example, Mr. Chairman. When that development was taking place there was a huge lobby effort from The Straits of Labrador, from Central Labrador, and Labrador West to have the smelter built in that area.

What an opportunity - and I will speak to my district of Labrador West - with a railway coming across Labrador from Voisey's Bay to Esker. It is not a long distance, Mr. Chairman. What would have happened? It would have opened the entire interior of Labrador for all of the other exploration that could take place from that. There is no doubt in our minds that the potential for mineral development within Labrador is huge. It is huge and a railway spur line across would have done nothing only enhance the opportunities for other junior exploration companies, other companies to come in.

MR. E. BYRNE: Forty million (inaudible).

MR. COLLINS: Forty million dollars, the Minister of Natural Resources says will be spent this year on mineral exploration. With a railway line that could have gone from Voisey's Bay over towards the Labrador West area, people who are into the exploration would have had an opportunity so that, when they discovered something, they could have a link to get their minerals to market. That, Mr. Chairman, is something that people in Labrador have been advocating but it has, I must admit, not gotten the proper attention over the years that it should have received.

I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that in future when governments - and the day is gone when any government of any political stripe is going to be able to come into Labrador, look at the resource and say: We can use this and we can do whatever we want, we can create lots of economic opportunity in other parts of the Province, or in other parts of the country. If we look at what happened in our history, in our lifetime, Mr. Chairman, with the Iron Ore Company of Canada and Wabush Mines - when the Iron Ore Company of Canada started the Town of Seven Islands, Quebec was a fishing community of 1,200 people. In the early 80's that population was well in excess of 45,000, all directly related to economic opportunities from the mining industry from our Province. That is wrong, Mr. Chairman. That was wrong and it can never be allowed to be repeated.

The same thing is happening, I would suggest, on the offshore of our Province with the oil and gas. A lot of people say that we have an oil and gas industry. I do not really buy into that, Mr. Chairman. We have oil and gas reserves and we have some people working offshore. I have heard in the news recently that the United States is building new oil refineries. Maybe the Minister of Natural Resources would certainly know more about that than I do, but I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that is an opportunity that should be investigated. Why is it that we cannot have a second refinery in this Province given all of the offshore oil and gas off our coast? Why is it that we do not have that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Following that, Mr. Chairman, generally, there are plastic industries that develop in connection and in conjunction with an oil refinery and processing facilities. These are the things, Mr. Chairman, that we have to look at in this Province if we are ever going to grow our population to increase the amount of resources that we have available to us, and to provide the type of services that we are going to need as we go into the future.

There are plenty of opportunities, Mr. Chairman, but there have been plenty of missed opportunities along the way as well. That is something that we have to look more closely at and we have to take an attitude that development at any cost will not be acceptable. Development has to be of benefit to the people of the Province who elect us to represent them.

To go back to the roads just a little bit, I would invite the minister to come into Labrador in the near future and meet with representatives of the area to make sure - I know that he has had correspondence with Ottawa, Mr. Chairman - but to really put the pressure on, turn the heat up on Ottawa, to get a commitment for the Trans-Labrador Highway that we have never had in the past.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, we also have great potential for tourism. While tourism will never, ever replace development like in the mining industry or other natural resource industries it is a very important component of having a healthy economy. I just mentioned to the minister of tourism the other day that the White Wolf snowmobile trail in Labrador West has been voted this year as being the very best in the country, the number one cross-country trail in the country; the first time ever that distinction has gone to anyone outside of the Province of Quebec. I think that speaks well for the people who work on the trail system for the White Wolf Snowmobile Club, the people who operate the groomers and the many, many volunteers who give up a huge number of hours to make sure that the trails are ready for not only the local public, but for people who come in from the outside and spend their dollars within the local economy.

There is no reason why that trail system right through Labrador cannot be the best in North America. There is no reason whatsoever. God knows we have the snow enough for it and we certainly have the expertise. What we need is the support. We need the support for the type of groomers that we have, and we need the ability to put jobs to the groomers so that we can hire people full-time. Volunteers can do a lot of things and they do, but volunteers can never ever give as much of their own time that would be required to make the trail across Labrador a first-class, world-class trail system. Mr. Chairman, as we grow that sector of our tourism industry, we do need support from government to have full-time people dedicated on the groomers in the wintertime, and with the support of the volunteers I am convinced we can make it happen

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. the Member for Labrador West that his time has elapsed.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity. Just leave to clue up?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, that when it comes to Labrador in the future the status quo will not be good enough, that developments will have to take place for the benefit of the people in Labrador. We certainly look forward to seeing that happen.

Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my remarks for now. We do have more time and I will have further comments to make as the night goes on.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I wanted to rise again tonight to speak about this Budget and the positive things, of course, that are in the Budget. I would like to speak for a few moments, if I may tonight, on health and community services, and what we have put into health care, and what we have provided for health care. I was very impressed when I read this Budget this year, to find that we put $23.2 million to reduce patient wait times and improve access to key services by purchasing new medical equipment and expanding services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that health care is very important in this Province. Health care is important to any province, of course, anywhere in Canada. I go down to the States a fair bit, on holidays and things like that, and I realize how fortunate we are, as a people in this Province and in this country indeed, to be able to access health care in a timely manner and to be able to access proper health care.

I was also very happy, of course, that Budget 2005 allocates funding towards three new long-term care facilities: $2.7 million to proceed with detail design and initial site work for one in Corner Brook, and $1.4 million to begin detail design for site work in Clarenville, and $200,000 to begin planning and develop conceptual drawings for one in Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

Mr. Chair, health care has always been, I guess, a passion of mine, and certainly seniors' health care. I remember in our seniors' home in Glovertown when we would no longer be able to care for a particular individual because their level of care had gotten so severe that we would have to send them to the hospital; because back a few years ago there would be no place for them to go, actually, there would be such long waiting lists. I remember one lady in particular, and we had to take her and send her into the hospital. Her husband was still living in the seniors' home in Glovertown, and unfortunately there was nothing that anybody could do. She stayed in that hospital for eighteen months, Mr. Chair, eighteen months in a hospital because she could not access the care that she needed at a Level III home in our area.

I am very pleased tonight to see, of course, that this government has a plan for seniors. They have a plan for long-term care facilities within this Province. It is about time.

I remember watching my grandfather, at age eighty-three, who had worked very hard all of his life. In fact, he was a minister. I remember him coming down with the terrible, dreaded disease of Alzheimer's. I remember, time after time, going to where my grandparents were living, and my grandmother, at age eighty-three, trying to care for him, all by herself, trying to care for my grandfather. I remember going through the system trying to find a place for him to stay, trying to find a seniors' home for him to go in, and guess what the answer was every time I would go out? There is no room in the inn. It reminded me of the Bible times, when Mary and Joseph were looking for a place to stay and there was no room in the inn, but that is the reality that had happened in Newfoundland and Labrador.

You know, the previous government keeps talking about all the wonderful things that they did, but do you know what? My grandfather died without ever getting into a Level III institution, I will say. He died. What did the members opposite do about it? Well, they were there. I remember calling my MHA. I remember meeting with the Minister of Health. What did they do? I will tell you what they did. Not one thing, but I am glad and pleased tonight that we have a plan right here that we are going to continue to work on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: This plan addresses these very issues. When you have an eighty-three year old woman who has to care for her husband, there is something drastically wrong.

Now, are we going to fix it all in this Budget? Absolutely not. We certainly cannot fix everything in this Budget, but we are moving forward and I am so glad, as I said, that we are moving forward in this and have great initiatives for long-term facilities in the Province. Seniors give so much to us, and they have given so much to us, the least we can do is repay them with sensible housing and sensible care in their later years.

There is also a new $7 million investment for the provincial drug program, to enable the addition of twenty-five new drugs to the program and help meet growing demands on the program. The new total cost of the program is now $114 million, a 10.3 per cent increase over last year's expenditures.

I realize tonight, Mr. Chair, as I talk about the positive initiatives of this Budget, that the members opposite are getting a little big antsy and they want to yell and scream and everything else, but I am going to speak up for this Province and I am going to speak up when I see positive things that we do, and I will continue to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: The most important thing that we can do in this Province is to show a positive attitude. Again, I hate to talk about the fact that I have to look at the members opposite trying to be negative. If they think tonight that the people in this Province want to hear negative talk, I am going to tell you now, one more time - I think this is the third or fourth time I have said it in the past few days, and I will say it again so people will hear it - the people in this Province want to hear a positive message.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: These are all positive initiatives in this Province tonight. Again, I am so glad that I am a part of this government that can proceed with positive announcements. Do you know what? Again, the members opposite may always talk about all the negatives that we have, and there is terrible this and terrible that, doom and gloom. In fact, I think I likened it to an evangelist I used to hear at one time, that it was all bad. Everybody was on the way to hell and there was never going to be anything fixed.

I will tell you what I like listening to. I like the ministers, when they get up and preach, because I love ministers when they preach, by the way. What I love to hear is the minister, when he gets up and talks about the fact that - do you know what? - if you change your life there is something good that can happen to you. That is what I like to see with this. There is something good that can happen to the people of this Province if they look at what this Budget is doing. It is a positive thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: I will tell you what. I would like to say - and I am sure that the members opposite are going to consider this to be a long shot - this is a little piece of heaven, what this Budget is doing. I realize again that I am upsetting the members opposite, and the Member for Twillingate & Fogo is getting a little bit antsy again, but the fact of the matter is that this is good stuff and we have to just keep preaching the good news that this government is putting forward.

I also read here, $1 million will be devoted to the implementation of key recommendations outlined in the OxyContin Task Force report. Now, you know what? I will tell you. I remember meeting a friend of mine, and his son had become involved with OxyContin. It was a sad, sad story. I tell you, they went through hard times in that family. It is a very important issue, and I am very pleased tonight that we have looked at this. We had a task force report, and now we are putting money and we are going to devote money to help people like that, young people in this Province who need help with these addictions that they have. This is just another one of the great initiatives that this Province has taken on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Another thing that the Member for Labrador West constantly talks about, and I understand where he is coming from because it is a serious issue, this government looks at VLTs as being a serious issue within the Province, and effective immediately the number of video lottery terminals in this Province is frozen at the current amount. In addition, beginning in the next five years, a five-year VLT reduction.

MR. REID: Wow!

MR. ORAM: The Member for Twillingate & Fogo is saying, wow!

Do you know what? This is wow, because it is a start. It is more than what you guys did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: I will tell you, I do agree with you. The reason I agree with you is very simply because it is wow. It is wow, we are doing something that you people did not do. Members opposite did not do it. We are doing it. Do you know what? This did not get out of control in eighteen months. I say to the members opposite: This is not get out of control in eighteen months. This was out of control before we ever took office.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Now we are going to look at this and we are going to try and find ways to fix it, and this is the start of what we can do for this. As I said before, we are going to have a five-year VLT reduction plan, in which we will see the number of machines in the Province reduced by approximately 15 per cent.

I go to a particular place for breakfast in the mornings here in St. John's, and in one of those places that I go there are a bunch of VLTs out in this particular area . There is one particular lady I see there, and she is putting her money in constantly. I asked the waitress one day, I said: My goodness, it seems like every time I come in here this lady is playing these machines. She said: Do you know what? She comes here in the morning and does not leave until the evening. I thought, how sad, but I was so pleased to know that this government is a government that cares about people like that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: We see the hurt that has been caused by these machines. Are we going to take them all out right away? No, absolutely not, but we are working towards that. I appreciate every time the Member for Labrador West stands and talks about the fact that this is an issue in the Province. Obviously, this is an issue in the Province because we have looked at it and we have decided to take action. Again, I am so happy with that today.

I just want to say, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that we can look at this and we can say, as I said before, that government is not doing enough, but I can tell you right now that, as the Member for Terra Nova District, as the member for a district in this Province, I will continue to do everything I can to support this government, to do the right things that need to be done in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we will succeed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: I want to finish off by saying this: Where others failed, we will succeed!

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have to say, if the people out in TV land were just watching, they were saying: Here is the Canadian Idol contest.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: We had the Member for Terra Nova twice on his feet. We had the Member for Burin-Placentia West twice on his feet. We had the Member for Lake Melville, and do you know what they are doing? They are auditioning for the Premier on the eighth floor. There is a job vacancy. A job vacancy has been posted on the caucus board out there. The job vacancy is the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Education, the one where the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's just got ousted.

What we witnessed tonight, I thought I was in a church meeting. The Member for Terra Nova was ready to fly, ready to fly, Sir! No matter what was in that Budget, he was going for it, yes, Sir! No matter what was in that Budget, I am going for it! That was him, he was ready! He was in high flight for the Premier. I hope the Premier was watching because, out of the three - yeah, Sir! - who auditioned, the Member for Terra Nova won. How is that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: I would say to the Member for Gander, watch out! What a goings-on!

I guess the other people in the back benches are going to say: What can I do to upstage that fellow?

Anyway, here we go with the real stuff. It is time for this government to stand on their own political feet. They have been here almost two years and all they are doing is saying: Look at the mess the former Administration left.

Now, when I look back -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Chairman, can you control those bunch of buffoons there?

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MS THISTLE: That is what you are.

When this government came to power -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans. I ask if members would allow the member to speak.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When this government came to power, they were saying: My goodness, what a mess was left by the former Administration.

When you look into it, there are three credit rating agencies that rate the credit history of this Province. One is Moody's, the other one is Dominion Bond Rating Agency, and the other one is Standard and Poor's.

You know, when this government, this current government, took over, our current rating was a triple B rating with Dominion Bond Rating. It was A3 with Moody's, and an A- rating with Standard and Poor's. The Minister of Finance, last week, got up on his high haunches and he talked about how the short- and long-term debt had been upgraded to a triple B high. Now, there is one thing that he left out. I went to the Web site and I looked. I did not have it available when he was there on his feet, but what he said was that the good decisions that had been made by this current government was the reason why the bond rating agency had increased the rating from triple B to triple B high. What he purposely left out was, the reason for this is, this is highlighted by the 20 per cent point decline posted in the debt to GDP ratio over the past seven years - not the past thirteen months but the past seven years.

MS FOOTE: He did not mention that.

MS THISTLE: He did not mention that, so he selectively took out the pieces that he wanted to mention. Now, for a government that has been in here two years, what have you done? Almost two years, what have you done?

The Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development talks about the 300 jobs she created last year; 300 jobs and she does not even have a plan for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. She still has a consultant working on developing the plan, but she forgot the mention the 2,700 people from Newfoundland and Labrador who left, so that is definitely wiped out.

In their Blue Book - or their blueprint, whatever they want to call it - they said their strong focus was on health and education. It is interesting, that when I read in the Grand Falls-Windsor The Advertiser last week, there was a column by Andy Barker and it was entitled ‘Backupable'. Our current Minister of Transportation and Works, the Member for Lewisporte, was the Premier of Newfoundland for less than fifty days in 1989. He coined that phrase, ‘backupable.' Mr. Andy Barker is asking the Minister of Transportation and Works, he says: Would you please use your ‘backupable' approach - we need that ‘backupable' approach more than we ever needed it - and reverse your decision on education?

We heard today - who was it that got on his feet today and was talking about how good this government was and leaving seventy-five teachers in the system to teach culture and Newfoundland history? I do not know which person it was?

MS FOOTE: Dave Denine.

MS THISTLE: Oh, I think it was the Member for Mount Pearl. Yet, he neglected to mention -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: He is out of the Canadian Idol contest. He need not audition anymore. However, he was cheering how seventy-five teachers had been left in the system. He neglected to mention that 400 -

MR. DENINE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl on a point of order.

MR. DENINE: Mr. Chairman, the impression that is left by the hon. member across the way is that somehow or another I was making light of whatever was happening and transpiring in job cuts. Any cuts to anything, I am affected by it and so is our government. We do not like to do it, but I do not like to be put in the position that I praise cuts or whatever the case may be. What I was doing is that I was talking about saving seventy-five jobs of possibly being cut and redeploying them to live up to a commitment in the Blue Book to reduce the pupil ratio -

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. DENINE: - in the primary grades.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is clear that he is only putting his foot deeper into his mouth because what he is saying is that in addition he is talking about saving seventy-five jobs. There are 145 who got the axe and over 256 last year. So, effectively, there are over 400 losing their jobs in September. What is very important is that those seventy-five jobs are not going into rural Newfoundland and Labrador where they are needed. They are going into urban centres.

I want to talk about government's plan for resettlement, and that begins with the children in the classrooms of our schools. On Friday night I was up in Buchans for the graduation of the Grade 12 class. There were twelve students graduating and the hall was full. There were about 250 people of relatives, friends and associates cheering on the twelve who were graduating. Now, the news for the other ones coming up in Grades 9, 10 and 11 and Grade 12 next year, their social studies, they are not going to get it from a person who is going to be standing in front of them in the classroom. They are going to have to look into a TV monitor, a computer screen. All their social studies, they are going to have to get by long-distance education. Now, if this government is serious and considers education as one of the hallmarks of their government, why are they subjecting children in rural Newfoundland and Labrador to looking into a computer screen to get social studies and core subjects? That is not a government that looks at education as being one of their focus points. They say one thing and they do another.

Also, what are they doing with people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador? I had to write, last week, the Minister of Transportation and Works. When I went to Buchans on Friday, again this week, I got out of my car and I took pictures of the asphalt cracked. No shoulders on the road and here a school bus is travelling over that piece of highway 105 kilometres from Badger to Buchans. There is not even a service station there if you got into trouble to call someone. The asphalt is cracked on the edges and, you know, it is very, very dangerous. I asked them this year and I asked them last year for funding to make those repairs and I haven't heard a sound from that minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: When I was in the government there was work on the Buchans Highway every year and that is the reason why it was in good condition, but this government pays no attention to rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans that her speaking time has lapsed.

MS THISTLE: Unfortunately it is over but, hopefully, I will come back again in a few minutes.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am happy to stand this evening and say a few words with regard to the Budget. I would like to begin by saying that everyone in this Province knows that the last ten years have been particularly difficult for rural parts of this Province. We underwent the collapse of our cod fishery, which saw thousands and thousands and thousands of people leave this Province. That out-migration has continued every year, and I mean every year.

Recently I listened to On The Go program and I heard the Member for Grand Bank get quite upset with the moderator because she was not giving enough importance to the fact that in 2003, not only had they stopped out-migration, in fact we had, in 2003, an immigration of 300 people. Now, that would be wonderful if it were true, Mr. Chairman, but it is not true. The Member for Grand Bank ought to have known the difference because the numbers that were given at the end of 2003 were only pre-estimates. It has been quite well known for months and months that in fact we had an out-migration of over a thousand people in 2003, once again speaks to the research that the Opposition members are famous for.

When we came to government last year - in spite of the difficulties that this Province has been going through for ten years - at a time when diversification of our economy and building opportunities in rural Newfoundland was more important than it had ever been at any other time in our history, what were the people opposite doing? They stripped the economic development budget from $26 million down to $2.6 million in a time when investment was required like never before. Not only on top of that, they soured the relationship to such a degree with the federal government that the federal government would not engage in federal-provincial agreements with the Province anymore. So at a time when we needed economic investment like no other time in our history, it was not available. They failed the people of the Province.

A lot of the problems we see today are because of that lack of investment. If that degree of investment had continued - that $26 million annually had continued over the last ten years, Mr. Chairman, we would not find ourselves in the spot that we find ourselves in today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: On top of that, Mr. Chairman, when we came here we inherited a horrible economic mess that needed to be dealt with. Despite that, we carried on with the $2.6 million in our Small Business Seed Capital Equity in the business development and that money levered out another $15.5 million. Yes, it created 382 new jobs and it sustained another 174 in places like Marystown, Labrador City, Tors Cove, Doyles and St. Anthony. The demand was so great for the program that we never had the funding to meet all the demands that were coming, so we went through every Budget item in our department and we found approximately another $600,000 to put in on top of that program.

They made a big fuss last year in the media and in this House because there was no money for community organizations to leverage out funding from federal sources, like ACOA or Industry Canada. Now, Mr. Chairman, there used to be a program under the former Administration called the Community Economic Development Program and they put about $460,000 in that a year. Now, it used to swell - oh, double, triple, quadruple - around election time, but generally the budget was $460,000. Now, nobody knew about this program because it was not advertised. Nobody knew anything about the criteria because there were no criteria. They seemed to be made up on the spot. So when it came time to make an argument for a budget for our department, I wasn't interested in supporting that kind of a program. If there were going to be programs available to the people of the Province, they were going to be available to all of the people in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: There was going to be accessibility and the rules were going to be clear and transparent for everyone in the Province. We had to do something if we were not going to use money in that kind of a way, so we found $1.3 million - again, in savings in our budget in the department - for fifteen strategic initiatives throughout the Province. That leveraged an additional $6.5 million from other sources, creating work all through this Province.

Now, I just heard the Member for Grand Bank talk about herself and the Member for Bellevue who were going to stand up and speak for the Burin Peninsula. That is very interesting. That is really interesting, given - that must be a recent undertaking on behalf of the two members, because when we came to government we found that the plant in Arnold's Cove was in serious, serious difficulty and under threat of closure. The plant had been up for sale for over two years. The government had not stepped in, in any kind of a way. The people of the area were desperate to find some kind of solution and they came to government and said: Can you help? In a time of fiscal restraint, when we had little or nothing to work with, this government found $3.5 million to buy the enterprise allocations from High Liner which allows that plant to operate today and keeps 350 people in work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is that? Is that in rural Newfoundland?

MS DUNDERDALE: That is in Arnold's Cove. In rural Newfoundland.

Now, Madam Chair, the members who are going to speak up on behalf of the Burin Peninsula -not a letter, not a phone call, not a meeting, not one request from anybody opposite. Not one question about what was happening in Arnold's Cove and not one request to do anything about it.

The member for Arnold's Cove likes to shout out every now and then on a regular basis across the House: Who will fight for you? It is a good thing nobody in Arnold's Cove was asking that question last year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Last year, Madam Chair, we announced an agriculture working capital loan guarantee program. There is enormous opportunity on the South Coast of Newfoundland for aquaculture development and for business development around that industry. Now they have the tools to work with down there. Hopefully we will be able to grow a good, strong industry, and we are working with the people in the region to make that happen. A long term sustainable economy built on real opportunity on the Connaigre Peninsula.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: We registered our first labour sponsored venture capital fund. The one thing that people talk about and business people talk about in this Province on a regular basis is they do not have access to capital. Well, here is a huge piece of the answer right here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: We are developing an Innovation Strategy and we have had consultations and round tables all over this Province. We have had to add on extra meetings because people are so interested in participating. There is enormous opportunity. Innovation is about ingenuity, it is about technology, it is about doing things differently and it is about access to capital. The people of this Province have ideas and they want to be included in all of these consultations. All they want is the tools to help them turn those opportunities into real jobs, and this government is going to help them do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: We have made strategic investments in broadband and we are developing with Industry Canada a broadband strategy for the whole Province. Broadband is a necessary tool for economic development all over the world and we need it here. We need it especially in rural Newfoundland if we are going to compete in a global economy. This government is working to put that tool in the hands of ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: We have a marine strategy, a marine strategy that the members opposite had the fortitude to go out and have somebody develop for them, but what did they do when got the strategy? The same thing they did with every other report they got, they put it upon the shelf and forgot about it. Well, we took it out, dusted it off, cleaned it up, and are making strategic investments in that marine strategy. Marine strategy is the most sensible thing that this Province could ever engage in. The sea is in our blood. We know it is what has sustained us here for 500 years and will sustain us for the next 500 years. There is no other investment that we could make that has been more critical to our long-term success.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. minister that her speaking time has expired.

MS DUNDERDALE: I will have to try and speak again, Madam Chairman.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am pleased to have the opportunity tonight to make a few comments and certainly to address some of the concerns of the people of the Placentia & St. Mary's District. In my new role on this side of the House I will try to do my best with that and bring the concerns of the people of the district forward in a constructive manner, and hopefully work within the system to try to alleviate some of the concerns that those people have.

As I look over the Budget that has been presented here in the House, Madam Chair, I take the opportunity to say that there are many things in here that I think are of a positive nature and certainly will be of benefit to, not only the people of Placentia & St. Mary's, Madam Chair, but indeed the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As in all districts, I believe the number one concern is health care, and to see money invested in health care in addressing some of the infrastructure concerns that are there, Madam Chair, is something that I think is of a positive nature. Any new equipment purchases, such as the $2.6 million for a second MRI unit here in St. John's, $2 million towards replacing the two existing CT scanners, I think are positive things; and anything that helps alleviate the concerns people have.

Also, Madam Chair, I see investments in education. Again, I think that these are positive things, because there are many people out in our Province, from all different walks of life and different communities, large and small, who have concerns with education, our K-12 system. It is a very difficult situation that any government would find itself in, Madam Chair, in relation to the fact that the population of our schools is dropping very drastically, and therefore we are trying to continue to provide the type of education that the children require. The type of education that the children should have under the circumstances of the population is indeed, Madam Chair, a very difficult situation in the best of times. In rural Newfoundland, we have to address these concerns a little bit differently, I guess, in relation to the urban parts of our Province, but indeed education is something that affects each and every one of us.

Madam Chair, I was pleased to see some money put forward in tourism development. Another million dollars was put into tourism marketing. I think that we have a jewel in the crown of tourism here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and what is the sense of having it if we cannot promote it and promote properly? Trying to compare ourselves to the other parts of Atlantic Canada and to the world, we need to put money into that. I am pleased to see that government has put forward another million dollars this year in tourism marketing. With the million dollars last year, sooner rather than later we will be up to the standards of other Atlantic provinces. Hopefully, we will be able to put forward proper tourism marketing initiatives to bring people here to our Province. Heading into the tourism season now, which is only a few weeks away, there are so many things that are deterrents to travelling here to Newfoundland and Labrador, such as the fact that they have to take the ferry over in most cases which is a great expense, also the price of gas this year, Madam Chair, right across the country is going to cause some major problems in our tourism industry. Hopefully, by investing money in that we will bring more people into our Province.

Madam Chair, $2.4 million is being allocated to support the growth of the cultural industries, and I think that is a positive thing. We have so much to be proud of in Newfoundland and Labrador and certainly any promotion of that among our own citizens here within the Province and, indeed, throughout Canada and around the world, I think is a major positive aspect that we can certainly hope and pray that people come forward with.

Madam Chair, with regards to rural development: I was pleased to see the minister on her feet addressing some of the initiatives that have been put into rural development. Certainly. anything having to do with communications, the improvement of communications from a Broadband perspective, and other initiatives that are being put forward by government, Madam Chair, I think is great. When you look out to rural Newfoundland, the two things I find that are impediments to growth in rural Newfoundland, and have been for a number of years, are the roads, which I will touch on in a few moments, and communications. I believe, wherever you are living in Newfoundland and Labrador, if you have a proper road network and proper communications you can, not only survive there but I think you can grow and grow businesses, and there is certainly an opportunity to that, through Broadband and other initiatives that are put forward.

Madam Chair, under rural development we would also see investments put into - $1 million has been allocated for the implementation of a provincial innovation strategy. I think, once again, we see that we have to look at ways of improving anything that will innovate and create innovation in our Province.

Under the Innovation, Trade and Rural Development department, we will see $5 million established in a Regional/Sectorial Diversification Fund. I think this is a positive thing, Madam Chair, for the simple reason that many times - I know in my own District of Placentia & St. Mary's, it is sometimes very easy to obtain money if you have dollars there that you can lever other money with. I think this fund here will give us an opportunity to do that. I have many organizations in my district that will be putting forward proposals to this fund, so that they can take some money from the provincial government and then lever money from others, whether it is ACOA, whether it HRSDC, or whatever the case may be. As always, I have seen projects held up for the sake of a $10,000 investment just to create a partnership. Sometimes the money has not been there, or a program, I should say, has not been there within the provincial setup to allow us to do that. I think this is another positive thing that we have.

As I mentioned earlier, roads is a major issue in my district, as I am sure it is in many district throughout rural Newfoundland, and I am pleased to see that government has put forward, again, $30 million, which is $7 million up from two years ago. We came in with a $30 million program last year, and an extra $3.3 million that was not spent last year was carried over. I think is a positive thing again. The District of Placentia & St. Mary's will be putting their best hand forward to address some of the roads. Anybody who has traveled over the roads in my district, Madam Chair, from end to end. realize - I went there in February and traveled through my district, and there is in excess of 100 kilometres of road work that is needed, realizing that there is road work needed throughout the Province. Madam Chair, it is certainly a major initiative. If we can get the money straightened out with the Atlantic Accord, I think government should look at investing more money in the roads network, because I think if we have a good roads network in our Province, we can only do wonderful things to create rural economic development.

Madam Chair, all of the things that we have and that we have put forward, nothing compares to the state of rural Newfoundland as it is today. What is happening in rural Newfoundland in many parts is of a negative nature in relation to the fishery. While all these things are great and we put forward many, many plans, I think we all realize that the past, the present and the future of rural Newfoundland are based around the fishery. Over the past several weeks, the fishery has been a main topic here in the Province due to the government's plan to implement an RMS system, a Raw Material Sharing system, that has certainly caused some great concern out among the people, and certainly for my district. I guess nobody knows, more than me, what goes on in the district, in relation to being the member here in the House, and I brought those concerns forward. Rural Newfoundland is suffering very much in that regard, in relation to what is happening in the fishery.

I plead here tonight, Madam Chair, that, hopefully, all parties can come together and find a solution to that problem, and to be able to address the needs that are out there among the people, especially in the small rural communities that we have. The proposed implementation of the RMS system this year is, certainly, causing some concern, and some major concern in my district as, I am sure, in many other districts. I hope that we can address that, because there are a lot of things that needs to get on the radar screen when it comes to rural Newfoundland. I think there is a fair amount of things that are happening in a positive nature, but it has all been put aside and derailed by the fact that we are into this, I guess, argument or fracas in relation to the implementation of this Raw Material Sharing system.

Hopefully, over the next number of days, Madam Chair, this issue will be resolved, because right now in my own District of Placentia & St. Mary's, in the past twenty-four to forty-eight hours, several of the fishermen have left to go to Nova Scotia to catch their crab. This is causing some major concern, not only with the people who are out on the high seas trying to harvest the product, but, indeed, in the Town of St. Mary's, in my district, where there is a crab plant that has operated since the 1960s that was canning crab. The plant in St. Mary's was canning crab in the 1960s, so it goes back a long, long way. The people of that community, and the surrounding communities, are very concerned about the future, what the future holds not only for this season of 2005, but, indeed, for the entire future of that community and the entire future of St. Mary's Bay.

Hopefully, over the next few days we can see some resolve to this stalemate that we have, and that these fishermen who harvest the sea for the product will find their way back to Newfoundland to be able to sell here in the Province, and to be able to create the employment that is needed. To be honest with you, I think all our minds are on the same wave length. It is just finding a way to reach that agreement, finding a way to, I guess, find a solution to a problem that has plagued now us for a number of weeks, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his speaking time has expired.

MR. MANNING: Just by leave to finish up if could, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM CHAIR: By leave to clue up.

MR. MANNING: Yes, Madam Chair, just to say that the concerns of the District of Placentia & St. Mary's, I think, are equal to the concerns of many districts within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. As I said, rural Newfoundland, in many cases, is being hard hit and, hopefully, we can find the solutions and put forward the plans that can address the concerns that people have in the District of Placentia & St. Mary's. I, in my role here in the House of Assembly, will be continuing to do that to my best of my ability, to bring forward the concerns and hopefully be able to address some of the things that are happening, because it is not the past, Madam Chair, that we are concerned about, it is the future. Hopefully, by working together here we can find a way to address some of these concerns, but to have an opportunity to put something in rural Newfoundland to make sure that there is a future for the people that live in rural Newfoundland and indeed in the District of Placentia & St. Mary's.

Thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Gander.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Madam Chair, its give me great pleasure to get up again to talk on this Budget with regard to the positive aspects.

I have noticed , as well as my colleagues on this side of the House, that the theme on Open Line these days and the theme on the opposite side of the House is rural Newfoundland, and how we are, as a government, dissecting rural Newfoundland and causing all kinds of out migration, et cetera, so it prompted me to go through the Budget. I went through several of the departments looking at the rural aspect of that Budget. I went down through them, so tonight I would like to give a sprinkling of what I have found.

I have spoken a couple of time here and I have touched on rural Newfoundland, but I have actually focused on a couple of key areas in regards to innovation, trade, health care and education. I would like to go back and start with that, the establishment of the $10 million SME Fund and how important that is to rural Newfoundland, to small and medium-sized business, exactly what it is going to be used for.

As a small business owner for the last number of years, Madam Chair, I found it very, very difficult of access funds in regard to the usual financial institutions in Newfoundland and Labrador. Under the past government, it became harder and harder. There was no, I suppose, confidence in the Province in regard to growing small and medium-sized business, so it came down to that you were pretty limited to the funds you could obtain. Mainly you went to a group like GADCO in Gander or you went to the BDC or something of that sort, Madam Chair. This $10 million revolving fund is very, very important and very, very positive to rural Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: We must also remember that the main crux of our small and medium-sized business in this Province is in rural Newfoundland. That is exactly where they are. You are seeing, actually, a reduction in small business owners in the more urban areas such as St. John's and Corner Brook, and you are actually seeing an increase in small businesses in rural Newfoundland. That is called diversification of your economy, Madam Chair.

I must say I noticed - I am going to use some notes tonight Madam Chair, if you don't mind because I could not remember it all. I went through about five pages of it, and hopefully I will get most of it in.

During the fall the government provided $1.3 million to support fifty strategic initiatives and that has allowed them to lever another $6.5 million. Now, a $1.3 million investment allowed them to lever $6.5 million. That is what is called growing the economy in rural Newfoundland. Through two programs - they were referenced by the minister tonight - there was $2.6 million on a total investment of $15.5 million, created 382 jobs and maintaining 174 jobs last fall and last year, over the last fiscal year, and that is very important. I will say those numbers again, 382 jobs and maintained 174, Madam Chair. That is positive.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Madam Chair, connected to that $10 million SME fund - I must get into tourism now. It really surprised me - when I did a little bit of research in tourism I found that there were 2,400 small businesses with tremendous growth in the tourist sector.

The biggest complaint that I heard during the Cabot Celebrations - be it what it was, a great celebration - I heard that the lack of infrastructure, the lack of being able to access services, being small businesses, et cetera, in rural Newfoundland, was a great problem for that celebration. We did not capitalize on it the way we should have capitalized on it. So, I see that this government is going to create that SME fund and allow businesses to grow - small businesses, medium-sized businesses to grow in rural Newfoundland and that will be very, very important to our tourist industry. Any investment in marketing - which there is another $1 million, and slowly but surely we are getting up to the standards of Atlantic Canada. Any investment in that fund and in that initiative is a positive initiative and it will help grow those businesses connected to that tourist industry through marketing.

I would be remiss if I did not mention that in the 2005 Budget we also indicated that we would fund another four RCMP officers for the RCMP detachments around Newfoundland. I might be corrected on this, but I would say that most of them are going to go into rural detachments. Then again, they will provide the services that are well needed in this Province in regards to giving the confidence to young entrepreneurs to create and grow their small businesses and they will not be afraid of being broken into and that kind of stuff. I am sure, in coming years, we will continue to grow the RCMP in Newfoundland because they are very important to the business world.

Then I will jump into Human Resources, Labour and Employment and something that is missed - I have not heard it said in this House, that this government increased the minimum wage by $1. It is going to go up by four twenty-five cent increments over a two-year period. I remember in 1999 - I ran in the election in 1999 and one of the suggestions that I made, prior to that election and for our Blue Book, was an increase in the minimum wage. The government of the day - I cannot remember who the leader was. As a matter of fact, it was our hon. friend, Mr. Tobin - lambasted us in regards to increasing that minimum wage because they could not see the benefit of actually increasing the minimum wage and what that does to growing the economy, because it gives these low income people more disposable income. They are the people who actually spends it in our communities because they do not move outside their communities. They do not travel to Toronto and Halifax. This is very, very important and it really grows the economy in the urban areas as well as in the small communities around Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what I see and that is why I made the suggestion. That is why I am very, very happy to see that, and that is very important to rural Newfoundland.

There is also an interest relief fund for small businesses on Workers' Compensation assessment payments. I will tell you right now, as a small business owner myself, Madam Chair, I have seen this to be very hard for small and medium-sized businesses to deal with because, if that went up, it is very, very hard to access the funds. Your cash flows have a hard time in handling that kind of an assessment, so we will have a fund there to help these medium and small businesses to address this problem.

Municipal and Provincial Affairs; I know that Gander accessed $3.6 million under the Multi-Year Capital Works Program but there are also two programs that has targeted rural Newfoundland specifically, and that cannot be lost on this House. That cannot be lost on Newfoundland and Labrador. It cannot be lost in this Budget, Madam Chair. One is the Canada/Newfoundland and Labrador Infrastructure Program. In 2005, the funding there is $35 million that municipalities can access across Newfoundland and Labrador in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Then there is the Municipal Capital Works and the funding there is $25 million that they can access funds for their municipalities. These funds will be administered in a timely fashion, giving these municipalities the time to grow and also to plan. That is what is very important, the planning process and being able to get out their tenders quicker; being able to react to problems within their municipality. It is very, very important that we have the planning process in place.

Education, Madam Chair. This government committed $3 million for school transportation, and the vast majority of that is going to be spent in rural Newfoundland. That cannot be lost on this House either tonight. You know, if I had to name it off, I would not be able to count how many millions I am after naming off already. There is an additional $400,000 for the Centre for Distance Learning and Innovation. Thirty-five high school courses, at ninety-five schools in rural Newfoundland, will access this program. It is very important to rural Newfoundland. They will get good schooling. We know in the past that we cannot provide, in remote Newfoundland, the courses that they need but by distance learning, which is a fantastic program, they will be able to access those courses in a timely fashion and then we will educate our kids. We all know that our kids and our children are the most important resource that Newfoundland and Labrador has.

New school construction; we have three new schools under construction here in Newfoundland as we speak. One is in Carmanville, one is in Eastport and one is in Hopedale. So where are they all to? They are not in urban Newfoundland. They are not in Gander. They are not in Corner Brook.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: They are in rural Newfoundland. This is the kind of stuff that we are doing.

There is also a program for replacing roofs, repairing roofs and replacing windows. I was reading that today, but I did not write it down actually because it was so vast. It was all over the place. You know, all over rural Newfoundland. It was unbelievable. This is commitment by government. This is long-term planning. This is reacting to something that happened over a long period of time that was never addressed. So, I am glad to see this government stand up, take its place and take the bull by the horns.

Transportation; $30 million for the Provincial Roads Improvement Program. An ongoing commitment for the rehabilitation of our roads. When I see that word: rehabilitation, being a pharmacist, it really surprised me when it was actually connected to roads. Rehabilitation, when it is connected to transportation, sends me a message -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his speaking time has expired.

MR. O'BRIEN: By leave? Just a minute on the transportation issue, if you could, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. O'BRIEN: I have to mention it, because rehabilitation means that something happened over a long, long period of time and it was never addressed. That is exactly what happened and here we are putting in $30 million, an extra $10 million on the previous year's Budget. We are putting an extra $10 million and we are bringing up the $3.5 million that was left over from roads that year previous.

Madam Chair, to grow the economy we need a good transportation system. Hopefully, before this night is out, I will get up and speak for another little while because I have another number of pages here that I would like to speak on rural Newfoundland. As a matter of fact, if I get out soon enough I will go on Open Line and I will talk about it also.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would like to take a few moments to make a few comments with regards to the Budget and touch on some of the issues. To begin with, I would like to make a comment on the statement that was made by the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development when she made the comment that not one person on this side of the House phoned or made any written correspondence to her or anyone in the government with regards to Arnold's Cove.

Madam Chair, I would say that only one person on that side of the House stood up on behalf of their constituents when they received phone calls, petitions, suggestions from the youth in their districts, suggestions from the mayor, the municipalities in their districts, and from the harvesters and plant workers. Madam Chair, I guess the silence is deafening.

We hear back and forth - when members opposite get up to speak they refer back to the former Administration. Well, I say, Madam Chair, this was supposed to be a new approach, a new vision. We heard the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs who was talking about, we are on the road to prosperity. The Member for Terra Nova, he got up and was speaking about all the wonderful things and don't be negative. That is all fine, but I say, Madam Chair, there is nothing more negative than what we are facing in the fishery today.

They are always accusing the members on this side of the House that we are referencing rural Newfoundland, there is nothing being done for rural Newfoundland. No doubt about it, we have issues pertaining to that. Only recently, in one of the news articles in the paper, Mr. Puddister, the President of NAPE, came out and said that before this government was elected there was an upswing in our rural communities. He went on to say that migration had stopped, housing starts were up, retail sales were up and, more importantly, he said there was hope, but this government has decided that it is not good business to continue to sustain our rural way of life. Madam Chair, I think that says it all.

As we see here from day to day when people come to the galleries - it is unfortunate that people have to be removed from our galleries because it would be very interesting if they would just stay here and listen to the speeches that are made on each side of the House. How things change when there is no one up there looking down. I have to say that, I guess it is unfortunate those things happen. I think it was the Leader of the NDP who made a comment here earlier this afternoon when he was referencing the Budget and someone was up speaking, he felt that it was the best budget that we have seen in the last two months. I hope, Madam Chair, that the people, the visitors when they come to the gallery, they will stick around this Wednesday when we debate the private member's motion with regards to the crab fishery so that they can see where each and every one of us stand on this very important issue that is facing the people here in the Province.

The Minister of Finance, in debate a couple of days ago, said that this was a very good Budget. He made the comment that he felt the Liberals had cut the guts out of Newfoundland and Labrador over the past number of years. I say, Madam Chair, and I say sincerely, that I believe that over the last eighteen months this government has cut the heart out of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I mean those people who come here to the galleries, Madam Chair, they are not coming here out of frustration just to be here, to say things back and forth. I think the Minister of Justice, one day when he stood he made the comment that nobody should be allowed to speak in this House unless they were elected. That is why they get frustrated. When they come here they know that their members who they elected to represent them, when they do not stand and say what they want them to say because they have passed along their concerns to them with this critical issue.

Madam Chair, we come to education. There is so much debate back and forth about the seventy-five new teachers that are going in the system. The seventy-five teachers that are referenced, they are already in the system and they are being left there. That is all wonderful, but there are105 teachers who will be eliminated this year.

I attended a function this weekend where the Executive Assistant for the Minister of Education got up and spoke. He referenced the teachers who will be going in this year to deal with culture, music and so on. Well, I say, Madam Chair, if it is the seventy-five teachers who are in the system and they are going to take on new roles, whether it is in culture or music or whatever, they must be taken away from some other job that they have now. They are not seventy-five new positions. They are seventy-five positions that are there and going to be juggled around.

It is a sad day when we turn on the media and see students demonstrating outside of schools, whether their schools are going to close or when they come out to welcome the minister when he comes into their area about how they are losing units in that school and they believe that their level of education will not be what it is in rural areas. It seems like what you have to do, you really have to put the pressure on when you get something in your mind that you would like to see carried out.

I had an incident back some month ago now, not all that long ago, with a young chap on Coley's Point who was having problems travelling back and forth to school on the bus. They looked at it as possibly being bullying but they also noticed that he had a social problem. He had problems when he got to school because the supports were not there for him that should have been with him. It had nothing to do with the teaching staff there, they were doing everything possible. Madam Chair that family had to hit the news media. They had to hit the news media to bring attention to it, and finally, after two or three weeks, that issue was resolved.

We saw the same thing, Madam Chair, in the Budget, where you heard comments made that there was a deficit of a hundred and some-odd million dollars when, in actual fact, there was a surplus of the same amount.

The people in Central Newfoundland, with regard to the cancer clinic, what a situation they were placed in and had to speak up. The member for that area, and other people, had to fight with them. Finally, the issue was looked into and hopefully it is going to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

Madam Chair, we think about, on the West Coast, the concerns that the people had out there. They had to have a major rally, and announcements had to be made before they went to the rally. It seems like this is what you have to do. If that is what it is all about, Madam Chair, I think something is drastically wrong.

We heard the Premier, back some months ago, referencing - and I guess this goes back to even when he was the Opposition Leader - custodial management, what he was going to do, and how strong he was going to be fighting for custodial management. I heard him after the forum was held here in St. John's last week, Madam Chair, and he said he was very impressed with it. He said it is going to go beyond words, there will be action coming from it.

Hopefully so, but I am going to tell you that our Premier, and we, the people here in this Province, have to get the support of the federal government if we are going to do anything with regard to custodial management because those countries and not listening. They do not want to listen.

Madam Chair, we hear talk about out-migration. The fact of it is, Statistics Canada stated that over a period of eighteen months there were 2,700 people who out-migrated from this Province. Madam Chair, those are not our figures. Those are figures that are being published by those in authority.

We heard the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune stand in his place and talk about fifty-two people who are moving out from the Town of Harbour Breton. Madam Chair, this is where we are coming from, when we say the situation is not all that bright and rosy in rural Newfoundland. We know that the fishery is a vital part of it.

I have had families in my district who worked in the crab plant in Port de Grave, and they know this year, they know for a fact this year, they do not have the product that they had there last year. There is a reduction in the amount that will be processed, and the people who worked there for only four or five years have moved on. Families have moved on to Fort McMurray to work, Madam Chair.

We see the people here in the gallery day after day, and I get calls, numerous calls, now from plant workers who are very concerned and wondering what the program is going to be. I asked the questions today, and I know they are going to be asking again.

Madam Chair, I know my time is short. Just in conclusion, I want to say that I believe this government has to take a stand for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. The best place to start is with the issue that is at hand now. Members opposite are hearing from their constituents. They are asking them to stand and be counted when it comes to the situation. Nothing affects rural Newfoundland any more than the fishery, and I plead with government, the Premier, whoever, to settle this dispute so that the fishers of our Province, and the plant workers, and all those involved in the industry, can move on with their lives.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

It is a pleasure to get up tonight and have a few words to say about the Budget, of course, in the Budget debate, and a few words about my district, Windsor-Springdale, and a few encouraging words to the Opposition, I guess, because we went through all of that before, when we sat on that side and we had to put forward our case to the people of the Province on what the government was doing at that day. Now it is a different matter for us. We are on the government side and we do have to make tough decisions and make tough choices. We do have to explain to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador what our choices and our changes are all about.

That is not something easy to do, because the Premier has committed to this Province to put this Province back on track and that is not a very complicated idea. That idea is pretty simple. When we say we want to put this Province back on track, it just means that we have to get our finances under control, our resources under control, and commit to getting the most value from our resources of this Province, which will help us put the Province back on track, which will help us deliver the services to the people of this Province who are expecting it. It is not an easy thing to do when you try to deliver these services to our Province with such a vast area and such few people spread out in the area of this Province, and how we get our revenues in this Province to make things work. Of course, the biggest issue in the Province today is the health care. The health care is one that takes a great deal of money to deliver that service. We are talking over $1.7 billion to deliver the service of health care in this Province.

Madam Chair, this year this Budget has been a good Budget. Last year's Budget was hard. We admit that we had to take over the first year and deliver our first Budget and we had to make some tough choices, but by putting this Province back on track the Premier has delivered this year a good Budget. In the future, we will deliver better budgets. In the next two-and-a-half years, we will see a lot of changes coming that will make things a lot easier for the people of this Province, particularly in rural Newfoundland, even though on the contrary a lot of people, especially the Opposition, allude to a lot of cases where this government is against rural Newfoundland. I want to assure the people of this Province, we are not against rural Newfoundland. We are a rural Newfoundland government, but we are trying to do it right the first time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: If we do not do it right the first time, then we would be making the mistakes that the former government has made for the last fourteen years. We do not want to go down that road again. We want to make sure we do it right. No more giveaways, the Premier said, and he has committed to that, and he has committed that the resources of this Province are going to be used for the best interests of the people of this Province. We are going to benefit the most from all our resources. If we do not, then we are going to be in big trouble a few years down the road, as I said.

Madam Chair, we have to look at where our money is coming from in this Province. We know that every sector in this Province does deliver revenues to the Province and we are not happy with some of the areas where the money is coming from. We certainly would like to see more money coming out of the resources rather than lotteries and such things as that. We cannot deliver services in the Province unless we get these revenues, but it is very important that the people of this Province understand that we cannot spend more than we are taking in either. We need to do a lot of work with respect to our infrastructure in this Province, and the ministers and Cabinet are out there every day dealing with these problems, trying to find out the best way to cut that budget pie that we have. We have a pie only so big, and we must cut that pie in a way that every sector and service in this Province is delivered. Now, that is a big job for anybody to take on. We know over the years the former government took that job on. Did it work? No, it did not work in all the aspects that they worked on because we now are way behind on certain things like our roads.

In 1999, when I came here, the former government spent $15 million a year on roads in this Province and look where it got us. It got us to a point where we cannot catch up, and now we have a government that is willing to put more in every year. It was up to $30 million this year put back into provincial roads, which is still not enough. We are not happy with $30 million, we would like to see $60 million, but, like I said, we are back on track and we are going to stay on track until we get our roads budget back up, when we can catch up with the roads repairs in this Province. It has to be done, because if we do not do it then we are going to lose in other areas of the Province. It is going to be detrimental to the tourism sector of this Province if we do not take care of our roads. It is going to be hard for our education system. The kids have to go over these roads every day to get to school, and we need to make sure that these roads are in good shape for that.

The health care alone in this Province over the years, we have not been delivering the type of services that we should be. Now, this year, the Budget has proven that this government is committed to health care in this Province. Just some following comments on the health care budget for this year: This government is willing to put the money into the Province in health care, and some of the areas I will just read out to the House here. It is limiting the waiting time for diagnostic treatment procedures to meet the standards deemed acceptable by physicians. Now, that is a big area. If you want to get into that, we can speak hours and hours and hours on what type of service we should be delivering in hospitals. When you have waiting lists and waiting lines in hospitals waiting for surgeries and treatments, if we do not put more money into it - which we have done this year and will continue to do to make sure that the people of our Province have the best possible health care that can be delivered at this time. I know first-hand of that, from last year when I was in the hospital and I saw what services are available there and saw the hard work that the people at the hospitals put into delivering that service. I have to commend the people in our health care. They work very hard to deliver that service, and you can see the concern that is on the faces of the people delivering it. They are certainly good at what they do, and I commend the physicians and the nurses and all the staff in the hospitals for doing that.

Madam Chair, when it gets to other issues in health care, like our cancer treatment, this government is committed to alleviating the time frames for delivering cancer treatment. Even in my own District of Windsor-Springdale, Grand Falls-Windsor, this year we committed to a new cancer clinic not only for Grand Falls-Windsor but for the Gander area too. That was a big commitment. That was a commitment that this government saw that would done this year, and I commend the Premier and the Cabinet for doing that. It is an issue that was dear to my heart. It is an issue that was discussed with ministers and in caucus. Unfortunately it was not done in the time frame that the Opposition would have liked to have it announced in the Budget, but we are doing it. If it was that big a concern with the Opposition, why didn't they do it back in 1999 when it was top priority, and in the year 2000 when it was top priority? In 2001, 2002, it was top priority, still not done. We took over this government only eighteen months ago, and in less than eighteen months we got this cancer clinic treatment centre on the books and it is going to be done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: We did not have to wait five or six years to do that. This is a good initiative that we are doing, and I commend this government for doing that.

Madam Chair, we on this side work very hard. Regardless of what the Opposition thinks, and what is being said about our caucus members, all the members on this side are working for their constituents within the caucus doors. We are back there and we bring our concerns to our caucus. Whether you want to believe it or not, we do and it is discussed. Each member has their say in caucus on the issues pressing for their districts. I will tell you, we do accomplish a lot by doing that. I do not know what happened in the Liberal caucus in past years, but I know that, working in our caucus, it works well. It works well with our leader because we do accomplish a lot. Do we get everything -

MS THISTLE: A point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Madam Chair, I would just like to make a slight correction for the Member for Windsor-Springdale. He mentioned that the roads program was $15 million by the previous government. Well, that is incorrect because the provincial roads program by the previous government was $23 million. Improvements to the Trans-Canada Highway was $15 million, and there was another $9.6 million for the last year that we were in power by the Roads for Rail Agreement, so that is incorrect. I would like to clarify that statement.

Thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: There is no point of order, just a disagreement between colleagues.

The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Madam Chair, I did say it was in 1999, what the Budget was, and the following year they went to $17 million. That is what it was when I first came here. Now, we are up to -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time has expired.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would just like to say that it is a privilege to have some comments, but I would just like to say to the Opposition that this side is concerned about what we do for our constituents and we are doing a good job. Every member on this side is doing what they were elected to do, working behind the doors, behind the scenes, for the people of our constituency, and I must congratulate everybody on this side. I cannot say much about what is going on, on that side.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: I am sorry, Madam Chair, I meant for the member here.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just a couple of comments with respect to the Budget as we continue the debate. There is one thing that I find a little bit disconcerting this evening with respect to the expenditure of funds that were not budgeted for, that is actually being incurred, Madam Chair, I guess by the Speaker's office, supposedly on our behalf - I say it from this point of view, that the Minister of Finance, when he read his Budget, said: Despite the changes, the new fiscal realities, the fact that we have some extra flexibility because of the Atlantic Accord, equalization funding, new health care funding, and other funds from the Government of Canada, we still are in a position where we cannot waste one precious penny. Not one precious penny can be spent unless it is absolutely necessary to spend it.

The issue that I would like to raise again, Madam Chair, is the notion that, in this Legislature where we are now participating in a free and democratic debate, the public galleries have been closed, at the order of the Speaker because of a disruption earlier today, since about 2:00 p.m., as a matter of fact a little bit before 2:00 p.m. The doors have been locked to the public gallery for the remainder of the session, so that there is no one in the public gallery for the remainder of the afternoon and none tonight because it is the full sitting day. We all understand that rule in here. We understand it as legislators. We understand why the Speaker did that. As a result of that, nobody can get anywhere into this Legislature, either on this floor or upstairs, unless they can go through security outside and show a pass that they either work here with the Table or Hansard or that they are an elected member.

In the meantime, earlier today while there were members of the public, the Speaker, on our behalf again, decided that because there have been protests and demonstrations and disruptions that we needed to have some additional security, some RNC Officers in plain clothes in the galleries, in the precincts of the House. I even understand that. I understand his decision to do that. Since 2:00 p.m. today there has not been a stranger, as they are called, allowed anywhere near the precincts of this House, for the last seven-and-one-half hours. In the meantime, throughout that whole period of time, all of the remainder of the afternoon, probably through the supper hour, and even now, there are six or eight RNC Officers in plain clothes inside these walls locked in with us.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

MR. GRIMES: Outside, inside, in the precincts of the Legislature. They are not up on the eighth floor providing security for the Premier, which might be necessary, they are not outside the Legislature providing security for the Minister of Fisheries, which might be necessary; they are inside the Legislature with us. I guess the Speaker, on our behalf, has determined that we need six or eight RNC officers in here in case we turn into the Korean Parliament and threaten to throttle each other or something, leap over the seats and start throwing things at each other. That has not happened here, I do not think, in thirty-odd years. I think somebody threw an ice cube at somebody once in this Legislature, about thirty-something years ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: There hasn't been a major outburst like that since. Here we are being fairly civilized with each other, I guess, by our own standards, since the middle of the afternoon and we have six or eight RNC officers. Guess what is going on in St. John's and the immediate area as we speak? Break-ins in people's homes, armed robberies - as a matter of fact, there were two break-ins and two armed robberies reported on the news in this area last night. We were not here last night. It is a common occurrence and it is tied into the drug abuse and OxyContin. We even had the Chief of Police talk about it. He said, the major problem is that it is drug related, in his view. We do not need the protection, but there are homes and businesses out there I would suggest, 10:00 in the night, that would like to think that these six or eight officers who are being paid over-time to be in here for no good reason - and are going to be paid, by the way, out of the House of Assembly budget, the same budget that pays our salaries, the same budget that pays for the staff here, the same budget that keeps the heat and lights on, the same budget that pays for the televising of the Legislature. There was nothing in the Estimates, in that Budget that we are debating right now, that said we would spend - and it is going to be, by the way, $100,000 or more extra for security, for RNC services in this Legislature. I just make that point, and I would suggest, by the way, that probably most of the Commissionaires who are the regular staff are sent home and RNC officers in plain clothes come here and stay in this building.

I would like for yourself as the Chair, Madam Chair, on our behalf to raise that issue again with our Speaker, that once the galleries are closed and locked for the day, if there are extra security outside which the Speaker does not control, has no say over, and if the government or the RNC themselves decide that somebody needs security outside the House because of what is happening in the Province, so be it. I would contend, as one member, and I believe supported by probably all members, that I do not see any need for us to be spending money on six or seven or eight RNC officers in here this evening when there are no members of the general public, there has not been anybody seen anywhere near the building, not even on Confederation Hill, for the last five or six hours. There are people breaking into homes in St. John's and area as we speak. There are people out there who unfortunately, because of their desperate circumstance, drug related or otherwise, are thinking about breaking and entering corner stores and gas bars and so on.

I would ask, Madam Chair, that you bring that to the attention - because we are led to believe that money is so scarce, that not one precious penny should be wasted. I would suggest in this circumstance that we are the most guilty of all. At the Speaker's direction, in this case, if we have six or eight officers who I know are here - because I have been speaking with them, I have been conversing with them, I have been asking them why they are here, and they are here because, I guess, they are directed to be here by the Speaker on our behalf - we should probably take a vote as forty-seven members in the Legislature and say: Mr. Speaker, why don't you send them home? Why don't you let them go out and do their real job, and stop wasting money in here at this point and time? I have raised this issue privately with the Speaker in the past, not today, but several times before, because it has happened before and I will raise it again.

Madam Chair, one other thing: We often hear and we just heard the previous speaker from Windsor-Springdale talk about the fact that the government had to do something about a financial circumstance they inherited. Well, I would suggest to you that one of the greatest injustices done to the people of the Province and to that caucus, which has swallowed the line hook, line and sinker, is to exaggerate the circumstance financially in this Province. It was never more evident than the bond raters Standard and Poor's who upgraded the credit rating just a few days ago. What did they say? Changed circumstances because of the Atlantic Accord and other things, but, they said, the debt circumstance - here is the one the Finance Minister and the caucus want to talk about, the Finance Minister in particular, saying, we were drowning in debt. The government had made it worse and worse and worse and worse. Guess what Standard and Poor's said last week? The debt, the GDP ratio, had actually improved seven straight years, that the ability of this Province and the government of this Province to pay for its debt had gotten better every year since 1998. In 1998, the government had more ability and an improved ability to pay for its debt and pay for its bills and handle its borrowings than it did in 1997. In 1999, the government had an even better ability to pay its debt and pay its bills because the economy was growing, you see. We were actually not talking about jobs in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, we actually created them. The GDP was increasing by 10 per cent and 12 per cent and 15 per cent. This year the government says GDP is going to grow again, but what they forget to tell you is, last year it grew 13.9 per cent. This year it is going to grow 3.9 per cent.

They call that growth. That is a decline of 10 per cent folks, because there is no rural plan, because they do not have anything to follow up with the White Rose project. They do not have anything done to follow up after Voisey's Bay which they have not been able to drive a dinky through let alone a Mac truck. They have not been able to find any loopholes. The people down in Placentia and areas are celebrating that there are jobs down there now ahead of time and ahead of schedule. It will be seen to be one of the best deals ever in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador in thirty, forty, or fifty years, after the mine is closed in Labrador and they are still processing nickel in Placentia and Argentia. That is when the real proof will come to pass with respect to the great foresight and vision in that kind of a deal. We will see how many refineries and how many smelters arrive in Newfoundland and Labrador as a result of Duck Pond. They are going to help the company take the raw material out of the Province.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that his speaking time has expired.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am always interested to heard the yarns the Leader of the Opposition has to spin.

MR. RIDEOUT: Ted Russell has nothing on him.

MR. E. BYRNE: True. Ted Russell could probably have used him as a great character in some of the (inaudible). It is what he leaves out that is really important.

Did you notice, colleagues, or anybody who may be listening tonight, how quickly he passed over the small amount of money we received for the Atlantic Accord?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: It was just $2 billion upfront, but that had nothing to do with our credit rating being improved.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. E. BYRNE: No. This is the same Leader of the Opposition who said, during that whole debate, that the Premier of the Province had mishandled that file. One point four billion or one point five billion they wanted us to take. The Premier settled for a minimum payment of $2 billion. It could be worth much more to the people of the Province. Somehow, colleagues, he tries to leave the impression that the increase in the bond-rating agency had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that, as a result of the Premier's efforts, as result of the support of the people of the Province, as result of the support of the Premier's colleagues in this House, as a result of those efforts and the strategy and the strategic thinking and how he wrestled the federal government to the ground, this Province is far better off today, and as a direct result of his efforts, the bond-rating agency has recognized that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let's talk about the economy, where the Leader of the Opposition talks about: There is nothing in place for White Rose; there is nothing after White Rose is done; there is nothing in place when Argentia is done. No wonder they asked the Leader of the Opposition - they did not ask him, they told him to leave office - because that is simply not the truth. I do not know where he was just three weeks ago when Norsk Hydro, Chevron, Petro-Canada and ExxonMobil, four partners in the potential development of Hebron-Ben Nevis, signed their utilization and joint operating agreement. What is coming next? Do you know what is coming next? Negotiations with the Province about a fourth development that could put in place another gravity based structure in Bull Arm, that could see more -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: - fabrication on the South Coast of the Province. He did not want to talk about that because that is too much good news. That is directly in front of us, I say to my colleagues in the House today and to the people of the Province, directly in front of us in terms of our next development.

Did you hear him talk about his approach to the development of the Lower Churchill?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let's talk about his approach when he was Premier of the Province to the development of the Lower Churchill versus ours. That was the thinking. His thinking personified what the thinking was at the time. We can only deal with the Province of Quebec, so we set up a set of circumstances by where we are going to own the project, supposedly, quote, unquote. The Quebec government was going to finance it. Hydro-Quebec and the Quebec government were going to finance this arrangement. They were also going to be in charge of the procurement activities and engineering activities that would have not seen the opportunities in this Province that should have been here. They were in charge of the project schedule; not us, but them. Then there was a little footnote in that arrangement that said: Should the project schedule go over, any overruns, and not meet on time, there would be penalties. On who? On us!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Here is the deal he set up. The people he was going to deal with on the development of the Lower Churchill were going to finance it, they were going to be in charge of the procurement and engineering activities, they were going to be in charged of the project schedule and then, if the project went into overruns, or did not meet on time, there were going to be penalties on the very people who had no control of it in the first place, but who were supposed to own it. That is the approach that was adopted by that person when he was Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is the same person who stood in this House upon repeated questioning from members opposite, and I was one of them at the time, and said: No, there is no deal.

If he wants to talk about caucus, let's talk about what went on in their caucus. When we became government, I happened to go over to the Hydro building which reports directly to the Minister of Natural Resources - I know the Member for Twillingate & Fogo does not want to hear it but it is the truth - and I found a tape. I found a tape.

MR. REID: You told us that last week.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, and I am going to tell you again tonight and I will keep telling you over and over if I have to, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Do you know why? Because, it goes to the point and the point is this: No, there was no deal -

MR. GRIMES: It is boring.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, it is not boring. You cannot handle the truth. The fact of the matter is, it goes to the point: No, there was no deal. Yet, we find a tape done by Bristol Communications with the then Premier, now the Leader of the Opposition, saying: Ladies and gentlemen, people of Newfoundland and Labrador, I would like to report to you tonight that we have signed a deal with the Province of Quebec. Yet, he told us there was no deal.

Now, you contrast that to the approach that we have taken. What has it been? You talk about no opportunities. We have a world-class resource. We believe that it has the potential to develop significant economic opportunities, particularly for the people in Labrador. We believe it is a resource that can help us with green power, the Kyoto protocols involved. The market is insatiable for energy, from a couple of points of view, that they want it sustainable, continuous, uninterruptible, and it is on the basis of understanding the fundamentals of what that resource means that we decided on an approach that would offer to anybody on the planet an Expression of Interest, who may be interested. We put that Expression of Interest in all of the journals worldwide, electricity energy review, a number of others, and what happened? Twenty-five different proposals.

Get a load of this. This is what is really interesting. I am not going to get into the ones that we do not know about yet, because all of that is being assessed and that will be made public in due course, but just get a load of this: an interesting proposal from Ontario and Quebec together - from Ontario and Quebec. Why? What has changed in two-and-a-half or three years?

AN HON. MEMBER: Attitude.

MR. E. BYRNE: Attitude, approach, confidence, and understanding what we have and not willing to give it away, not for one nickel. That is what has changed, I say to members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The resource on the Churchill River has not changed. The appetite for energy in North America has not changed, but I tell you what has, and that is the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and thanks be to God for that!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: If we did not, if it had not, there would not have been an Expression of Interest. We would not be talking about the potential development outside Quebec. We would not be talking about the significant benefits that could accrue from it. Somebody else would have had it. Someone else would be controlling it, and yet we would have to stand up and say we owned it. Not likely!

On this approach, on the approach that we set forward, we believe, fundamentally, that it will bring long-lasting economic impacts to the Province, and in particular to the people of Labrador. That is what has changed: attitude and approach, that the place is bigger than what we believe, and that we are not going to settle for anything less than what we should have. That is the difference, Madam Chair. That is the difference.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The Leader of the Opposition wants to leave an impression tonight, as he does every night. He does not talk about the Budget initiatives. He talks about members. Tonight he picked on, earlier tonight, the Member for Lake Melville. Somebody else said: Don't worry, colleagues, before this session is over, every one of us will be able to put on our resumes that we were picked on by the Leader of the Opposition and, guess what? We survived and thrived as a result of it, I say to the members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The fact of the matter is this: When you look at - I was talking last week, for example - three years ago there was $13 million spent in Labrador on mineral exploration, and my colleague and good friend from Labrador West touched on it. The significant potential for mineral development in Labrador is unbelievable. There are significant development opportunities for mineral development on the Island, but not nearly as big as in Labrador. The last year that this government was in office, there was $13 million spent in Labrador in mineral exploration. To date, today, this year so far, there are commitments to upwards of $40 million of exploration dollars in Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, that is extremely, extremely important but still only that much of what it could it, that much of the potential of what it could be. I could see a time in the next five or six years, maybe in seven or eight, that exploration money alone could total over $100 million to $120 million in Labrador alone. That is how much potential, and even more, but it is about creating the environment and the level of confidence that should be in place to attract mining companies, particularly junior mining companies who have solid relationships with major mining companies, so that if a significant find is found, that it can be developed in accordance with provincial law.

Now, before the Leader of the Opposition sat down -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: I will finish by concluding, Madam Chair.

He was going to get into Duck Pond, and I hope that he comes back and talks about it because he left an impression here that Duck Pond, somehow, was going to send out all of the raw material. The fact of the matter is this, that there is a significant development in Central Newfoundland in ore resources. Last fall they were calling us: What are you going to do about it? Now, as that project moves forward, we will work with the company to ensure that the maximum benefits come from that development as they should in every other. The time of no more giveaways, we were serious when we said it and we are serious today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I rise to speak to the Budget, but I do not want to talk exactly about the Budget tonight. I want to talk about a far more important issue that is happening in our Province that will certainly have a dramatic impact on our Budget if something is not done about it in the very short future.

Madam Chair, what I want to talk to the people of the Province tonight about is production quotas, and why I cannot agree with production quotas, and why I think most people in the Province don't agree with them.

What the Minister of Fisheries and the Premier are trying to do, basically, in production quotas, is they are trying to take roughly a hundred million pounds of crab and divide it up among thirty-eight processing facilities in the Province which, for the most part, are owned by fourteen individuals. Of those fourteen individuals there are four, I say to my colleagues - four, and four only - that basically control 50 per cent of the entire crab quota in the Province. So, what we are saying in essence is that four processors in this Province will control 50 million pounds of crab, which is a value of $200 million or more, because the thirteen processors who are going to get the entire crab quota divided up amongst them are sharing up a pot that is worth $500 million.

You might say, well, what impact might this have on people? What I will try and do in the next few minutes is explain why this is going to have a very negative impact on not only the harvesters but on the plant workers around this Province. Maybe the members opposite might gain from this why their constituents are angry and why they are protesting, because what we are saying to these thirteen processors is, never again will they have to compete on the head of a wharf for a pound of crab from a fish harvester in this Province.

Madam Chair, if you think about it, these thirteen processors, basically, are going to divide up $500 million. That is what the market value of the crab is in the Province. That is a lot of money for a very small number of people.

I will tell you, if you check the history of the Province, we have never had a crab plant go bankrupt, one that was operating. We have never had a crab plant go bankrupt. The number of licences have increased over the years, dramatically, but I also say that if you were to offer up a crab licence in this Province tonight you would have no trouble getting a taker.

Now, what will happen when these processors get their production quotas? Well, no longer, I say to the people of this Province, will you have competition among these processors because there will no longer be any need for competition because they will be guaranteed, under this great system, that they will get their crab regardless. If fishermen fish, they will get their crab. Unless these fishermen go to Nova Scotia, take it out of the Province, these processors can rest assured that they will get their portion regardless of what they pay the fishermen.

Now, I say to the hon. members opposite - and maybe some time before we close at 11:00 o'clock or 12:00 o'clock tonight you can get up and contradict me - I challenge any of them opposite to tell me that once there is no competition among processors that the price fishermen get today will remain at the price it is. There is no economist, there is no one in this country, who can tell me that if there is no competition the price to fishermen is going to increase, in those processors, because it is not.

The minister gets up and he talks about setting up this panel and he is going to force processors to open their books and show him how much profit they are making, and that he is going to ensure fishermen that they are going to get a fair price. I say to the minister: What a joke! What a joke! I mean, I have dealt with these people myself, I have dealt with many of these processors. They put this scatterbrain scheme on my table some four years ago and they did it two years in a row. I said no to it because I knew at that time it would destroy the fish harvesters in the Province and it would destroy many of the communities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador that had crab plants.

Mr. Chair, the reason I say what a sham this is, is that the minister says he is going to force these processors to open their books. I say to the minister and I say to the Premier, these are the same individuals that you and the Premier called the Competition Bureau of Canada in to investigate just three short years ago, because you basically said they were all a bunch of crooks. That is what you indicated. What you said was that they were colluding to limit the price, colluding to eliminate competition and to drive prices down for fishermen. What you are doing with this scheme is, not only will you drive competition down but you are legitimizing it and you are legalizing it. What impact will it have if there is no competition? Right off the bat, fishermen can rest assured that their prices will go down within the next few years. There is no doubt it. With no competition, prices have nowhere to go but down.

The other problem, Mr. Chair - and I think you see it today with the fishermen in the larger boats going off to Nova Scotia. The reason they are going is, they know that if this scheme comes into place the value of their enterprise - some of whom have invested over $1 million in their enterprise. If you watched television tonight, all those vessels that you saw leaving the harbour are worth roughly $1 million. With the gear and the technology on these vessels you are talking about in excess of $1 million. With production quotas, I say to the group opposite, the value of that enterprise will be reduced dramatically. In fact, I would say that some of them would have difficulty selling these enterprises in the future, because if there is no competition among processors then who wants to buy these enterprises? You will not see a processor out there anymore trying to buy up an enterprise. He will not have to, because these fishermen will be forced to sell to them whether they want to or not, I say to the members opposite. Right off the bat they are going to have lower prices for their catch, they are going to see their enterprise devaluate to practically nothing, and the next thing you are going to see is increased cost for fishermen.

The Member for Bonavista North says he has been involved in the fishing industry for the last fifty years and he knows all about it. I say to the member, if there is no competition on the head of the wharf why would a processor, then, go out and cut a deal with a fisherman, that he will lower his price on his ice, that he will lower his price on his bait, or that he will lower his price to truck it to the plant for him? I ask the member opposite: Why would any processor do that today, when he knows all he has to do is sit back in his condo, or fly over the Province in his helicopter, or take his fixed-wing aircraft and wait for those fishermen to arrive at their wharves, and they will tell them then what they are going to get? No longer will they get a deal on their ice, I say. No longer will they get a deal on their bait. That is what happens to these fishermen.

The small boat fishermen, the ones they claim they are the champions for: What is going to happen to a small boat fisherman, for example, in Too Good Arm, when, under this scheme, he arrives at the wharf in Too Good Arm two weeks from now with 600 or 700 pounds of crab, like he is apt to do at this time of year? He only has a quota of 12,000 or 13,000 pounds and on a normal day he brings in 600 or 700 pounds of crab. Normally, like happened every other year, there would be a truck or a buyer waiting on that wharf. In fact, many times there was more than one buyer saying: I want to buy your crab, I am going to give you a decent price for it, and I will truck it back to the plant for you. No longer will that happen when these processors own the crab in the water. What will happen to those fellows? Not only will they have to pay for their bait and pay for their ice, now they are going to have to pay for the trucking to take the crab from their boats to the nearest plant, which could be quite a distance, I say to the Member for Bonavista. That is what is going to happen to the fishermen, I say, Madam Chairman.

What is going to happen to plant workers, because again they say they are going to bring in stability for plant workers? Let me tell you what is going to happen to plant workers. As anyone knows who has gone near a fish plant in this Province, particularly a crab plant, when the crab season is on and open it is all or nothing. She is boom or bust. I say to the minister opposite, I say to the Minister of Fisheries, everyone knows that crab is coming in quick because that is the way fishermen want to do it. They want to get their crab ashore so they can get at the shrimp or before the bad weather sets in. As a result, most crab plants in this Province have two shifts. Most crab plants have two shifts in this Province. The reason they have them is because of the way fish is landed, the way crab is landed. When this system comes into place and production quotas are implemented, fishermen will be told when to fish and they will be told where to land. As a result, you will not need a second shift because the crab will not be coming in anymore in that fashion. Right off the bat we are going to see the elimination of at least 50 per cent of the crab plant workers in the Province. That is not trying to scaremonger; that is a fact. I think that anyone who has ever gone into a crab plant in this Province would know that is exactly what is going to happen. If the plant owner can tell the fishermen when to fish and when to land, there will no need of that second shift.

The other major thing that is going to happen is transferable quotas. That means that these thirteen processors who are going to divvy up 100 million pounds of crab, every one of these people will have a transferable quota. What that means is, one of these days when they want to sell their plant they will be selling their quota with it. As a result of that, once the crab quota leaves the community there is no point to have a plant because there never will be a production quota go back into the community.

Right now, under the licencing system, if there is a crab plant in one of your communities in your district, that crab plant will stay and the licence will -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: Just a minute to clue up, Madam Chair.

That crab plant stays; the licence stays there. An owner can sell the plant, but the licence stays there. If he does not want to operate it, somebody else will come in and take over that licence. What I say, Madam Chair, is, with transferable quotas, you can rest assured that you are going to see many more Harbour Bretons, many more Fortunes, because FPI had production quotas for the last thirty years in the Province. Look at what they did to their transferable production quotas, and look at what they are going to do if they get their way, if they get transferable production quotas for crab, because no longer will you see a plant in Bonavista and in Triton. You may see one, or may see neither of them.

Madam Chair, there are a lot of problems with this production quota system that the minister has not been quite up front with, with regard to telling the people of this Province some of the pitfalls in it. He talks about what it could do, and what it might do, but he never tells us what it will do. I tell you, Madam Chair, what you will see as a result of production quotas, you will see fishermen get less for their fish, they will get less for their enterprises when they sell them, you will see plants close, and you will definitely see plant workers sent home. As a result, you will see many communities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador go the way of communities like Harbour Breton and Fortune, while the crowd opposite sat and twiddled their thumbs.

Madam Chair, I thank you very much for the opportunity tonight.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I am pleased this evening to rise in this House and say a few words in the Budget debate.

Just like my hon. colleagues on this side of the House, I would like to say some positive things about the Budget. I could comment on some of the things that the Member for Twillingate & Fogo just said, but it is obvious that he did not know anything about the fishery when he was Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and he does not know anything more today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Madam Chair, in the fall of 2003, when we were campaigning in the general election, our party said that we would take immediate steps to control the budget, or control the deficit, and take initiatives to grow the economy. Madam Chair, I think we have done a very good job at that, indeed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: I believe, Madam Chair, that one of our greatest accomplishments so far, over these eighteen months, has been the fact that we have cut the deficit to $473 million from a budget target of $840 million, and we had cut the cash shortfall to $14 million from a budget target of $362 million. That, Madam Chair, is going to save this government millions of dollars in interest payments. These millions of dollars will be invested in cultural initiatives, as we have seen in our Budget. They will be invested in health care, in education, in economic development initiatives, and in infrastructure needs.

Madam Chair, a large portion of that money will go back to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I say, Madam Chair, to the Leader of the Opposition and to his caucus, that we will never apologize for reversing the consequences of their inadequate leadership in government during their fifteen years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Madam Chair, it is very easy for those people to stand on that side of the House and say this is not in the Budget or that is not in the Budget, but the things that they are talking about have been out there in this Province for the last fifteen years and I have never seen it included in any of their budgets at that time in our history. The difference, Madam Chair, in our government and the government that was led by those people, is that we are committed to planning for the long term.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Madam Chair, while it is going to take some time to do that, and while expectations are very high on the part of the people in the Province, our way will ensure meaningful long-term stability for Newfoundland and Labrador.

This year, Madam Chair, our government is going to spend an additional 5 per cent from what we had in last year's budget. This spending is being targeted to those areas which will give the greatest long-term economic benefits to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. A lot of these investments are going to be made in our infrastructure for the Province. Several of my colleagues mentioned earlier about the $30 million again this year that is going to be spent on our secondary roads in the Province. In addition to that $30 million in transportation, another $8.5 million is being spent on our Province's ferries and marine infrastructure, Madam Chair, another investment in Newfoundland and Labrador.

In terms of improvements to municipal infrastructure, the Province's share of $46.5 million will bring the total value of this year's capital works in municipal infrastructure up to $83 million. The Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund is expected to cost share infrastructure projects valued at $84 million over the next five years. It was only last week, Madam Chair, that I went to my District of Bonavista North and announced the approval of over $600,000 for a new water system for the people in Gander Bay South.

In addition, Madam Chair, another $4.25 million was announced only a week or so ago by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that we will be coming out now with a community enhancement program which will employ people when it will be in the most productive season of the year.

Madam Chair, let's take a look at our Natural Resources Department. Last week, our Minister of Natural Resources made emphasis about two or three initiatives that his department is taking, and I would like to mention another few tonight.

In addition to the $10.1 million in federal-provincial funding available under the Agricultural Policy Framework Agreement, this Province will invest another $4 million to commence new agricultural initiatives and expand existing programs. This includes $3.5 million for farmland consolidation and long-term development. Madam Chair, under this government, the agriculture industry will become one of the leading drivers in the history of this Province in terms of value added and in terms of diversifying the economy.

Agrifoods, Madam Chair, primary and secondary production is currently valued at over $500 million to the economy of this Province. That sector also employs over 6,000 people in this Province. Madam Chair, I believe that the agriculture industry is going to have a major impact on the future economic growth in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. This industry, Madam Chair, will generate more jobs, more investment, more diversification, and more revenue to aid our economic growth and help revitalize Newfoundland and Labrador.

Madam Chair, in addition to the agrifoods section of natural resources, $7.3 million is allocated for silviculture initiatives, the reforestation program, and research and development initiatives; $3.5 million will be spent on forest access road construction. Madam Chair, when we talk of silviculture, when we talk of reforestation and research and development, we are investing in the future of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Madam Chair, let's take a look at what we are doing to protect our natural resources. Last year, our government, out of concern for the state of our natural resources, particularly the Atlantic salmon, initiated an Inland Fisheries Enforcement Program. This had to be done as a result of the federal government's failure to carry out its responsibilities for enforcement and conservation of our inland waters. The success of this program relates to the number of violations. It is clear, Madam Chair, that this is a great indication that the money they spent in that initiative was well worthwhile.

When you consider the excellent job that the river guardians are doing under trying conditions and very limited resources, especially when we see the federal government is shirking its responsibilities in that area, it is even more reason why this government saw fit to put more money into that initiative again this year, and we are going to expand the inland fisheries program. This is being done to address the serious poaching problems that we have had in that industry over the past number of years. It is being done to protect this vital resource.

Last year, also, the Fisheries Enforcement Program, the Department of Natural Resources partnered with DFO, the HRDC office in Gander, the Gander River Management Association, and the Gander Bay Indian Band Council, in a compliance monitoring program on the Gander River. This partnership agreement allowed five local residents from my district to obtain employment on the Gander River as guardians under the federal Fisheries Act. This program proved to be very successful, and I want to commend Chief Calvin Francis of the Indian Band Council, and Mr. Jim Crewe with the Gander River Management Association, for their efforts in this great cause.

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Bonavista North that his speaking time has expired.

MR. HARDING: Okay, Mr. Chair.

I do have a few more things to say, but I guess I can leave it for another time.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would just like to take this opportunity to say a few words on the Supply Bill and, by implication, the Budget.

I spoke a little earlier today about some of the collection methods being undertaken by the Ministry of Finance in collecting school taxes, and the outrageous interest rates going back thirteen years that are being laid upon people, many of whom did not even know they owed the tax, to the point of some cases, for example, where an individual owed $300 in tax having to pay the tax plus $1,500 in interest, and having it taken from their income tax rebate without any opportunity to convince this government that they should forgive that outrageous interest rate in collecting the tax.

This is an example, Mr. Chairman, of how this government is carrying on a big pretense to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They are suggesting that they have to go all out to collect every cent that is owed by the people of this Province going back five, ten, fifteen years and more, plus interest at 1.5 per cent per month, compounded monthly, to the extent of about 60 per cent or 70 per cent interest at this point, Mr. Chairman, an outrageous amount of money. They do that on the one hand. They underestimate their revenues on the other hand by looking at oil as if it were going to be selling for $38 a barrel for all of this year, underestimated their revenues by $150 million to $200 million. Last year, they told us that we were in such dire straits that they had to have a two year wage motorium forced on the public servants through legislation because we were in such dire straits. We were in such dire straits, Mr Chairman, that we were going to have a $362 million cash deficit. Well, guess what, Mr. Chairman? After the year was up, we did not have a $362 million cash deficit. In fact, we had a cash surplus of $103 million. So, what did this government do? They decided to hide that. They paid down $117 million of debt the day before the end of the fiscal year, to make it look like we actually had a $14 million deficit.

Now, what they paid down was irrelevant. They could have paid down student loans. They happened to pay down the mortgage debt on The Rooms. We have lots of debt to pay down; they just chose that particular one. In fact, there is about $6.6 billion worth of provincial direct debt, not the $12 billion that we hear people talk about. There is about $6.6 billion worth of direct debt, in fact, which is less as a percentage of revenue than it was ten years ago.

In fact, what they are doing, they are doing their very best to convince the people of this Province that we cannot afford to ease some of their burden, that we cannot afford to ease the burden of parents who have to send children to school, who cannot afford books, who cannot afford to pay the school fees, and we have school boards chasing them down for a few dollars, sending collection agencies after them, and having other parents know their business and phone them looking for school fees. We cannot afford to ease their burden because we are in such great debt. Well, Mr. Chairman, the debt is not being addressed.

We hear the government talk about the pension liability as if everybody receiving a pension from the government is somehow responsible for all this debt. Well, Mr. Chairman, no differentiation is made between the Public Service Pension Plan, which is well on its way to being looked after, and the Teachers' Pension Fund, which has not been addressed by this government. In fact, we have not heard boo from the Minister of Finance as to what he intends to do about this unfunded pension liability. This is why I can say, Mr. Chairman, it is all being done to fool people. We do not hear them say we have a problem with unfunded pension liability in the Teachers' Pension Plan and here is what we are going to do about it. I have not heard a word about that. All we hear is a general statement: Oh, we are up to our ears in debt. We have unfunded pension liabilities.

This is just used as an excuse, an excuse for government to deny people who are in desperate straits in this Province an opportunity to see a better life.

We need an increase, Mr. Chairman, in basic social assistance rates. That is something we have not seen in a long while. There was a real opportunity in this past Budget to do something significant about the lives of children in this Province, that would make a real difference. We are all happy to see attention paid to Newfoundland culture. We all love Newfoundland culture. We all think it is terrific, the level of talent that we see in this Province. We think that school children should get exposed to more of that. We do not have a problem with that, but what I have a problem with is the fact that this Province has the highest rate of childhood obesity in the country, that we do not have a proper physical education and nutrition program in our schools, that only 15 per cent of the school children in this Province have access to a school meal program. That is something that can be done for a very modest amount of money - money that is available, because it is within the physical capacity of this Province to do that.

Pay equity is another item that this government keeps saying it cannot afford to address, equality for women in the public sector, an obligation that the government of Premier Peckford took on, the predecessors of those members opposite, the ones that they supported. I know the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment supported Mr. Peckford. She was a Tory since she was born, she told people a few weeks ago, so she supported Peckford, and no doubt she supported the agreement that was made by Brain Peckford in 1988 to guarantee pay equity in the public sector. Why isn't she and her government following that agreement and paying and making the pay equity payment to the women of the public service in Newfoundland and Labrador? They can afford to do it. The money is there, because it is hidden in the fact that they are lowballing the revenues for the future and they are trying to convince people that there is not money there to do it.

Mr. Chair, we have a serious amount of problems in our Province that relate to the ability of people to buy drugs. I am not talking, obviously, about the significant problem we have with OxyContin and other drugs of abuse. I am talking about drugs that people need to keep healthy and to be able to maintain a lifestyle that does not involve them in racks of pain or not being able to live a sensible life. We have not seen a significant approach. We have seen a few more drugs added to the formulary, but what does that do? That makes drugs available to a small segment of our population. They are expensive, there is no question about it. We deal with senior citizens and we deal with people who are on income support, but there is a big gap in the middle, Mr. Chair, very similar to the gap that exists in the United States for Medicare. We keep talking about what a great Medicare system we have in Canada because everybody is covered. Well, Mr. Chair, in the United States there are about 40 million people or more who have no access to health care because they do not have a work-related drug plan and they are not on what they call Medicare which is for people who are on such low income that they get access to free public services. There is a big gap in the United States with people have no health insurance.

Mr. Chairman, we have the same problem with drugs in Newfoundland and Labrador today. There are people on social assistance who have access to a drug program, there are people who are senior citizens who get a drug card if they meet financial requirements, and there are people who are employees, who are part of an employee plan, whether it is the Blue Cross with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador or whether it is an employee plan that is paid for in part by employees and part by employers, they have access to a drug plan, but then there is a gap. I see that members opposite are listening. There is a gap. There is a whole category, a group of people in our Province, who do not have access to a drug plan. They do not have access to a drug plan, and, as a result, when they get drug costs because of illness they have to pay out of their own pocket, and the public plan does not help them until they have come to the point of impoverishment and qualify for social assistance.

Mr. Chairman, that is something that really has to be addressed. I do not hear hon. members talk about it, and I know some of them are listening very carefully right now, but it is a very serious social gap. Anybody who does not have a drug plan at work and is not on social assistance or is not a senior citizen who has a drug card, is hit by high drug costs. They have to pay the full drug cost.

I went to the drug store the other day - I have a medication for arthritis - and I got a prescription and the prescription had two prices on it. It said $160 was the cost of the prescription, the patient pays $6.49. Well, I am very lucky, Mr. Chairman, that I had to pay, because I have a drug plan, $6.49. If I did not have a drug plan, I would have to pay $161 for these drugs that I need to stop me from having pain. It is not a one-month prescription, it lasts for two or three months, but nevertheless, it will give you an idea of the kind of costs that people have to incur if they do not have a drug plan. Something could and should be done about that through the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We should start our own plan that is contributory that people can participate in, that there is support from the government for this, that people have access to, whether it started off with a catastrophic drug plan or something of that nature, but a start must be made. We must start ourselves and convince the Government of Canada to participate in such a plan. It should be on the agenda.

I do not think the Province can solve all of the problems at once, as previous speakers have said. Nobody is expecting all problems to be solved at once, but when we have such an obvious need and problem in our society, then we should be having it on the agenda. Members opposite should be talking about it. They should be saying that we are trying to find ways of solving it. They should be talking about what they are doing to convince Ottawa to participate in it. They could be floating models and asking people's opinion on them. They should be taking action, Mr. Chairman, because we do have a serious problem in our society. Even such simple things - by leave, Mr. Chairman, just to finish this one point?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

CHAIR: The hon. member, by leave.

MR. HARRIS: If we just take one example, Mr. Chairman, Alzheimer's drugs: There are a couple of drugs that have either been on the formularies of every province in Canada except Newfoundland and Labrador. For some reason, the last Budget refused to include Aricept and one other drug for Alzheimer's patients. Why, Mr. Chairman? I do not know. Maybe it was because, before the last election the previous government put them on the formulary, and the government decided to take them off and did not want to put them back. I do not know what it was, but I know there are an awful lot of people who are suffering from Alzheimer's and are very disturbed by that decision. The Alzheimer's Society, which has been advocating for them, is very disturbed by that as well.

There are many things that could have been done, not because they are on somebody's shopping list but because they should be done, they need to be done. The fact that they were not done is not because they have been busy doing other things, it is because they are trying to convince people that they cannot afford to do things that are necessary to make people's lives better.

I see my time is up and I thank members opposite, and all members, for giving me a few extra seconds to clue up my remarks. I hope, if we do go on longer, I might have another opportunity to speak on this very important subject, about the finances of Newfoundland and Labrador and the needs of the people of the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am delighted to be able to speak again tonight on this issue. Today, I tried to speak but I was interrupted, I think, five times in a matter of ten minutes; points of order. Needless to say, they were not points of order, they were just interruptions.

Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about the health care system in our Province. Prior to the Budget and prior to the health care accord, which was given by the federal government in an agreement with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, one of the concerns by the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador was waiting times. Our government heard that and acted upon it. Mr. Chairman, we are not going to cure everything overnight, but we have taken the first giant step forward, I believe.

One of the things that people were complaining about, and legitimately so, was the waiting time that they would have when looking for diagnostic treatment in different centres in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Chairman, we have done that. We have listened to it. The Eastern health board, and all the other health boards in the Province, the Western, the Central, diagnostic equipment will be added to their inventory. With that addition to their inventory, that will significantly reduce the waiting time of people. Basically, MRI, mammography, ultrasound, nuclear medicine gamma cameras, all of these will be reduced significantly. For example, there will be 2,500 exams more with the MRI machine; with the two CT scanners there will be 4,000 more exams done; three nuclear medicine gamma cameras, 1,000 exams; the ultrasound, 2,600; and the list goes on and on and on and on. With each one of those, every time we do more exams in these areas, that will, then, be correspondently reducing the waiting times in those areas. This is, to me, a major step forward. This will help a lot of people who need this for diagnostic purposes, to check and see if they have the disease or has the disease spread. That is very, very important. People are very concerned once the doctor says, I am going to send you for a diagnostic treatment. That is what they need.

Mr. Chairman, when we look at the last Budget, we were criticized by the Opposition saying: What about the cancer treatment centre in Grand Falls-Windsor? I mentioned that this morning, but there will be people tonight who did not have a chance to tune in this afternoon when I was speaking, but who are probably out there now looking at it as we speak. In Grand Falls, we put a hold on the cancer treatment clinic -

AN HON. MEMBER: Grand Falls-Windsor.

MR. DENINE: Grand Falls-Windsor. Thank you. I should have known that, being the municipal leader.

Mr. Chair, just to give you an idea how caucus works: The Member for Windsor-Springdale, as far back as I can remember, has brought that issue to the caucus table time and time and time again. Now, the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans will get up, during Question Period, and elaborate on why it should be there. Mr. Chair, the member in the government here worked with caucus, worked with the Minister of Health, and the result was this: Rather than spending $4 or $5 million on one facility in Grand Falls-Windsor - they are needed, no question about it - now we have two which are operating, one in Grand Falls-Windsor and one in Gander, for a significant amount of less money than would have been spent at one operation in Grand Falls-Windsor. Each one of them are very happy with that decision. That is having vision and that is spending money wisely.

The Member for Springdale-Windsor can take all the credit for this happening. He is the one who brought this to the table, no one else, no one in this House, only the member there. He deserves all the credit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: He took a lot of pressure, basically, from his district, but no, he stuck to his guns, because he knew the right avenue which he needed to follow and he followed it to a true success. The people of that area, not only in Grand Falls-Windsor but also in Gander, will benefit from the cancer treatment facilities in both places; not in one, in both places. Think about the advantages to Central Newfoundland, which can avail of those two facilities. Tremendous, good insight, and good decision making, I call that, Mr. Chair.

The other one, Mr. Chair, I wish to talk about is the twenty-five new drugs added. The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi mentioned about certain drugs not being included, and understandably so, but we added twenty-five new drugs to the list this year. We would like to have more, obviously, but twenty-five is a significant step.

When you are looking at moving forward, Mr. Chair, we have done that. Have we done all that we can do? The answer to that is no. Mr. Chairman, I caution you, wait until next year's budget and the budget after that and we will show you where we are going in health care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Mr. Chairman, I want to move to the municipal area which I am fairly familiar with, having been the Mayor of Mount Pearl for a number of years and being on council there.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs announced three programs: the Multi-Year Program which is 50-50 three years, $85 million; the Municipal Capital Works, $25 million; and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Infrastructure Program, $30 million. That is $140 million of infrastructure that will be put into municipalities of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador over three years, and those programs are announced as we are speaking. A significant number are already announced, and municipalities now are in the process of getting their tenders ready and getting things ready for the construction season.

Mr. Chairman, I want to just say to the people here in the House and to the people who are listening, we, as a government, have only been through one construction period that Newfoundland and Labrador could take advantage of, and that was last year. This year, Mr. Chair, by the announcement of these three programs, that will allow municipalities to make plans, to set their priorities and make plans for their future. It will help those municipalities in those two ways, but, Mr. Chairman, it will also help the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador significantly. A lot of our people who work in the construction industry are seasonal workers and it is very important that this work be done on a timely basis. Based on the fact that we announced these programs in a timely fashion, again it will allow the workers to start work in the construction season which we know in Newfoundland and Labrador is very short and we need to get the work done. That is very important. That money then flows directly into the economy, not only in urban areas but in all parts of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is significant, Mr. Chairman, that is very significant.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to talk about tourism, culture and recreation. I mentioned today that there are twenty-three jobs that will be designated to the music industry in the schools. That is significant. As a teacher, I can remember one of the first programs that was cut was the music program. We took care of that. We made sure that would be saved and twenty-three teachers who are in the system will be saved. Twenty-three people in the music department will be saved. That will be saved.

Also on that, Mr. Chairman, the fifty teachers who will be retained will help to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio in the primary, and that will be one to twenty-five. That is a commitment that we made in the Blue Book and we are following through on it. We are now up to Grade I, and, Mr. Chairman, before we finish this term we will be up to Grade III. That will certainly enhance and enrich the education of our young people which is so very important. It is important to get a good start in education so that the rest of the education will be a little bit easier on the people.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl that his time is lapsed.

MR. DENINE: Just one minute to rap up?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. GRIMES: Thirty seconds.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. DENINE: Thirty seconds. Thank you to the Leader of the Opposition, I appreciate that.

I also want to mention the amount of money put into culture. Mr. Chairman, we talk about the culture of Newfoundland and Labrador, and without a doubt - I have been in the Bell Centre in Montreal, the Air Canada Centre in Toronto, and when Great Big Sea comes on, the music comes on, everyone starts to clap. Everyone appreciates the skills, not only in Great Big Sea but all the other artists who are in Newfoundland and Labrador. The film industry is going to benefit from this, our culture and our tourism.

Mr. Chair, we may not have included everything that everyone wanted in the Budget, but we have taken a giant step forward, and that step is a giant step forward not backwards as was done in the past.

Mr. Chairman, I say, stay tuned, because the next Budget is going to get better and the Budget after that is going to be better again.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the opportunity to make a few additional comments with respect to this Budget Debate that we are concluding here this evening.

Just to mention a couple of things that the former speaker, the Member for Mount Pearl, mentioned. I join with him, by the way, in giving some credit to the Member for Windsor-Springdale. I would not say that he is the only person who deserves credit, there are a lot of people in Central Newfoundland who deserve a lot of credit. The issue, though, is this: The reason the Member for Windsor-Springdale deserves a lot of credit is because he did stand up to the Premier. The Premier of the Province, on Budget Day, when he was asked about it said: I did not know about it. It is important to recall that. Words are very important. The Premier of our Province said: I did not know about the cancer clinic in Central Newfoundland in the Grand Falls hospital. The Member for Windsor-Springdale, to his credit, went on the Open Line that night and said on the public airwaves: The Premier had to know about it because I told him and I forwarded over a 100 e-mails and letters to him. He said: I cannot believe that the Premier did not know about it. Now, the Premier, remember, had said - I was outside watching the actual scrum where he said it - I did not know about the cancer treatment clinic in Grand Falls, or he would have done something about it. The member, to his credit, went on the airwaves and said: The Premier must have made a mistake, he had to know about it.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that words are important. What the Premier did say was he did not know how bad the conditions were. It is not that he said he did not know anything about the cancer clinic in Grand Falls. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, once he became aware, the Member for Windsor-Springdale, what happened? The situation was corrected.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Opposition Leader.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Words are important and the truth does win out. The Government House Leader must have just had a little lapse in terms of history, because the first day the Premier said, I did not know about it, the Member for Windsor-Springdale went on the night line and said: He must know about it. It was the second day, I will say to the Government House Leader, to remind him - and by the way, this is on tape. You cannot create something different than this. This is on tape, video and audio tape, where it was the second day that the Premier said: I did not know how bad it was. The first day there was no qualification. It was: I did not even know about it. You cannot expect me, as the Premier of the Province, to know about everything, he said. I can tell you, the member does deserve credit for standing up. It was wonder, I suppose, he was not flicked over across the House like some other members who have stood up for their constituents since. It is a matter of doing that.

In the Budget, too, it is about priorities, and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi was addressing this earlier this evening. Talk about priorities, the Member for the Bonavista North talked about some additional funding for inland waters and protecting salmon stock and trout, and so on, in inland rivers. A good initiative by the way. By the way, the provincial government - the members are nodding it is a good initiative. I agree, but it is a federal responsibility. It is supposed to be paid for by the Government of Canada. What we are doing is letting the Government of Canada off the hook for its responsibility and paying for it ourselves. That is how much of a priority it is for the provincial government. The reason I say that is, compare it to Labrador where they asked for additional social workers and child protection officers in the native communities in Labrador, and what was the answer from the minister responsible? The answer was, no, we cannot do that because that is a federal responsibility.

You see the priorities? Protecting salmon and fish is a priority, so much so that they will even pay for what the federal government is supposed to do, this government will, but protecting children, which is also a federal responsibility, they will not do that. The excuse they give is because it is a federal responsibility. Fish and trout are more important than children, and that is very telling in terms of the priorities of the government. There are lots of those things in the Budget.

I was mentioning earlier, Mr. Chairman, about the language. As a matter of fact, I gave the government too much credit on one issue. Talking about words being important, in the Budget they said capital investments are to grow. I said 3.9 per cent, but actually capital investments are to grow by 1.9 per cent, said the Minister of Finance with great glee. What he did not point out was that last year capital investments grew by 13.8 per cent. If he was being honest with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador - he was on the airwaves this evening talking about how he always tells the truth, his integrity is unquestionable, he would not misled anybody ever. What did he do? He talked about capital investments growing by 1.9 per cent when actually they were declining by 11.9 per cent. Last year it was 13.8 per cent, this year it is 1.9 per cent. He did not say anything incorrect, but he just chose to use certain words to make people believe, oh, that the economy is rolling right along. It just slowed down by twelve percentage points. Did he bother to tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that? No, but we have to believe that he has this great integrity, you should never question a word that he says. If anyone says anything about him, they are wrong, not him. He was on the news tonight protesting too much, as I see it. Reminded me of Richard Nixon saying: I am not a crook. You know, the fellow who says, I am not a crook, you better check your wallet after he leaves you, shortly afterwards.

Listen to the other one, though, the biggest misrepresentation in this Budget: The Minister of Finance again talked about the fact that we have a cash shortfall of $14 million. Everybody in this House and most people in the Province now know what happens. We had a cash surplus of $103 million. We have to believe every word that this Finance Minister says because he goes around and brags about his integrity. By the way, my parents told me a long time ago, if your integrity is that good you will not have to talk about it yourself. You will not have to go about bragging about your own integrity, people will either know you have it or you do not. The people who have to go around saying, trust me now, I have all this integrity, you better watch out for them too.

Here is what the editorial comment said on the West Coast in The Georgian about the fake deficit. Listen to these few comments: The new Budget is a dishonest, misleading, bad choice financial plan. What you have is this: The Finance Minister must have gone to the school where the first rule they teach of budget-making school must be: Don't dare show them the money. Don't tell them how much money you have. Pretend you don't have any.

He uses a comment here, saying: Well, you have to pretend you don't have any because if you let them know you have some, the people might actually want it. They might want to see you spending it on things like Alzheimer's drugs. They might want you to spend it on protecting those children in the communities in Labrador where the government said: No, that is a federal responsibility - even though they would protect the fish, which was also a federal responsibility, a bigger priority. It basically says in this article: The Province's Finance Minister must have gotten an A in the course that said: Make it look like your government is poorer than it really is.

You did not fool this editorial writer, I will say to the government. Nobody fooled this editorial writer. This is all over the West Coast where they saw the great big hero, the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, charge into Stephenville and save the day, and then the same minister would not dare go to Port aux Basques -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: - where there were 1,000 people, many of her own constituents. Since that brave moment she has been shoved back in the little cage, back into a little box, and has not dared say another word about anything: status of women, labour, human resources, or anything else. She has gone strangely silent since that great brave day and evening in Stephenville. She certainly was not nearly as brave in front of 1,000 people in Port aux Basques where nobody from the government showed up. Not a soul asked the question why she could not attend. The Acting Minister of Health, all of a sudden, gave an answer why he could not attend. The real thing was, of course, nobody showed up because they did not want to repeat the commitment that was blurted out in the House that still has not been officially given by the government with respect to an announcement from the department.

One other thing, for the Member for Gander, The Gander Beacon - I do not think they got fooled there either - an editorial comment, here is the statement about the Budget. The budget, it says, is an odd budget, to be sure. Now, that is faint praise at best: an odd budget, to be sure. The Conservatives work hard to hide the money so they do not have to spend it - hide the money. Take a $103 million surplus and create a $14 million deficit so you can stand up and say to people that we cannot afford to waste one precious penny.

Talking about potentially wasting one precious penny, $300,000 of advertising on the Atlantic Accord, that 150 per cent of the people of the Province already supported, what were they advertising for? Who were they trying to get a message out to? It did not even go to tender. They broke their own rules and did not even go to tender. Another item that the Minister of Finance - the great man of integrity himself, the Minister of Finance, paid off some debt for The Rooms, paid off some debt for some schools, and left some debt on the books, by the way, that is at a higher interest rate, the highest interest rate in the debt owing of the Province, at eleven and seven-eights per cent.

The Minister of Finance and the government - most of them do not even know this, by the way - paid off debt that was only at 6 per cent. I do not think anybody in their day-to-day lives would do that. If they owed two different loans at the bank, and one of them carried an interest rate of almost 12 per cent and one carried an interest rate of 6 per cent, why did they choose to pay off the one that was at 6 per cent?

Even the great businessman from Gander himself would know that. In his own business, if he had a line of credit in his business at 12 per cent and another one at 6 per cent, and he had some extra and he could pay it off, I am sure he would figure out that he should pay off the one at 12 per cent because he was going to be better off. In this case, the people of the Province would be better off. They would save some money on the interest. Why did they choose to save only half the money? We are supposed to believe that we have someone in charge who knows what they are doing and making great, wonderful decisions for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Let's talk about the misrepresentations again, Mr. Chairman: $6.2 million for Student Investment and Opportunity Corporation. A few members pounded on the desk and applauded that. What the Minister of Finance, the man of great integrity, did not tell the people of the Province is that the year before it was $9 million. He did not read a statement saying they just cut the program by $3 million. He just conveniently left that out. Then he wants to stand up and say: You have to believe every word I say. I am telling you the truth. I am a man of integrity.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that his time has elapsed.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity again.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk about credibility for a moment, because it is an important concept for those who have it and those who do not.

The statements made by the Leader of the Opposition - earlier tonight I talked about, before this session is over, everyone he will personally go after or attack. Let's talk about the notions that he just talked about with respect to my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment and the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women. Do you know what he is really upset about?

AN HON. MEMBER: What is that?

MR. E. BYRNE: What he is really upset about is this: Health care boards implement government policy. Government made a decision with respect to the Hay report in Stephenville. As a result of decisions that we made, people in the area are better off. The night that the rally was supposed to occur, when the Leader of the New Democratic Party was going out, he was also scheduled to speak. Do you know why he did not show up? Because there was too much good news. He did not have the opportunity to beat up on government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: That is what happened. I could see him that night at the rally talking about food being delivered to Stephenville from Corner Brook. I could hear him talk about picking up for the plight of women; but, no, government decided to take a different course of action. Why leave anxiety in a community when we knew that there was no need to leave anxiety hanging in that community?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: We made a decision that unfortunately interrupted the political plans of the Leader of the Opposition.

I can tell you this, Mr. Chair, had we not made that decision, the Leader of the Opposition would have been the first person up asking questions, and asking the minister and government involved to change our minds on the Hay report and do not implement those decisions.

The fact of the matter is, we were a little bit more progressive than that. We decided up front that those were absolutely ridiculous notions to impose upon the people in the area. We made the right decision, and that is what has upset him - nothing more, nothing less.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, you want to talk about credibility. Just imagine, to stand up in the Legislature, before the people of the Province, and say that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador thinks more about fish and trout than they do about children.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Just think about this. Let's just think about this. Just analyze the statement made by the alternative Premier, who supposedly heads in our Legislature the alternative government. Just think about that, when he knows the difference.

This year, for example - I will just go through a couple of initiatives - $250,000 invested in children and poverty, to ensure social inclusion in recreation programs, et cetera. Two hundred and fifty thousand dollars.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Two hundred and fifty thousand dollars invested in the Kids Eat Smart program; $500,000 invested for Innu children; Victim Services, a very important point that they failed, as a government, that would prepare children who are either victims or going to court, to prepare those children for those sorts of environments that they find themselves in, that they failed to introduce but this government did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, if that is the sign of a government that considers trout and fish more important than children, then I take exception to that remark. Every member on this side takes exception to that remark, but it really speaks to the lack of credibility of the Leader of the Opposition. That is what it really speaks to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, let's talk about inland fish. Let's talk about inland fish. The Opposition, when they were in government for fifteen years, ignored the problem, and what happened? Every poaching person or group in this Province who wants to engage in poaching, or did engage in poaching, knew that they had a backyard where there were no officers and no one involved. What happened? What happened? It became proliferated. It expanded. People were selling poached animals from this Province, and products from poached animals, on eBay. Nothing done, with the exception to say that is a federal government responsibility. That has nothing to do with us. Yet, the economies in rural Newfoundland and Labrador that depend upon this very important industry, all of our wildlife, were going down the drain. It did not have any forward-looking view in terms of protecting the resource on a sustainable basis forever and a day. We make no apologies for investing in that program, none whatsoever. None whatsoever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Being in government is about trying to achieve some balance, balance in everything that people come to depend upon. Don't you think, in developing the economy and our wildlife resources, and protecting them on a sustainable basis, has something to do with creating jobs and growth in rural parts of the Province; and, at the same time, in creating jobs and economic growth, may provide for children not to be in poverty?

We think a lot longer, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, and a lot longer view beyond the tip of our nose and our own political interest.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: What is wrong? All you have to do is look at last year the initiative led by the Premier in terms of the inland fisheries program, if you want to look at that, $360,000, over 186 arrests, over 186 charges, this year an expanded program, planned properly, expanded. What is the message that people are getting out there today? That if you are going to embark upon poaching in this Province in an organized way, you can be sure that you will be met by those in an organized way who will put your organized poaching out of business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: What is wrong with that? There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Should the federal government be involved? Yes, they should, but we are not going to shirk from our responsibilities to see a resource go down the drain, like so many others, simply because we say it is your responsibility.

The fact of the matter is this: Government, and we as a government, were elected to protect the interests of the people of the Province, and why should we shirk our responsibilities in doing so? To say, with any measure of credibility, or to believe the spin and such a yarn that you are purporting just to put out there, to think that anybody, a sound thinking sober human being, would believe that a government thinks more about trout and fish than children is absurd in the extreme, I say to my colleagues.

The Leader of the Opposition wants to - I understand he has a constitutional obligation in this House to challenge government. I sat in the chair that he sat in for almost four years, and we did our best in terms of holding their feet to the fire, keeping them here, did what we could to ensure that, tried to offer some policy alternatives; but, you know, in all of the Budget debate, I ask anybody, anybody who has watched the program, who has seen the House of Assembly, can somebody please tell me one alternative that has been put forward by the alternative Premier and the alternative government? Not one. No one has said, on that side of the House: We would not do that but here is what we would do.

No one has said that. It is the politics of personality. That is all that he is concerned about. People, in my view, see through it. People see that approach for what it is, and I am glad that I do not adopt that approach. I am glad that when we were in Opposition we did not adopt that approach, because largely I believe, from my own point of view, the reason we did not adopt that approach, I think, is partially the result of us being here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: You want to talk about Budget initiatives. He talked about paying off The Rooms Corporation, and talked about the Minister of Finance.

The Minister of Finance is more capable and more apt than I am, obviously, I think, in terms of speaking to the finances of the Province, but when you hear the Leader of the Opposition stand up and condemn government for paying off The Rooms Corporation, I have a couple of questions to ask.

MR. SULLIVAN: Talking about an eleven and seven-eighth per cent.

MR. E. BYRNE: Talking about an eleven and seven-eighth per cent, that is correct.

MR. SULLIVAN: Nothing coming due.

MR. E. BYRNE: Nothing coming due in terms of - absolutely erroneous, false information. Is there any wonder, based on what he said tonight, that when he was Premier we were close to $1 billion in debt and projected budgets for over $1 billion? Is there any wonder, I say to the Leader of the Opposition?

Now, this is the same member who, when he was the Minister of Tourism - he wants to talk about not wasting any money. This is the same member who was Minister of Tourism, who fired a whole bunch of people inadvertently, without notice, from the John Cabot Corporation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Got sued and lost.

MR. E. BYRNE: The government got sued over it and lost, and what did we have to pay? How much did we have to pay out for wrongful dismissal suits when he was the Minister of Tourism? How much? When you talk about the Leader of the Opposition, when you mention anything about the past, up taking on my colleague the Minister of Fisheries, trying to impugn motives on him as if he knows John Risley and we are doing everything for John Risley, when the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has hardly ever met him -

MR. GRIMES: So is the Premier.

MR. E. BYRNE: The Leader of the Opposition says: So is the Premier. Well, I can guarantee the Leader of the Opposition this, Mr. Chair - let's ask the Leader of the Opposition the contributions that John Risley made to his leadership campaign? Lets ask him that. Lets ask the Leader of the Opposition what was the return on the investment made by Mr. Risley on that member over there?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: I would say one of the few times in his life he had a loss.

MR. E. BYRNE: Exactly. One of the few times, probably, Mr. Risley ever had a loss on his investment, I would say to people opposite. No question about it, one of the few times he has ever had a loss - significant investment.

My colleague said to him the other day: Is that the same Mr. Risley who made a significant contribution? I do not want to talk about the past, we are talking about the future. I guess you did not want to talk about the past. That is the politics of personality that he is driving, it is not the politics of good public policy. That is the difference. That is why you are there and that is why we are here, I say to the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: That is why you will always be there and that is why we will be here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: That I say to the Leader of the Opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Never be over here again.

MR. E. BYRNE: Absolutely not.

You want to talk about initiatives?

MR. GRIMES: You won't be over there (inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: I will be over here longer than you were here, I say to the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: You want to talk about initiatives. We did not hear anybody talk about the initiatives that were put forth with respect to the Department of Natural Resources on the energy front. No one wanted to talk about that. You do not want to talk about reforming or having a sound look at, from an assessment and an analysis point of view, trying to leverage a better way for the Province to take a better grub stake in an emerging oil and gas industry and providing the funding into the Budget line items, into the department to do exactly that. No, they do not want to talk about that, no, because that may have long-term future benefits for everyone in the Province.

They do not want to talk about, for example, the money that we put into the Budget to deal with the upcoming negotiations on Hebron Ben Nevis. The Premier said: Look, if we are going to negotiate with the oil companies, we are going to do it on an equal footing. They do not want to talk about that. He does not want to talk about a long-term energy plan, that we are about to release, does not want to talk about how we take better advantage of natural gas, how we take better advantage of oil and gas, how we take advantage of potential wind energy. Let me tell you, they don't want to hear anything about long-term planning. That is the difference, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, between your side of the House and your approach and our approach. It is about good public policy. It is about getting the information you need, about getting the assessments done that should be done, and then, when you make a decision, it is based upon the best evidence and available information that you have, and it is done so with the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in mind.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: That is the difference between the Leader of the Opposition's approach and ours; no question about it.

Mr. Chairman, no one wants to talk about - we did not hear the Leader of the Opposition talk about -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the Government House Leader that his time has expired.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave, to clue up?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: Finally, Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure to have participated in the Budget Debate. I believe we have hit the seventy-five hour mark now. It is a pleasure to stand with this government with the Budget that we have brought forward, the funding of the initiatives that were put forward, the turnaround that has occurred in our fiscal situation due to the leadership of the Premier of the Province, the turnaround that has occurred in our credit rating, and the turnaround, most importantly, in the optimism that Newfoundland and Labrador has of themselves on a go-forward basis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I say to the hon. member, that the seventy-five hours that was reserved for the Budget Debate has now expired.

CLERK: The resolution for main supply.

That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2006 the sum of $2,530,497,000.

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The resolution is carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 4.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 4 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Clauses 1 to 4 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 to 4, carried.

CLERK: The schedule.

CHAIR: Shall the schedule carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The schedule is carried.

On motion, schedule carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: Whereas it appears that the sums mentioned are required to defray certain expenses of the public service of Newfoundland and Labrador for the financial year ending March 31, 2006 and for other purposes relating to the public service.

CHAIR: Shall the preamble carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The preamble is carried.

On motion, preamble carried.

CLERK: An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To the Public Service.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Bill 4, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

Shall I report Bill 4 carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Bill 4 is carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Division.

Call in the members.

CHAIR: Is the House ready for the count?

All those in favour of Bill 4, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Williams, Mr. Edward Byrne, Mr. Rideout, Ms Dunderdale, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Shelley, Ms Sheila Osborne, Mr. O'Brien, Ms Burke, Mr. Tom Osborne, Ms Whalen, Mr. Jim Hodder, Mr. Hickey, Mr. Denine, Mr. French, Mr. Harding, Mr. Young, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Jackman, Ms Johnson, Mr. Ridgley, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Oram, Ms Elizabeth Marshall.

CHAIR: Those against, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Grimes, Mr. Parsons, Ms Jones, Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Harris.

Mr. Chair, 27 ayes and 5 nays.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair reports Bill 4 passed without amendment.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: I move the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again - sorry, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chair, I believe that we move that $3,976,507,500 be now voted upon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

The Leader of the Opposition just offered to help me out. I think I am going to decline his offer.

Mr. Chair, I move that the total contained in the estimates, in the amount of, again, $3,976,507,500, for the 2005-2006 fiscal year be carried. I further move that the Committee report that the Committee has adopted a resolution and a bill consequent thereto, and that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: The motion is the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have passed the amount of $3,976,507,500 contained in the Estimates of Supply for the 2005-2006 fiscal year, and have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to same.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall this report be received?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report the Committee have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to same.

It is moved and seconded that this resolution be now read a first time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for deferring certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2006 the sum of $2,530,497,000."

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this resolution be now read a second time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

CLERK: The second reading of the resolution.

On motion, report received and adopted, resolution read a first and second time, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

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

I move that the main Supply Bill, Bill 4, be introduced and read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 4)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce this bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," carried. (Bill 4)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 4)

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

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

I move that the main Supply Bill, Bill 4, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said Bill 4 be now read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 4)

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

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

I move that the main Supply Bill, Bill 4, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill, Bill 4, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 4)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that this bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2006 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 4)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Before we rise the House, now that the Budget has been passed, tomorrow we will begin on the legislative component of our agenda.

With that, Mr. Speaker, at 11:05 p.m., I do now move that the House adjourn until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that this House do now adjourn until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow, Tuesday, May 10, 2005.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, May 10, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

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