May 31, 2007 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 22


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon I would like to welcome, in the Speaker's gallery, Mayor Jerry Dean from the Town of Botwood.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon, as well, I want to recognize one of our Pages, Kara Warr, who has been with us now for several years. This is her last day with us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: I do understand, in the next short while, that wedding bells will ring for her.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We want to wish her well and thank her for her time in the House.

Thank you very much, Kara.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for the District of Placentia & St. Mary's; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Buchans; the hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland; the hon. the Member for the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace; the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's North; and, the hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to compliment the three Royal Canadian Army Cadet Corps in my district: 2558 Placentia, 2895 Enright Memorial, and 2863 Dunne Memorial.

During the past month, I had the opportunity to attend ceremonial reviews of these three Corps and was most impressed with their performances. The drills, bands, public speaking and fitness exhibitions won very positive reviews from their inspecting officers.

In 2895 Enright Memorial, under Commanding Officer Lieutenant Heather Hanlon, Master Warrant Officer Janice Dalton received the Royal Canadian Legion Medal of Excellence, Master Warrant Officer Jennifer Power received the Commanding Officers' Choice Award, and Chief Warrant Officer Justin Hearn was the recipient of the Outstanding Cadet Award for the Corps, as well as being selected as the overall provincial winner of the Strathcona Award.

In the 2863 Dunne Memorial Corps, under Commanding Officer Captain Don Baldwin, Chief Warrant Officer Ashley Power received the Outstanding Cadet Award and the Strathcona Award, Warrant Officer Vanessa Hearn received the Royal Canadian Legion Medal of Excellence, and Master Warrant Officer D.J. Hayward received the Commanding Officers' Choice Award.

In 2588 Placentia, under Commanding Officer Captain Lorne Collins, Sergeant Tyler Whiffen won the individual Strathcona Trust Award, and Sergeant Kaitlin McGrath received the Royal Canadian Legion Medal of Excellence. In addition, 2588 Placentia was awarded the Cadets Caring for Canada Atlantic Region Environmental Award in recognition of their environmental initiatives conducted in conjunction with Cadets Caring for Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Army Cadets is an excellent organization and has a lengthy history in Placentia and St. Mary's of providing leadership training, experience and friendships that will last these young people a lifetime. It was a pleasure to see the results of that training in these young leaders.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating these three Corps, their officers, cadets and sponsors, for a very successful year, and wish them well in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to extend congratulations to the Grand Falls Mill, Woodlands Division, who were recognized for the Best Safety Record in a Woodlands Operation for 2006.

On Wednesday, March 21, 2007, Abitibi-Consolidated held its Annual Awards Gala in Montreal. During this event, company management recognized specific achievements of its workers in paper mills, sawmills, remanufacturing facilities and woodlands operations for 2006.

Mr. Speaker, Woods Manager Bill Furey accepted the Corporate Woodland Safety Award on behalf of the Abitibi employees. It has been twenty-seven months since the last lost time accident occurred in the Woodlands Operations, and this is a significant milestone in the area of health and safety. In 2006, the division recorded an Occupational Safety and Health Administration reportable total frequency of 1.07, which places their employees in a "World Class" category.

Woodlands employees are engaged in many and varied high risk jobs such as operations of harvesters, forwarders, excavators and graders, truck drivers, maintenance personnel, cookery staff, thinners, tree planters and various support, supervisory and management personnel. A component of the workforce is still comprised of manual woodcutters using chainsaws to produce fibre and brush saws for thinning.

Mr. Speaker, this is a significant achievement and I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending congratulations to the Grand Falls Mill, Woodland Operations, who have been recognized for Best Safety Record in a Woodlands Operation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize and congratulate Justin Halleran, from the community of Trepassey, on his outstanding basketball career as a MUN Sea Hawk.

Justin has become one of the university's most notable players. He was a leading scorer in two of the past three years. He was named the Sea Hawks MVP in each of the past three years, and his 174 career three pointers made are second only to former Sea Hawks player Jeff Saxby, who graduated several years ago.

Justin's commitment to his sport netted him major recognition over the past few years. He has been awarded the Atlantic University Sport Award and the Canadian Interuniversity Sport Ken Shields Award, which was a first for a Memorial athlete. As well, he has received the Premier's Award for Athletics and the Dave Kirkland Student Leadership Award, also the first for an athlete at Memorial.

Between rigorous practice and training schedules and on top of studying, Justin became one of the university's most dedicated student volunteers, spending time as a Big Brother, volunteering at the Boys and Girls Club of St. John's and serving as lead instructor at the MUN Advantage Camps, and visiting hospitals and seniors' homes. Next year Justin plans on playing in the semi-pro league overseas.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join with me in congratulating Justin Halleran, from my district, on his successful career as a Memorial University Sea Hawk and wish him well in his basketball career.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend congratulations to Kristi Bourne of Carbonear, who was crowned Central Avalon's next representative at Miss Teen Achievement Newfoundland and Labrador and she won the title of Miss Summer Holidays Achievement 2007.

The eighteen-year-old Level III student at Carbonear Collegiate won the two day event, which was held at Crescent Collegiate School in Blaketown, and she will enjoy a full year of charitable and social events throughout the region.

Mr. Speaker, Kristi is an active member of the 589 Royal Canadian Air Cadet Corps in Carbonear. She is a volunteer band instructor and she prepares cadets from September to June annually for their final review, which I will be attending on Sunday afternoon. She is also a Burry Heights camp counsellor, a Royal Canadian Legion volunteer, a cheerleading, dance and wrestling team member at Carbonear Collegiate and is part of numerous other community and charitable events. These volunteer activities have led her to be awarding the VOCM Cares Award for volunteerism at the 2007 Miss Teen Achievement Newfoundland and Labrador Pageant this past March.

Just last year, Kristi was recognized as one of two cadets from Newfoundland and Labrador for the International Air Cadet Exchange, where sixty-one out of 23,000 cadets from across Canada were selected to receive a trip as Ambassadors for Canada to one of eleven host countries. Kristi travelled to Ottawa and then on to the Netherlands for three weeks in July.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating Kristi Bourne who was crowned Central Avalon's next representative at the Miss Teen Achievement Newfoundland and Labrador and won the title of Miss Summer Holidays Achievement 2007. Quite the young lady, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

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, yesterday evening I had the pleasure of attending the Annual General Meeting and the volunteer banquet at the Rabbittown Community Centre in the heart of the District of St. John's North. This is a very special year for the Centre because they are celebrating their twentieth year of serving the needs of the residents in their area.

Mr. Speaker, it is a true testament of the will, the fortitude, and the dedication of the staff and volunteers at Rabbittown that the activities at the Centre have expanded and grown to such an absolutely phenomenal extent. In fact, this year they added two new programs, one for seniors and one for toddlers.

I would certainly like to commend Executive Director, Matthew Piercey, Program Coordinator, Mark Richards, and Board Chair, Bill Donovan, for their outstanding contributions.

Mr. Speaker, one of the highlights of yesterday's event was announcing the name of the Volunteer of the Year. There were so many worthy recipients this year that they actually had a tie for the award between Matthew Della Valle and Marlayne Jane. Matthew serves as President of the Tenant Association, as well as Treasurer of the Board of Directors and gives his heart and soul to the work at Rabbittown. Marlayne became involved as a volunteer more recently and has, likewise, given unselfishly of her time to make a valuable contribution to the work at the Centre. As a matter of fact, it is Marlayne who designed the new logo at Rabbittown.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to also mention Evan Connors, a young man who has been employed at the Centre for three years and has been largely responsible for facilitating the teen program. Evan has made a tremendous contribution to the success of Rabbittown, but he is now moving on to enroll in the carpentry school and we wish him well as he embarks on this new endeavour.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all member of the House to join me in congratulating the staff and the volunteers of Rabbittown Community Centre as they celebrate their twentieth anniversary and wish them every success in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to congratulate a group of students, faculty and staff at Memorial University and the Provincial Museum for their project on the St. John's Battery, which has resulted in an innovative new display at The Rooms Provincial Museum. The students are: Jed Baker, Rita Colavincenzo, Lynda Daneliuk, Jerry Dick, Lynn Matte, Hannah Mills-Woolsey, Maureen Power and Heather Read. The project was part of a course taught by Folklore Professor Jerry Pocius of Memorial and history curator Mark Ferguson of The Rooms, with help from The Rooms exhibit designer Marni Mahle.

The students explored The Battery as a neighbourhood in transition, with similarities to some of our rural communities. They saw three waves of development through time - beginning with a community settled by fishing families wanting to be near the water; though the 1970s when artists and intellectuals were attracted by the setting and the cheap housing; and, in the last few years, an influx of wealthy newcomers from around the world, creating rising property values and a neighbourhood whose culture is changing.

Last fall, the students interviewed residents, collected stories and took photos, and even gave residents disposable cameras to record their own impressions. They went on to create the museum exhibit highlighting The Battery's past and present, complete with a virtual walking tour.

I applaud this group for their collaborative approach, for connecting with community residents and for making their research available to a wide audience. I hope that when the exhibit ends at The Rooms in September, a permanent place can be found for it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to inform this hon. House about discussions held on May 24 and May 25 during the federal-provincial-territorial ministers responsible for immigration meetings in Ottawa.

The annual meeting is an opportunity for the various jurisdictions throughout the country to share their respective priorities and approaches to immigration and to discuss progress being made on current initiatives.

All minister recognized the growing importance of immigration to Canada's future growth and productivity. I took the opportunity to inform my ministerial colleagues of this Province's recent initiative to move forward with a comprehensive $6 million investment in support of an immigration strategy for Newfoundland and Labrador.

I was very pleased to see discussions raised on topis relevant to the successful implementation of the immigration strategy. This included talks regarding the establishment of a Canadian Experience Class (CEC) of immigrant and the need for increases in federal immigrant settlement programming and funding.

For example, the establishment of a CEC means that for individuals who are already in Canada as an international student, they could apply for permanent residence to remain in our communities without having to leave Canada. Goals 12 and 13 of the provincial immigration strategy address the need to increase enrollment and retention of international students. Movement towards the creation of a national CEC would, in turn, help support the implementation of our strategy.

I also had an opportunity to discuss federal immigrant settlement programming and funding levels. It is recognized that there is a lack of adequate settlement funding available for this Province and also throughout Atlantic Canada. The availability to grow settlement services impacts this Province's ability to retain immigrants over the longer term. Goal 4 of the provincial immigration strategy places a focus on increasing and enhancing settlement and immigration services in our Province as a means to increase retention. I welcome the opportunity to re-state the provincial government's position on the need for an adequate and growing level of funding in respect to settlement of immigrants in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I look forward to continuing this dialogue on immigration matters of interest and concern to our Province. I encourage the federal government to ensure that the perspective of the provincial government continues to be heard and positive measures undertaken to move immigration policy forward in Canada.

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.

I want to thank the minister for a copy of his statement, and to say that we on this side of the House agree that, no doubt about it, immigration in this Country of Canada is very important to each and ever province, and I am sure probably the same can be said in a stronger tune for this Province here. We know the importance that they play when they come here and create businesses and so on, Mr Speaker.

I want to say to the minister that we are glad to see that the meetings that he held when he was in Ottawa, like coming up with the Canadian Experience Class, and some of the issues that were discussed, will play an important part of implementing the immigration strategy here in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, he noted about students when they come here, rather than having to leave, that they can probably stay here for longer periods of time. He mentioned about trying to get increased funding from the federal government. Hopefully that will pan out, Mr. Minister, and the relationships between our government here and Ottawa are not strained to the point that you will not get your funding.

I want to wish you well, Sir, in your future deliberations with your fellow colleagues across the country.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy.

I am quite delighted, actually, to see the new class, the Canadian Experience Class. I am aware of people who have been students here in Newfoundland and Labrador and who really established roots, even to the point of getting married, and now you have a couple that are separated while they try to work out immigrant issues. So, if this could happen, it would certainly help the people that I am aware of.

I am glad to know that the minister spoke to the need for better funding here in Atlantic Canada. I am sorry you did not come away with more money at this point, but I hope that will happen.

In talking about the need for money for settlement, it also -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MS MICHAEL: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The one point I would like to make is that money for settlement, I would like to point out, is not just money to help the individual or the family, but also community services that also help immigrants.

I am thinking, for example, about a group of immigrant women I know, the Multicultural Women's Organization, and right now they are trying to exist just on project money to deal with issues that immigrant women have to deal with. It would be great if there were extra money for them, as an organization, to do organizational work in supporting women.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, 100 high school students will put their entrepreneurial and business skills to the test this weekend at the Enterprise Olympics 2007 in Gander. This event is the culmination of a full year of planning, project development and competitions by students in every school district in the Province.

Through the Enterprise program, students learn about the world of business. They learn how they can take an idea and turn it into an actual product. They learn about the spirit of entrepreneurship and the gratification and rush of excitement that comes from seeing a project through, from start to finish.

The program is designed to encourage students to be more enterprising and to show them exactly what Enterprise Education has to offer. It also brings together schools, communities and provincial business partnerships, and shows how education is truly relevant in life beyond school.

The Department of Education has always provided services in-kind for the Enterprise program. This year, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform my hon. colleagues that Education and Human Resources, Labour and Employment, will contribute over $20,000 to this worthy event.

Enterprise Olympics embodies the vision and goals of the Williams Government. Like these students, we want to celebrate our successes as a Province, take pride in out accomplishments, and strive for excellence in everything we pursue. The entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well in these young students, and we will continue to support them in all their endeavours. They are the key to our Province's prosperity and self-reliance.

I am extremely proud of the initiatives we have announced in Budget 2007 that will open the door to post-secondary education for more of our high school students. For the first time since the early 1990s, they will have access to up-front, non-repayable grants. The amount of funding their parents are required to contribute to their education will be reduced, and the interest they have to pay on their student loans will be cut by 2.5 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all participants in this year's Enterprise Olympics. Dave Denine, the Member for Mount Pearl and my parliamentary secretary, will be in Gander to speak with the students and present the awards Saturday evening.

I wish them the best of luck in the competition.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Likewise, I would like to thank the Minister of Education for an advance copy of her statement, and to say that we are very pleased to see government put funding in and continue this good Liberal initiative that started a few years back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the minister full heartedly, I think it is money well-spent to help bring schools and communities and provincial business people together. Hopefully, those entrepreneurs, as they move out into the workforce, will create jobs here in our Province so that the out-migration trends will probably switch around again and more people will be able to stay here in our Province.

On a lighter note, the only thing I would like to say to the minister is that I understand - and I will just quote - is that Mr. Dave Denine, the Member for Mount Pearl, will be going out to speak to those young people. I caution you, Minister, to send someone with him, because as we listen to him in the House, he is not too well-known out in rural Newfoundland and we would not want to see him missing from the House of Assembly next week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I want to join with the minister in congratulating all those who will be taking part in Enterprise Olympics 2007 in Gander this weekend.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I call upon the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I have to remind all members that we cannot do indirectly what we cannot do directly. Therefore, members names and references should be only by the name of their constituency.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

I, too, thank the minister for her advance copy of the statement.

I know that this is a very exciting program and a very good program and I congratulate the government on the fact that we still support it, but there is an aspect that I would like to see in this program, and I encourage the minister to look at this. Entrepreneurship is not just the work of an individual, communities can also be entrepreneurs as communities, and I am thinking about the efforts that happen through community economic development. For example, the formation of community co-operatives, like the one that I know on Bell Island, where they do individual businesses.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MS MICHAEL: By leave, please, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MS MICHAEL: Just to say that it would be good if in the curriculum the students became aware of community efforts, where the individual entrepreneurial spirit is brought together in a community effort for the whole community. I think we have some wonderful examples around the Province and it would be wonderful if they could be brought into the curriculum.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the former Deputy Minister of Health, the individual who occupied that position until yesterday, has been recognized as an excellent senior executive. As a matter of fact, he has been recognized for his contribution to the public service in this Province and awarded the Lieutenant Governor's Award of Excellence in Public Administration by the Institute of Public Administration for Canada. Mr. Abbott was relieved of his duties in the Department of Health yesterday. Basically, the Premier wanted the individual removed from the department and offered him a demotion. The individual declined and left the public service.

I ask the Premier: Can he clarify what this deputy minister did or did not do to deserve this slap in the face by his government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, as was indicated in this House yesterday very clearly, the former Deputy Minister of Health and Community Services had provided exemplary service to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, was commended for the great work that he did, was provided an opportunity to move some place else in the public service and chose, though, to return to his private consulting practice, which he had a very successful career in before coming back to the Department of Health and Community Services. We wish him well. We are certain that he will be equally as successful in his continued consulting role as he was with the Department of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To listen to the Minister of Health, you would swear that the deputy minister asked to leave himself. How funny. How ironic.

Mr. Speaker, another former Deputy Minister of Health was dismissed by this government after the VON fiasco in Corner Brook at the same time that the Member for Topsail was fired from her Cabinet. At that time the Premier decided that an individual, such as the deputy minister, would also be a scapegoat for that circumstance and she was removed from that position.

I ask the Premier: How much did the taxpayers of this Province pay for having Ms Fry wrongfully dismissed from that job, and what liability is government subjecting itself to with the most recent dismissal of the Deputy Minister of Health?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, individuals who are employed by government are entitled to - depending on whether they are governed by a collective agreement or governed by Treasury Board policies, there is a provision for severance when employees terminate their employment. If any individual, whether it is a deputy minister or an employee of this House, or any other department of government, decides that they want to leave government or decides that they want to move on, what they are entitled to is laid out either in, in some cases collective agreements, in some cases policies, and they will get whatever severance they are duly entitled to when that employment relationship changes. It is a standard process. Members opposite would know that from their own personal experiences in government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, both the Premier and the minister are dodging the answer to the question I raised.

I ask the minister quite simply: Did the Deputy Minister of Health, yesterday, ask to leave that position or was he ordered to leave the position?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain how much clearer we can be. The Premier yesterday indicated, and it has been indicated several times since then, that the former deputy minister the member is referring to was offered a move to another position, another department as a deputy minister. He would have been a deputy minister in another department. At that particular point in time, it was that individual's own personal decision to not accept that offer and he wanted to make a choice to return to a private consulting practice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it seems that the group opposite have a real problem with the word fired. They fired Joan Cleary and said that she resigned. They asked for her resignation. They moved the deputy minister out yesterday and you will not say if you asked him to leave or if he asked to leave.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier stated yesterday that he wanted a clean approach to the Department of Health while the government is under public scrutiny. That is the reason he gave for removing the deputy minister from that position. The current Minister of Health, the individual who is answering the questions on behalf of the Premier this afternoon, was the Parliamentary Secretary or the minister all during this breast screening issue that has arisen recently.

I ask the Premier: If you are using this excuse to remove the Deputy Minister of Health, why are you not using the same logic and remove the current Minister of Health, the individual who is involved in the entire process and is supposed to make the ultimate decisions on behalf of the Department of Health?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, back in January I was quite pleased when the Premier called and invited me into the Cabinet. I was pleased when he expressed that kind of confidence in my ability to be able to hold this portfolio, and while I sit in this chair I will continue to carry out my duties and responsibilities in a very fair and diligent way.

I say, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Premier has expressed that kind of confidence in my ability to be able to hold this post and look forward to continuing in my capacity for quite some time in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I thought I saw it all until just then. I asked the Premier, why won't he remove the Minister of Health from that portfolio, and guess who answered? The Minister of Health got up and said why he should not be removed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: What a joke! What a joke!

Mr. Speaker, another individual who is involved in this entire process is the current CEO, Chief Executive Officer, of Eastern Health, Mr. George Tilley.

I ask the minister, or I ask the Premier - not the Minister of Health, who gets up and defends himself from being fired - I ask the Premier: Why is Mr. Abbott being removed from the Department of Health while Mr. Tilley, as you stated yesterday, was making the decisions and providing the advice to government on this issue?

Using your own logic, what do you think should happen to Mr. Tilley, I ask the Premier?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, the Premier of the Province can very clearly speak on behalf of government and take actions with respect to any department in government, but Mr. Tilley is the CEO of the Eastern Health Authority. That Eastern Health Authority has been established through a piece of legislation passed in this House. They are an autonomous body. Eastern Health has recruited Mr. Tilley as their CEO and they will provide direction to him in terms of how he performs his task. Eastern Health will evaluate his performance and Eastern Health will make decisions around future employment of Mr. Tilley and others who work with the Eastern Health Authority, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe how this government tries to get themselves around a situation. Here he goes and says that it is the board of Eastern Health who hired Mr. Tilley. Well, I ask the minister: Who was it who appointed the board, each and every member, to the board of Eastern Health? It was the government. You control the board over there. You control Eastern Health, I say to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier says a judicial inquiry and a task force are very important steps to immediately find out what went wrong in the Department of Health - to immediately find out what went wrong with the Department of Health. Meanwhile, the Premier and his ministers knew about this problem ever since May 2005 and understood the magnitude of the problem in November 2006.

I ask the Premier: Why did it take you so long to address the issue?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I think it is important - in the last couple of weeks we have heard a lot of questions, and in the questions we have embedded dates and timelines. That becomes very important to appreciate here, Mr. Speaker, and it is important for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to understand this.

Eastern Health became aware that they had a difficulty and a problem in May 2005. As I said in this House many times, in July 2005 they, at that particular time, advised government of the issue; but to suggest that Eastern Health or government, from July 2005 up to November 2006, did not disclose information, that is a false statement, Mr. Speaker. It is a false statement because clearly, as Eastern Health presented to members opposite, as I have said in this House, in the fall, in October 2005, Eastern Health started a process to communicate with all of those individuals who had their test results sent away, to have that done. That was presented to you and members of your caucus last week by Eastern Health.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WISEMAN: Clearly, the information to those people who really needed to know - the people who really needed to know were the patients who were impacted, and their families - they started to know in the fall of 2005, I say, Mr. Speaker, and these were the important people who really needed to know, not the members of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, you can get on with your drivel all you like. The fact of the matter is that Eastern Health and the Minister of Health knew about the faulty tests in May 2005 and there were some women in the Province who did not learn of that problem until November 2006, and there are still some out there today who still do not know the results of those tests.

Mr. Speaker, let's see if the Minister of Health will get up and answer this one, instead of the Premier, or maybe he will get some other minion over there to do it for him. Mr. Speaker, as we speak, thousands of people on the Northeast Coast and Labrador are struggling without an income because of ice conditions. Last week, the Premier was in Ottawa for a full week and did not make any attempt whatsoever to address this issue with the Prime Minister or any of his ministers.

I ask the Premier: Why didn't you attempt to discuss this very important matter with your federal counterparts? Because of their lack of action, when are you, as the Premier of this Province, going to step in and do something for the individuals who are finding it so difficult to make ends meet today along the Northeast Coast and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I was unable to speak with the Prime Minister when I was in Ottawa for three days last week because he was in Kabul and I was in Ottawa.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What he did not say is that he has never made any attempt, whether it be in Ottawa or here.

Mr. Speaker, while there are thousands of people doing without on the Northeast Coast and Labrador this spring, the Premier took his little spring tour to the continent of Europe, namely to Ireland. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have not been to Ireland but people tell me that it is a lovely spot to go in the spring, especially when you have someone to drive you around.

I ask the Premier: Can you confirm that you spent nearly $24,000 on chauffeur services during your three day stint to Ireland in March, and will you table the other expenses that you and your minister incurred while there?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Just another example of the incorrect information which the hon. gentleman opposite is prepared to put forward in this House and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The first thing I can confirm is that this government, in the last three years, has spent an additional $600 million on health care in this Province. The difference between the Budget in 2003 and the Budget in 2006 is $600 million. That is the extra money we spent on health care.

With regard to limousine driven vehicles at $23,000, that is absolutely incorrect. There were two automobiles that were provided for a delegation that were over there. The amount, as I understand it, was less than $10,000 that was spent.

In order to effect savings, the individuals involved chose to drive for three or four hours rather than fly, which would have been more expensive than the cost of sitting in a car. What I was sitting in was a four-seater car that was far from a limousine, I can certainly tell you that much.

The number that the hon. gentleman opposite is indicating is more than twice the actual cost. I understand that the cost is less than $10,000 - maybe $9,000 - and was used to transport the minister and his delegation and, as far as I understand, as well, some of the people from the business side who were also in Ireland.

So, that is completely inaccurate, completely misleading. One thing that this government has not done is spend the kind of money on travel -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to complete his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - that hon. members opposite spent on jaunts all around the world, themselves and their spouses, including the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He says it is false information. You should talk to your own people, because that is the book that you give us this week. In that, is says: $23,152 spend to a chauffeur service in Ireland.

Now, if that is one car or two, Mr. Speaker, it does not matter to me. Twenty-four thousand dollars for two vehicles for three days, you should be ashamed to stand in the House and say that you did it.

Mr. Speaker, last month the Premier brought down his election Budget but he did not get the positive coverage that he was expecting, especially when The Telegram came out -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Time is passing quickly.

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: As I said, the Premier did not get the positive coverage that he expected, especially when it was let out to the public that he spent $10,000 and $15,000 giving raises to each of the individuals who work on the eighth floor next to him.

Mr. Speaker, to counter that, what he has done recently is, he has just made a copy of the Budget Highlights for each and every individual in the Province, and these are going to be sent out to every household.

I ask the Premier -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition and asks him to put his question.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier: How much is this public relations exercise costing the taxpayers of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you what we did not do. We did not spend over $200,000 on a personal ad campaign for the Premier, the former Premier, the colleague of the gentleman opposite, who spent over $200,000 on a personal promotion campaign with his own picture on it, which is probably the single greatest factor in orchestrating their own defeat by the fact that they did send it out in the first place.

As well, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the Budget, obviously this is an extremely good budget, as I just indicated before. We have increased funds for health care. We have increased funds in absolutely every single aspect in the Province. We have over $400 million gone into the infrastructure, personal income taxes, and I could go on and on and on.

I can tell you what I did not spend it on. I did not order Wolf Blass Yellow Label Cabernet and I did not order the Trapiche Merlot for my house to entertain people, I can tell you that much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say, why don't you check with your own Minister of Industry, who has acquired, I might add, a special taste for Single Malt Scotch at $45 a bottle, if you want to start talking about stuff.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Premier has no problem spending $1.2 million on a branding project. The Premier has no problem spending $15 million, which he gave to his buddies, for fibre optics. The Premier has no problem spending $200,000 on wining and dining in one night for the premiers last year. The Premier has no problem spending $8,000 on a couple of sealskin fur coats for Ralph Klein and his wife. The Premier has no problem giving thousands of dollars in pay increases to his staff on the eighth floor. The Premier has no problem spending $24,000 for a limousine service in Ireland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: I ask the Premier: While people are struggling on the Northeast Coast, some of them having to sell their vehicles - some of these people would love to have $24,000 in limousine services, I say to the Premier. Some of them are hungry and some of them are losing their vehicles. When are you going to step in and do something for those individuals?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we have no problem spending money to advertise this Province, to promote this Province, to promote the tourism ads that we put throughout the country that are nationally and internationally recognized across the country as world leaders. We have no problem putting our money into a brand, which has been recognized as an incredible brand for this Province and being very well received.

I take great, personal pride in wearing a sealskin jacket, myself, to support the sealers and the sealing industry. I make no apologies for providing the former Premier of Alberta and his wife with sealskin jackets so that they can wear those with pride around the country. I make no apologies for agreeing to provide $15 million to a company that is basically able to save the government $400 million. We have no problems doing any of that.

As well, I would just like to reiterate, now knowing that he is wrong on the $23,000 for chauffeur service in Ireland, that he is completely wrong, that his information is erroneous, he continues to put that incorrect information out to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is typical of your behaviour. That is the way you operate. It does not matter whether it is the truth or not, but you put it out. Shameless!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

There is a critical shortage of nurses in our hospitals and we heard this morning in a recent broadcast that professionals have been forced to quit their jobs because they have been denied vacation time with their families this year. We know that government has already tampered with nurses' contracts over the years, cutting their sick days, freezing wages and so on, and we know that this is discouraging in terms of attracting nurses to our Province and to work in our hospitals.

I have to ask the minister - I know he was a while this year before he converted some of the casual and temporary positions to permanent, but I ask him: Are they prepared to convert more of these positions to permanent jobs, and could he also tell me what other initiatives they are working on right now to ensure that we have a full complement of nurses in our hospitals?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said yesterday, each of the four authorities have converted casual positions to permanent. That has been done throughout the entire Province in each of our four authorities. Two authorities have engaged in a process to assist them with recruitment to provide bonuses, to help with the relocation and signing bonuses to come to work with these two authorities, particularly in areas where it is much more difficult to recruit than some others. We have a working group between the Nurses' Union and the nurses' association, the Department of Health and Community Services and the authorities, working on developing a long-term strategy to deal with some of the issues that are facing the Province in the long term.

Mr. Speaker, some of the initiatives that we have undertaken in this year's Budget to be able to enhance the careers of people who are currently working in the nursing profession, with a view to ensuring that they have much better working conditions and are able to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you very much.

To make sure, Mr. Speaker, that we provide a quality of work life for the people who work within the nursing profession within each of our four authorities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well that this government has not addressed the nursing shortage in the Province appropriately in the past three to four years. As a result of the situation we are faced with this year, it is anticipated that beds will close in our hospitals over the summer.

I ask the minister: How many hospital beds are slated for closure across the Province this summer, and in what health care centres?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, before I answer the last part of the member's question, let me just put in perspective some of the things that we have done with nursing. If you look over the last three budgets, we have increased in a significant way the number of public health nurses that we have had in the system; we have increased the number of nursing positions as a result of the introduction of dialysis services in four new locations; we have improved the number of nurse educators who are involved in diabetic teaching in the Province; created new positions. We have created new nurse practitioner positions, all with the view, Mr. Speaker, of improving the quality of care we provide, but at the same time providing increased opportunities for nursing in this Province and providing opportunities for progression within their professions.

To the second part of her question, what each of the health authorities are doing this summer, as I understand it, Mr. Speaker, each of the authorities are now -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand each of the health authorities now have mapped out a strategy for the summer in terms of their level of operation and also in terms of the vacation schedule for our nursing staff.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was only one question and the question was on the number of beds that will close in the Province. I understood from part of the minister's answer that there will be some, and I ask him if he could table that list for me at some point in terms of the number of beds that will close and in what areas of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, LPNs at the Hoyles-Escasoni are now expected to conduct orientations with personal observer attendants that Eastern Health is hiring for summer relief in those facilities. The minister indicated in his response yesterday that he is supportive of this move by Eastern Health. Minister, I can assure you that LPNs are not supportive of these hirings, and I ask if you will support them on this matter and intervene to bring a halt to this downgrade in our health care system?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, one of the things I want to repeat from yesterday: These personal observers that are being hired, they are not being hired to replace LPNs. They are not moving into the exact same role and function that the LPN now provides. They are not doing that at all, Mr. Speaker. They are being hired as a group of individuals to provide support within our health sector for the summer, and more precisely, within Eastern Health. They are there to provide assistance when patients and residents in our homes need to have some individual providing special care, special treatment; while they are in our hospitals and in our institutions, they need someone to be with them twenty-four hours a day. Those individuals who will be hired as personal observers are actually going to perform that function.

The issue around nursing care will still be provided by LPNs and RNs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer quickly.

MR. WISEMAN: That will not change, I say, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated again today and yesterday that these personal care or personal observer attendants will just be sitting with and observing patients.

I say to the minister, if this is the case, my question is: What action is being take to fill the vacancies of LPNs that exist in our long-term care facilities over the summer?

As you know, many of them are working overtime and on call, almost on a weekly and daily basis.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: We understand and are very much aware, and the health authorities have advised us, as the summer was approaching, in this summer, they were going to have to make some adjustments in their staffing schedules and they were going to have some real challenges with their vacation time. We understood that and we provided this year, Mr. Speaker, as we did last year and the year before last, each of our four authorities, with some additional money to ensure that they are able to cope with the increasing staffing demands that they have.

They have made some great efforts this year in recruiting additional people and they have taken a very aggressive approach, I say, Mr. Speaker, each of the four authorities, in ensuring that they have a successful recruitment campaign to be able to provide the adequate relief for the summer time, relief for periods, but also to be able to continue to recruit to fill some of the current vacancies that exist.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday in the House, the Premier said that the newly announced task force is about making sure that the patients and the people of this Province have proper health care.

Mr. Speaker, problems with test results and staff shortages within Eastern Health are signs of underlying problems in the health care system that go way beyond the management of adverse health events and the related dissemination of public information, the stated mandate of the task force.

My question for the Premier is: Will the government establish an external review that will look at all aspects of our health care system and make recommendations for improvement based on best practices?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this is an evolving process and we are dealing with it as expeditiously as we can. It is going to be something that is going to be very dynamic over the course of the next month, twelve months, eighteen months, twenty-four months. New issues are going to arise every day.

From my own perspective, my own background, involved on the legal side, issues of malpractice come up on a regular basis all the time. Because of the heightened awareness and sensitivity, I think there are going to be more issues that are going to be raised.

I do know, from my own perspective, I have had adverse health diagnoses that could have affected my own health. There is another mater now which government is aware of, we became aware of yesterday afternoon, which is another issue we are going to look at. So this is going to continue to evolve on perhaps a daily, perhaps a monthly, perhaps a yearly, basis.

As we go along and as we see these we will address them. If the magnitude increases and we have to extend the scope in order to deal with it - but the bottom line on this is that we want to make sure that we get to the bottom of it, that we get the answers, that we put in place the best possible procedures that can ensure that we have the best system that we can afford here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is our goal. The ultimate goal, though, and the most importance goal, is the health and the safety of the patients, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I have indicated, we have ongoing problems that are not always being recognized as crises. The ongoing problems of people waiting weeks for results, that does not come out as being an adverse event, so I want the government, as the Manitoba government has done, to look at the need for putting in place a review that will examine all performance measures of effectiveness and outcomes and overall efficiency. The Manitoba government is looking at the comparison between what they are offering in services and how those services are meeting patient needs.

So, again, my question is: Mr. Premier, will the government recognize that we need an overall review of the whole regional health care authority and do what is being done in Manitoba?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think possibly what is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador is probably also a reflection of what may be happening in other parts of the country. Obviously, if it is happening in Manitoba, Manitoba feel there is a need for a review.

I noticed, actually, in The Globe and Mail today there was a comment by, I think, the President of the Canadian Association of Radiologists that actually indicated that the number of misdiagnoses or items that are missed during a review of X-rays and other types of technology, that the error rate is up to 25 per cent, which is quite alarming, quite frankly. That is the Canadian Association saying that one out of four can be wrong.

There are national problems, there are provincial problems. The one thing about this is that something good may come out of something bad. If we can improve the system and make it better, and guarantee and perfect the health and the safety of the people of the Province, then this government will do what it can.

Like I said, I am not aware of the details of the Manitoba review. I know Premier Doer very well, and it is certainly an issue I will discuss with him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape La Hune.

MR. LANGDON: A point of order, Mr. Speaker, or a personal point of privilege.

I noticed, during Question Period, in one of the Premier's answers, I think it was to the Leader of the Opposition, he referred to the members opposite, who were former ministers, that they took their wives on jaunts around the globe and, in a sense, spent excessively government money.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the people opposite, that my wife never, ever did that. I feel insulted when these comments are made. I had very much difficulty to even get her to go to a convention here in the Province.

I did not do it, personally, and I would like for government to make public the trips that I did make when I was minister, in Municipal Affairs or Environment, because I did not do it. I cannot speak for other people, but when the comments are made across the board that I did it, I personally did not.

I had to make that point, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier, speaking to the point of order.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has been offended by that, I certainly understand that. If you are one of the ministers who did not have his spouse travel with him, then I most certainly apologize to the hon. member if there is any innuendo or any reflection on you or your spouse.

I also invite all members opposite to get up as well, if they have a question or they have an objection. In fact, if any of them feel that they have been slighted, then I would like to see all of them stand up and then we can find out who was slighted and who was not slighted.

From your perspective, Sir, I sincerely apologize.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. There may be a disagreement.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a point of order again, and maybe some direction from the Chair.

The Premier, of course, in responding to one of the questions, made reference to a figure that was cited by the Leader of the Opposition from a document that you, yourself, I believe, tabled in this House, as being false, and that is the exemptions from the Public Tender Act, which I do believe you tabled; and yesterday, I do believe, you filed an amendment which related to this again.

Just for clarification purposes, it is you who tabled the document. If there is anything in that document that is incorrect, or if the Leader of the Opposition has referred to falsely, we would certainly appreciate some clarification on it, because we were just relying upon documents that were tabled in this House here.

There is certainly no intention by anyone here to give false information. The information was taken directly from the book. If there is some explanation of that figure, we would certainly look forward to receiving the details and breakdown on that. If that requires that the Leader of the Opposition change the nature of his questioning, we would certainly be prepared to do that, but we would not want to be referring to documents that were unintentionally erroneous.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier, speaking to the point of order.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the document that is tabled sets up an allowance for an expenditure, no different than a budget sets up an allowance for an expenditure, but whether that expenditure is incurred is, quite frankly, something completely different.

What was alluded to by the Leader of the Opposition is that this was an actual expenditure, not an allowance. After I corrected him and told him exactly what the amount was, he then got up again and repeated the fact that, that expenditure was incurred. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to apologize for misleading this hon. House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. PARSONS: Yes, to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

If that is indeed the case on this item that the Premier is referring to here, item 70263, Government Purchasing Agency c/o Department of Transportation and Works, it said in the one I am referring to - but that was amended, I do believe, to be Industry, Trade yesterday - the Chauffeur Service Ireland, $23,152.92.

Now, there are a number of these items in this book that has been tabled here, dozens. If the figures that are here are only figures that reflect the amount that was budgeted and not the amount that was actually spent, I suggest that we ought to have the correct information if that is the case, because we are relying here, and everybody in the Province is relying upon the fact that this is a list of contracts reported by government funded bodies without tender invitation during a certain period of time. I think the common sense reading of this would be that it is what it says, and if it is not what it says, there should be some explanation to that for all of these items in this book, because otherwise a lot of people are going to feel it is incorrect.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will take the matter under review and only say at this point that the documents that were tabled are the documents supplied to the Chair by the appropriate department, together with the amendment that was tabled yesterday. The Chair will review the matter and, if need be, come back to the House with an explanation.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motions.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, first of all I give notice, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that tomorrow, Monday, June 4, this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. or at 10:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Hold The Government Harmless In The Disposition Of Fisheries Products International Limited. (Bill 31)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to, first of all, move Motion 4, that this House not adjourn today, Thursday, May 31, at 5:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn today, Thursday, May 31, at 5:30 o'clock.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to now move Motion 5, that this House pursuant to Standing Order 11, not adjourn today, Thursday, May 31, at 10:00 o'clock.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn today, Thursday, May 31, at 10:00 p.m.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would now like to move to Order 12, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act. (Bill 26)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 26, Order 12, An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act." (Bill 26)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Justice, who is out of the Province today on government business, it gives me pleasure to introduce Bill 26 for second reading, An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act.

Mr. Speaker, I will give a little bit of background, but this amendment is relatively simple, pretty straightforward and certainly routine in nature.

As hon. members know, Mr. Speaker, the Commissioners For Oaths Act allows for the appointment, by the Minister of Justice, of certain people as Commissioners for Oaths. These persons can sign, therefore, once they have been appointed - they can sign and witness affidavits, declarations, and affirmations.

Mr. Speaker, in sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the act, those sections designate certain categories of individuals, including members of this House, as a matter of fact, as noted in section 5, as persons who can act as Commissioners for Oaths. In discussion with some people, not long ago, actually, they did not realize that members of this House, once they take an oath and are sworn in as members, are automatically Commissioners for Oaths under the act and can therefore sign as a commissioner and witness affidavits and take oaths and things of that nature.

Section 7, Mr. Speaker, deals with social workers and other employees of government and boards under the Health and Community Services Act and the Hospitals Act. The offices which are noted in section 7 have changed over time, and that is hence the reason for this particular amendment.

In consultation with the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment and the Department of Health and Community Services, the Department of Justice have determined that the use of more generic language to describe the officers who should be designated as Commissioners for Oaths would be more appropriate.

The amendment to section 7 would avoid having to make future changes because of the changes - you know, if there are changes to future specific job descriptions, then it would not be necessary to have to amend this particular act again, hence the need, and the desirability really, to have a generic definition.

The amendment would allow the minister, the Minister of Justice in this case, or the CEO of a board to designate employees of a government department or a health authority to act as Commissioners for Oaths. This becomes important, Mr Speaker, if in the course of their duties it becomes necessary to witness a document, be able to affirm a document, affirm a note, take a note, or things designated for people who would normally be Commissioners for Oaths, that the act allows them to do.

This amendment, as I said, is routine in nature and provides for a routine amendment to the act so that the generic definition will allow the description of people who can fulfill the requirements of Commissioners of Oaths under the direction of the minister or the CEO of a health authority to be able to carry out those duties without having it necessary to amend the act again if titles and designations should change.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased therefore to move second reading.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words concerning this amendment to the Commissioners for Oaths Act.

We have a number of bodies or persons in the Province, of course, who can swear an oath and each type has different laws or different authorities shall we say. We have notary publics, we have justices of the peace, and we have commissioners. There is always a lot of confusion in the public domain as to who can do what. Maybe some little brief explanation might be helpful.

For example, a notary public - you usually see barrister, solicitor and notary public - some people think that you have to be a lawyer to be a notary public, but that is not true. We have an act, of course, called the Notaries Public Act, and you can be a notary public in this Province simply by applying to the Department of Justice under that piece of legislation and being appointed a notary public.

What a notary public does is, it authorizes someone who is here in this Province and who is a notary public, to witness a document that is going to be used outside of this jurisdiction. For example, if you are commissioner and you sign a document and witness a document in Newfoundland, it is only usable in a court here in the Province of Newfoundland; but, if you are a notary, it is usable outside the jurisdiction. That is the main distinction between a notary. All of them can be witnesses to a document, but depending upon where they are usable is the difference; the distinction has to be made. When you sign as a notary, that document can be used in Britain, the United States, anywhere in the world, because it is the notary public who did it.

Then, of course, you have your justices of the peace. Now, in old-time Newfoundland, of course, they were pretty important. In a lot of places we had justices and that is all we had; we never even had the magistrates. A lot of communities here, back in the old days, almost like it is now, actually, our provincial court is pretty well the circuit court today. Provincial courts, for example, out my way, on the West Coast, the judges in Stephenville do Port aux Basques, Burgeo and so on. The judges in Corner Brook do the circuits up the coast, Roddickton, Port au Choix, Port Saunders, St. Anthony and those places. Well, that is somewhat it was like back in the old days when the magistrates travelled around as well.

Of course, you had justices of the peace. We used to have several out our way, and it was a mark of distinction, actually, somebody who was usually very reputable in the community, somebody who had some basics of education, knew how to read, were good readers and good writers and understood things. Back in the old days, not everybody had that level of education in rural Newfoundland, in particular, so you had justices of the peace. They used to do up land deeds.

I practiced for twenty-five years and I am sure about - oh, certainly when I first started, back in 1980, virtually every deed you saw come across your desk was drafted by a justice of the peace. There was no lawyer involved. There were no lawyers there to draft them, and we had no typewriters in a lot of cases, so I have had the benefit of seeing some pretty good writing and some not-so-good writing over the course of the years. Regardless of the writing, the need was there for these justices of the peace.

There was a requirement that the justice could do the deed, but he could not charge to do the deed. Actually, the Law Society, of course, got kind of upset because they said, as the 1970s and 1980s progressed and we ended up with the increase in the number of lawyers in the Province, and lawyers, of course, were trying to make a living doing property work, they said: How can we be having JPs doing deeds? Because JPs are out there doing them and they should not be allowed to do it because it is taking work away from lawyers.

Of course, the law got changed under the Law Society Act saying that you could not draft a deed for somebody for a fee. You could do it gratuitously. So, if John or Joe wanted to go up and get the JP to do the deed free of charge, and if the JP would do that, that was fine, but the JP was prohibited, since early on, of charging any fee to do a deed of transfer for a piece of land.

A lot of vehicles, of course, in rural Newfoundland got transferred based upon a justice of the peace document. The only JPs we have today, pretty well, we have a couple out our way. My brother, for example, happens to be a justice of the peace in the Port aux Basques area. He is also the deputy sheriff, has been for thirty years, long before my hat had been into the legal business. He is a JP as well, because he is someone who is recognized locally, people go to him, and there is a courtroom piece to a JP. For example, if a judge cannot get to a community and someone is charged with a criminal offence, there is actually authority, under the Criminal Code, for a justice of the peace to do certain things. It is not only a signing of documents or an affidavits thing. The JP holds a very special place and has a lot of special authorities.

Out in Alberta, for example, I was at a justice conference some years ago. Justices of the peace in Alberta, as I understood it, were getting paid an annual stipend, as justices of the peace, to the tune of about $85,000 a year. We were amazed when we heard about it, coming from Atlantic Canada, that is the role and that is the stipend that they get, $85,000 a year - that was in 2000 - that justices of the peace were being paid in the Province of Alberta. That was six or seven years ago. So, different provinces make use of them for different things. That is the justice of the peace.

Then, of course, we have the commissioners, which is being referred to here today. There are a lot of people in the Province who are commissioners. I go back for a second to the JPs. The Province - even in my time, when I went into justice, and shortly before that - got a bit stingy about who was going to be JPs. The reason was, they tried to tie - and have successfully tied - the JP designation now pretty well to anyone who is a court clerk. If you are functioning in the court and you are a court clerk, I believe you do now automatically get the designation of justice of the peace along with being the court clerk. Other than that, they are pretty rare unless you have some really isolated community that needs one for that purpose, because there is no one else there to do it. Other than that now, you do not see too many JP designations being handed out by the Department of Justice today.

Then, of course, the one we are dealing with today is the commissioners. There is a very valid reason for having them. There are all kinds of documents that need to get witnessed. It could be an affidavit, it could be a title document that someone wants you to witness. Some people insist on having a commissioner witness their wills. They are just not satisfied to have, even though any person can witness a will, any two people can make a will valid from that perspective, from witnessing, some people insist that they want a commissioner to be the witness to their will because it is all seen as above board and independent.

We certainly have no problem with this. You need it in these institutions because you get a lot of circumstances in an institution where people do not have ready access but they need to have something sworn to or declared, and that is why, of course, it is important that we have them in our health and community services facilities, because that is quite often where the need arises as well.

We will certainly be speaking in favour of this. It is not a major piece of legislation we have here in that sense. It is an amendment to a bill that already exists, so we will certainly be voting in favour of this. There is a need for it, and we certainly will not be standing in the way of it.

Thank you.

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

MS MICHAEL: Yes, just very briefly, Mr. Speaker, to say, obviously, I will be standing in support of this bill.

I want to thank my colleague from Burgeo & LaPoile, and I mean it sincerely, for his history lesson. There were a lot of details I did not know about our judicial system, especially in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I think it is important that we make accessibility to people who can act as commissioners for oaths as easy as possible for people in need, because the average person does not know very often where to go. I agree with my colleague, that having people within the hospital system in particular, and the health care system, who are able to act in this capacity will be very important for people, because sometimes people are in a situation they do not expect to be in, and do need witnessing, and really would not know what to do.

Yes, obviously, this is a straightforward amendment. We need it and we support it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, if he speaks now he closes debate at second reading.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank my colleagues for their contribution to the debate, and I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act. (Bill 26)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act, has now been read a second time.

When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. RIDEOUT: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 26)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 15, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Historic Resources Act. (Bill 30)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 30, An Act To Amend The Historic Resources Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Historic Resources Act." (Bill 30)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, I get up to speak on Bill 30, An Act To Amend The Historic Resources Act. This is a change or an amendment to the current act for good reason, because it refers back to our government's provincial cultural strategy that was released last year: Creative Newfoundland and Labrador. In that, a commitment was made as a result of an ask, I guess, from the heritage community to bring about certain changes with regard to a commemoration or designation program. This is a commitment that we made in that strategy and this is the fulfilment of the strategy as we bring it forth because naturally, we want to bring it forth this spring to get it in legislation so that we can begin immediately with that commemoration program.

What it means, Mr. Speaker, is as the act currently stands we are very restrictive in what we can designate. What we are looking at, of course, is extending our ability to designation, I guess not only places, but also to extend it to things of other cultural significance, and this is the purpose of this legislation amendment. Like I said, right now we have no mechanisms for recognizing many aspects of our history and our culture that are of provincial significance.

We have at the present time, Mr. Speaker, designated structures, as well as districts of provincial historic significance through the Heritage Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador, but we do not have any way of commemorating persons, events, or cultural traditions. What we call, I guess, the intangible heritage. This has meant that numerous requests by individuals, by groups in the Province to commemorate various aspects of our history, have certainly gone unheeded and we want to be able to close that gap.

What this is, is the creation of a provincial historic commemorations program that will provide a number of benefits. It will help, I guess, to make citizens more aware of historic events, persons, places and traditions that have shaped us and, indeed, shaped our culture. It will create new opportunities for developing tourist attractions, where our recognition may afford a greater level of protection for our heritage resources. A provincial designation can provide an important stepping stone for commemoration by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. I would say to the hon. members, Mr. Speaker, that it is patterned so that it coincides with the national program. So, again, it would afford us, in this Province, an opportunity to not only have it designated provincially but it would be the stepping stone then to make it designated, or possible to be designated on a federal level.

One of the things that will make - even though I said it is similar to national, there is one very distinct and unique difference. That is that it is our inclusion of aspects of traditional culture. Just an example, of course, mummering. We could designate that as a traditional custom, traditional practice and this is unique, and I would say, Mr. Speaker, leading. I am sure that many of our members have heard, and certainly the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, about intangible heritage and how important it is that we not only protect the structures but also the intangibles; the type of food that we eat, the way it is prepared, the way that we cure fish. The different and unique aspects of our heritage and culture in Newfoundland and Labrador, and this program will allow us to do it. There are some very special places and communities that - it might not be a structure, it might be a place, a beach, a rock where a fish stage was, where people met. There are all sorts of possibilities, and this is the aspect of this particular change in the act to allow this to happen.

Again, we have right now five, I believe - yes, five existing historic sites, and those would be grandfathered in. So, what we have already would automatically be grandfathered in. Then we will go from there. Of course, I think that by making these changes we will be able to entice people to really search and reflect upon what they are, who they are, what their communities are, and so on and so forth.

We will also, Mr. Speaker, set up an advisory board that will be appointed by government to advise the minister on the designations under this particular program. This is standard procedure, but, of course, it will need to represent individuals with expertise in a wide variety of aspects of our history, of our culture and our heritage. Policies will be developed to ensure broad and equitable representation on this particular board. Of course, once the board is set up and, I guess, on an annual basis nominations will be garnered, will be invited. The board will review such nominations and provide advice to the minister on potential designation under the act. Customarily, research papers will have to be prepared on each nomination. It is just not simply put a name in or whatever, proper research would have to be done. The board will, and of course officials in my department, be tasked with that but the board will use that research, look at the number of nominations and go from there.

This year we have budgeted $50,000 for the running of the program. The majority of these funds will be spent on board travel expenses, preparation of research papers and on plaguing, or other types of commemoration. If we have a commemoration program, obviously the plaguing is most important, because once the nominees are accepted and done, then of course the various sites and people and so on - the plaques or other types of commemoration. So we are kind of open on that. Again, it may not be a tangible site, it may be an intangible and it would be trying to find the best way in order to plaque such a thing.

That is a brief overview, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure if I have forgotten anything but basically, it is a fulfillment of a commitment that we made to the heritage community, that we would bring forth such a program. We outlined it in our cultural strategy. The strategy clearly indicated the direction that we had to go. We followed that direction, now we are coming into the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, to put it in the act so that we can action where we were.

I will leave it at that, and I certainly invite other members to join with me in speaking on this particular amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise and speak on Bill 30 today, An Act To Amend The Historic Resources Act.

Mr. Speaker, as the minister just indicated, it is to change the registration, I guess, or the reference to it, by saying, instead of a registered historic site, that is would be a registered provincial cultural site, and it gives the minister and his department the ability to declare a site, an event, a person or tradition of historical or cultural significance to be registered provincial cultural resources and included in the Registry of Historic Resources in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I think that tourism has been one of the key industries for us in terms of diversifying, especially in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It is an industry that has allowed us to be able to take things that have been of value to us, in terms of our histories, in terms of our genealogies, in terms of our cultural resources, and to translate it into what could be a profitable venture in an industry sector such as tourism.

Mr. Speaker, anyone who has travelled throughout Newfoundland and Labrador will find, in all different regions of our Province, many fabulous tourism resources and cultural resources that we have established over the years, not only as a monument to the people of the Province but, Mr. Speaker, as a celebration of who we are and what we are all about as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, I am very fortunate to live in a district where tourism has become one of the key industries for diversity in terms of failed fisheries in the early 1990s. Tourism was taken on in a major way, where you see a lot of people investing their own money into tourism resources, whether it be to establish the services, such as accommodations and food services that goes along with a thriving industry, or whether it would be to restore some of our natural habitats and some of our natural landscapes, as well as preserving our histories.

Mr. Speaker, in my district today we have something like seven key sites that we have developed in tourism and, of course, over the years we have been able to build on those sites, adding new sites every year.

When you look at the Gateway Centre in L'Anse au Clair, which was once the Anglican Church and has now been restored to be the main gateway coming into the Labrador Straits region and to Southern Labrador, and I guess when the road goes through to Lake Melville that it would be the actual initial gateway for all of Labrador in terms of that particular direction of traffic.

Mr. Speaker, that was a old church that was dilapidated and closed down, and over the years there has been money invested, through various governments and departments and individuals, to restore that building, which is absolutely fabulous today, in which it becomes the Gateway Centre for information about all of the other attractions in that area.

In the last couple of years we added trails in that area, the Jersey Room trails, and these trails were built to celebrate and recognize the significance of the French culture, as well, in that area that stretched along that Labrador, Quebec Shore, and took into consideration that piece of history. It is a fabulous trail. I have walked it a couple of times, and it is absolutely lovely.

Mr. Speaker, I think the Point Amour site, one of the earliest burial grounds in North America for native peoples is in Point Amour. In fact, it is one of the sites that tourists come from all over the world to visit, because of its early significance to the history, not just of our Province but to that of North America as well. The Point Amour Lighthouse, in itself, one of the tallest lighthouses in Atlantic Canada, has certainly been a testament to the kind of achievements that we have had in developing the tourism industry.

The Point Amour site is a provincially operated tourism site. Over the years, we have been able to take that site, which was the site of a lighthouse and a lighthouse keeper's residence, and turn it into a real tourism activity where not only you walk through museums and interpret the history of the area, but you also have the opportunity to shop in craft stores, to be able to walk the many trails that are out around Point Amour and L'Anse Amour area. That is one of the real significant pieces of tourism infrastructure that we have.

The Pinware River, in itself, should be designated, I say to the minister, and under this new legislation could be designed, as definitely a culturally significant site in our Province. The mighty Pinware River has been a river that has attracted anglers for generation after generation to Labrador to fish, on some of the great wild Labrador rivers, the Atlantic salmon. Over the years, it has not only grown in terms of the numbers of people there but it has matured as one of the main icons for angling in Labrador, and in Newfoundland and Labrador in its entirety. It is a great river, and one of the sites that I would love to see designated under this new program.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit about Red Bay, because Red Bay has a history that goes back more than 5,000 years. That is what the entire tourism industry of Red Bay is built on. It is built on the early presence of the Basque and the Spanish who came for the whaling fishery, to hunt whale off the Coast of Labrador. Many of them wintered there, brought their families there, married into the Aboriginal populations at the time.

Mr. Speaker, today, because of that history, because of the archival history that we have on them, because of all the cultural pieces that we have been able to discover and research and put together over the years, we now have a full history of the Basque presence in Labrador, and what was happening there 5,000 years ago. You can go through the community of Red Bay, through the interpretation centres, through the museums, and you can see all of this history first-hand.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, the community itself provides the kind of services that you need, that go with a site like this, fabulous services being provided by Basque Whalers restaurant, the Bridles there, and now a new establishment there by the Earles in Red Bay as well. Mr. Speaker, those are the kinds of opportunities that have come for local people simply because of us, as a Province, recognizing the real significance of culture and of tourism in various regions.

Mr. Speaker, now that we have a road built up through Southern Labrador, you can drive from Red Bay North, in fact, only just a short seventy-six kilometres over a gravel road and you are in Mary's Harbour where you can take a short ferry ride to Battle Harbour. Battle Harbour, Mr. Speaker, is designated as a World Heritage community, as a World Heritage Village. It is an entire island that has been restored as a monument to the fishing industry of the seventeenth century. Mr. Speaker, a fishing industry that we people in Newfoundland and Labrador grew up to be proud of, an industry we grew up to respect, to depend upon, and to respect those who engaged in it as a livelihood, as we still do today.

Mr. Speaker, Battle Harbour was not only significant in the context of the fishery in Labrador, but it became the main fishing station for many of the fisherpeople who came from the Island of Newfoundland, especially from the Carbonear, Bay Roberts and Cupids area, from the Twillingate and Fogo areas. Mr. Speaker, people came, fishermen, by the hundreds, every year to fish the waters off the coast of Battle Harbour and to deal with the merchant company that was there. Of course, the merchant company, in the later years, since 1950, would have been recognized in this Province as Earle Freighting Services, who had their main headquarters in Carbonear, Newfoundland. Mr. Speaker, they became the main merchant company for that part of the Coast of Labrador. Today, when you sail into Battle Harbour, it is like sailing back into time. It is a rare experience that you will ever get to have anywhere in this world. When you can sail into a community and feel like you are sailing back into the seventeenth or eighteenth century of the fishery, it is a remarkable feeling, I say to my colleagues in the House of Assembly. That site has been completely restored. Not only can you walk through it and learn the history of the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador, learn how we traded with Portugal and Spain in the days of the early fishery, but you also have the opportunity to relax in rustic or luxurious accommodations. You have the opportunity to have rustic dining or fine dining. It is entirely up to you, but it allows you the most remarkable experience that one could ever ask for.

Mr. Speaker, there are many other attractions as well. You look at the Wonder-Strands up off Cartwright, and the Wonder-Strands are not wrongly named because they are one of the most magnificent wonders of the world. If you ever go into Cartwright and talk to the local people in that community and ask them what one of the attractions is in their area that they are proudest of, it would be the Wonder-Strands, I say to you, Mr. Speaker. The people of that area are so proud to have, in their backyard, one of the most magnificent pieces of tourism that you could ever hope to have in the eastern world, I say. There are beaches that stretch for miles and miles and miles of sandy beach, of clear blue water, underneath a wonderful Labrador sky and, I can guarantee you, if there is ever to be a designation, I say to the minister, in terms of this new piece of legislation that you are bringing in, that is one another one that should certainly be looked at, the Wonder-Strands of Cartwright.

Mr. Speaker, we also have tourism attractions in our marine sector. You look at Gilbert Bay in Labrador. Gilbert Bay is found to be home of the golden cod, one of the rarest species of cod that you can find in this part of the world. Over the years they have been able to nurture that cod stock to allow it to grow and today it is a marine protected area that has become one of the prime areas for scientists and biologists to learn and explore the scientific nature of that particular species of cod. A lot of work went into this by DFO and Memorial University, and through their partnerships with people in the area, this has become one of the most magnificent marine protected areas, I would think, in Labrador right now. In fact, I think it might be the only marine protected area in Labrador right now, but we are looking at other areas.

As the minister already knows, this summer we will be holding a conference in my district to look at marine provincially designated areas, or marine park areas in a couple of different parts of the district. We have been doing some work on that and we think it is going to be a significant piece of work. I am sure that he will be there supporting us and helping us along the way as we move forward on that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about a couple of other things that I think should be recognized under a bill like this. I am only talking about this from the perspective of my own district, but if you want to look at Labrador itself as a tourism icon and all the things that can be done there, we could probably use up the whole session of the House of Assembly to be able to touch on it.

I do want to touch on a couple of things, and one is that of the Labrador Husky dog. A young guy up in Lake Melville, in Goose Bay, by the name of Scott Hudson, has been doing a lot of work in having the Labrador Husky recognized as a heritage animal. I am pleased to see the changes that are taking place in the Historic Resources Act now, because that will allow the efforts and the work of people like Scott Hudson to be able to materialize into something -

MR. HEDDERSON: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Okay. The minister tells me that they will do the research as well in order to do this.

He has worked diligently in the last year to raise the profile and raise attention and awareness around the Labrador Husky. As you know, everybody in this House knows that the Labrador Husky was one of the primary modes of transportation in Labrador for many decades. Not only transportation in terms of getting people to work and getting mail service and hospital services, but it became a part of every family. It was a custom to own a dog team because that was your sole source of being able to mobilize any goods and services, or people in Labrador at that time.

Scott Hudson will now be able to apply to have the Labrador Husky recognized. Through this new legislation he will be able to obtain, I think, research money or have help with the research through the Department of Tourism. I think that is a good thing. I really do, because it will give an opportunity for a lot of individuals and groups, like Mr. Hudson, to be able to go out there and seek out things that need to be recognized and highlighted in our Province as an attraction.

I want to mention a couple of other things, too, Mr. Speaker. Henry John Williams of Cartwright. Henry John Williams, when I am talking about the dog team, I never talk about dog teaming in Labrador without remembering this man because he is kind of an icon in the dog team transportation system, I suppose. He is legendary in terms of being a racer. Not only did he use the dog team for decades as an individual to get around Labrador and to do his work, but in the later years he introduced dog teaming to Southern Labrador as a competitive sport, as a racer. While he was never a man to be overly competitive himself, he was the oldest man to race a dog team in the Labrador Winter Games in Labrador before he deceased. Mr. Speaker, if you go into Cartwright today you will find pictures of Henry John Williams and his dog teams in that community, and blown up and framed in a place of pride in people's establishments because they remember the legendary Henry John Williams. I think people like that should be recognized for the kind of efforts and the work that they have done.

The other individual I would like to mention is Uncle Ben Powell of Charlottetown. A gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that can only be admired because to know this gentleman is definitely to realize the real capabilities of mankind. This is a gentleman who had little or no education, who grew up as a fisherman and a trapper; who came like a lot of people did, from the Carbonear area of Newfoundland and settled in Labrador. He was the founding father of the community of Charlottetown and the author of more than twelve books on Labrador and his life. I think it is a remarkable tribute, not only to that community but for him to be recognized for the kind of work and the efforts that he has done. So, Mr. Speaker, this bill certainly allows us as individuals in the Province to apply to this board to have recognition for these individuals, from an historical and cultural perspective, for the works that they are doing.

I think, Mr. Speaker, you do not have to look too far, only in the last few weeks, when you look at the seven wonders of Canada, the contest that CBC now has ongoing. Of course, I, like a lot of other people, have been online checking the stats but three different sites in Newfoundland and Labrador has made the short list for the seven wonders of Canada. Gros Morne National Park has to be one of the most beautiful national parks in all of the country, I say. I have been to the Rocky Mountains and I have been to Gros Morns, and I can tell you, they are equally as beautiful - and I have been to Alaska, I say to the minister. So I have seen many prominent mountains in this country and Gros Morns is certainly up there with all of them.

The site of the Beothuks in the Grand Falls area, in my colleague's District of Grand Falls-Buchans, Mr. Speaker, she tells me the significance of this rock as it relates to the early history of the Beothuks in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Again, of course, I could not forget the community of L'Anse Amour, the Cove of Love, I say to my hon. colleagues. It has been nominated as one of the Seven Wonders of Canada, and no wonder, Mr. Speaker. Only seven residents live in this tiny village, but they are people who are strongly connected to the land and the sea. They live in one of the most beautiful spots that you could ever hope to have a home and to wake up in the morning and to gaze out over the ocean the separates Newfoundland and Labrador, that body of water. It is an absolutely beautiful place, and the people who live there are equally as beautiful. I am not surprised that they have made the short list for one of the Seven Wonders of Canada.

Now, if my efforts pay off , I say to the minister, they will win, because I have e-mailed, I think, almost everyone on my server list, asking them to vote for L'Anse Amour, the Cove of Love, and to read about the community and to read about the nominees. I think they, too, would certainly fall in love with this place and want to see it win as one of the Seven Wonders of Canada.

All of the three sites that have been nominated in Newfoundland and Labrador, I wish them the very best, and I am sure that throughout this process, whether they win as one of the top seven or not, the fact that they have been recognized and they have been put in a position of prestige and recognized by people all throughout the country for the wonderful attributes that they offer in Newfoundland and Labrador certainly says something about them and the people who operate those sites as well.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to go on much longer. I have said the few comments that I wanted to say, but I certainly support Bill 30, and I commend the minister for his forthright thinking in bringing a bill like this to the Legislature. It is probably long over due, but it is an opportunity to recognize not only the wonderful cultural and traditional places we have in this Province, but also recognize some of the wonderful people who make those sites and make this place the place that we are fortunate enough to live in.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am very pleased to stand in support of this bill today also. I think this bill is a real statement about who we are as a people, actually. The very fact that we are saying in this bill that we would recognize traditional culture as a recognized site, I think, is a statement about ourselves as a people. The very fact that we would want culture in Newfoundland and Labrador to be a registered provincial cultural resource says so much, because that is what we have to bring, both to ourselves and to this country - culture.

It is part of the fibre of our being, I think, that we just believe so much in who we are in our identities. We have one identity in one way but we have so many other identities within that identity. Being open to recognize those cultural identities is such a strength of who we are.

As I am standing here, I am thinking that maybe we should just designate ourselves, the whole Province, as a registered provincial cultural resource because of the resource that we bring to Canada. We bring it as a Province, as a totality, and then we bring it as individuals as we move out across Canada.

Who else in this country goes to other places in Canada and the first thing they do, as Canadians - I am not talking about immigrants coming in, but as Canadians - the first thing they do is gather together and then form Newfoundland clubs. Wherever we go in this country, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians find a way to get together and celebrate. You do not go around Newfoundland and Labrador and find Ontario food stores, or Nova Scotia food stores, but you go to B.C., you go to Ontario, you go to Alberta, and you find Newfoundland food stores.

We are unique in this country, and what this bill is doing is going to be allowing us to celebrate our uniqueness around our traditional cultures. To me, it is really quite exciting. Listening to my colleague from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair just made me feel so proud to be a part of this Province. I feel proud, too, simply because, as an individual Newfoundlander and Labradorian, I know that I come from a culture that I believe could be celebrated in the broader culture. We have minority cultures throughout the Province who have impacted so very positively the overall culture of the Province. I know that the Lebanese community is a culture that did that. We celebrate it all the time inside of the Lebanese community. We know the impact that we have had, and how we were impacted by being people in this Province. Just the potential of being able to celebrate that kind of a thing, to me, is just tremendous.

I really do thank the minister for being open to listening to the people who brought this forward. One of the strengths in our Province is our folklore department at Memorial University. I am sure that they are some of the ones who have been saying to government and to the minister that this kind of thing should be in the designation in the bill.

We should be proud of the work that has been done, both through the archeology department at Memorial as well as the folklore department. Through those two departments we have - and I am not using the pun deliberately - unearthed some tremendous information about ourselves as a people. So, to me, it just seems so logical that we would be the only province in Canada, at the moment, who would think of designating our culture as a historic site, as a historic property, as something to be celebrated by our Province. Therefore, if it is being celebrated by our Province, it will be celebrated by other people as well.

I was really grateful for the minister's full explanation because, when I read the bill, one of the first questions I had was: Well, how do we keep this from just becoming a commonplace thing? How do we keep it from just anybody saying: Oh, I think that person should be designated.

The minister gave a very good explanation of the role of the advisory board. The advisory board is going to be key, because I think the advisory board, and I mean this very sincerely, has to be completely unbiased with regard to making its decisions. Therefore, I think it really does have to be people who are professional people in the area of archeology, in the area of culture, in the area of historic sites, in the areas that are covered when you talk about setting up a registered provincial cultural resource.

I think we really do have to go with professionals here so that the decisions that are made really are unbiased decisions, unbiased in every level, because we cannot have this to become a Mickey Mouse affair. When we do designate, I think we really have to designate something that really, really has impacted the community. I think that is one of the important things about the designation, is that there is proof there of this event or this person or this place, this site of having had a significant impact either on present community, on present society or in the past. For example, looking at the rock out in Central Newfoundland that was important to the Beothuk. To me, that is very, very significant. If that proof is there, then that could be a place that could be looked at. That rock could be a spot that could be looked at.

So, we want something that, as I said, can be shown to have been significant in the life of the community, either the larger or smaller community, in an extremely significant way and that its impact has carried through. That the impact of that event or that place or that person has carried through and it is still impacting the community.

When we have a board like the one that has been described, if that board has the expertise it will be able to do the investigation that will be needed to designate. I will be looking forward to seeing the guidelines that will be put in place, because I am sure there will be stringent guidelines put in place that the board will follow. I look forward to seeing those guidelines. I think it would be good for those guidelines maybe to even become publicly put out there so that people understand how important this is and the dignity that it should have, because I am sure - I know the minister wants that as well, that in doing this we are doing it in a dignified manner, in a way that carries weight so that it is not just any little stone or any little event that gets designated because if we end up having thousands of these then the import will be gone, the import will be lessened.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think I have said what I wanted to say. I am very, very delighted to support this bill. I know we will move from just having five historic sites, especially as we broaden the definition, but I still believe that what we come up with - I do trust the minister's intent and what he has explained to me is that what we come up with will be important, will be significant and will give leadership across Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation speaks now he will close debate at second reading.

The hon. the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I want to thank my colleagues for standing in the debate today with regard to Bill 30. Their comments were well appreciated and certainly showed a clear understanding of where they wanted to see this bill go, this amendment. I am very pleased to say that in our consultations with our heritage and cultural groups, we believe that what we are putting forth is the desire of those particular groups. This commemorations program, Mr. Speaker, will enable this Province to continue to support culture and heritage to ensure that there will be something for generations to come.

Just on a few points, and points that are well taken. The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi indicating the independence of the board. I will just say to the member, we are going to develop the policies. That board should be, first of all, geography, gender, expertise, as we would want any board to represent all of Newfoundland and Labrador. Once the board is set up, then the board will come together. A lot of the guidelines, I think, need to be put to the board, some consensus reached and then we will put it out in the form of nomination forms, and so on and so forth.

Again, this designation, I say, Mr. Speaker, puts us on the leading edge across this nation. We are indeed very, very proud as a government to be able to bring it forward. I will leave that where it is and perhaps any other points we can bring up in further stages of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is the pleasure of the House that Bill 30, An Act To Amend The Historic Resources Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Historic Resources Act. (Bill 30)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 30, An Act To Amend The Historic Resources Act has now been read a second time.

When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. RIDEOUT: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Historic Resources Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Order 6, Bill 14, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 14, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act." (Bill 14)

MR. SPEAKER: Speakers to the bill.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This bill stands on the Order Paper in the name of my colleague, the Minister of Finance, obviously, as the Liquor Corporation is a Crown entity that the Minister of Finance is responsible for. I am pleased to introduce the bill on his behalf, in his absence - he is out of the House on Her Majesty's business - but I am also pleased to introduce it as Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs because, really, this particular amendment to the Liquor Corporation Act has all to do with a matter relative to Aboriginal Affairs.

This bill, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act, is very simple, straightforward and to the point. It will allow the Labrador Inuit communities to continue to implement alcohol control initiatives within the territory now governed by the Nunatsiavut Government as a result of the treaty.

Mr. Speaker, municipalities in the Province defined under the Municipalities Act did not, of course, include the new communities and the new community governments that came into being as a result of the Inuit Land Claims treaty. When the Municipalities Act was crafted and passed through this House there was no thought, of course, at that time, that there would be an Inuit Lands Claims treaty, so the definition of municipalities does not fit, it does not match, the definition of community governments under the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement.

To be able to ensure that the Labrador Inuit governments in Postville, Nain, Makkovik, Hopedale and Rigolet - I think there are five Inuit communities on the North Coast of Labrador - to be able to ensure that those five communities can control their own destiny when it comes to the control of alcohol, it is necessary to amend the legislation to allow those communities to be able to do that under the Liquor Control Act.

Mr. Speaker, hopefully, this House will approve the amendment. When those communities have the authority, as a result of this amendment, they can manage the control of alcohol on their territory, in their communities, as they see fit. As I understand it, they could, if they wish, designate the communities to be dry communities. They can allow for the open and closure of licenced establishments at hours that are suitable to the community. Whatever it is, in terms of the control of alcohol in those Inuit communities, it will be as it should, I say, Mr. Speaker, it will be in the hands of the local leadership and the local government of the Inuit communities on the North Coast of Labrador as a result of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement and as a result of the new Nunatsiavut government.

Mr. Speaker, that is the pith and the substance of the amendment to the Liquor Control Act. It is straightforward. It results from the new reality emerging from the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement that those Inuit communities, the governments of those Inuit communities, are not municipalities; therefore, they cannot act under the authority of the Municipalities Act. They are something more than municipalities. They are almost like - well, they are a self-government entity. They are provided for, and their government is provided for, in the treaty. Then you have an overall government called the Government of Nunatsiavut that is responsible for the territory as a whole. So, in order for those Inuit communities and those Inuit governments to be able to control alcohol, and the use of alcohol, and the availability of alcohol in their communities, it is necessary that the Liquor Control Act be amended. That is the purpose of this amendment.

On behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, but more importantly as Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs, I am pleased to move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased, as well, to stand today to respond to Bill 14, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act. I must commend the Aboriginal communities in Labrador for wanting to make a stand to ensure their own future.

One question I would have about this bill: Is there any flexibility in the time frame, or is there an endless time frame on this? Perhaps the minister, later, can respond to that, because I know this was one that needed to come before this House today and be looked at and legislated.

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to visit the community of Nunatsiavut a few years back and I was really impressed with that community and the people who are living there today. In fact, it was encouraging last week to see, on TV, a substance abuse facility opened in Labrador. That is going to make a huge difference to our young people in Labrador.

I also noticed that government, in their Budget, announced $575,000 to address the issue of gambling. I do not know what amount is the best amount to actually spend on that issue; because, when you consider that in lottery sales alone in our Province last year - it is frightening; it is a staggering figure - there was $104 million in lottery sales in our Province last year; $104 million. Just tobacco tax alone in our Province last year was $111 million. Now, I can't determine what the alcohol tax was, because that particular tax is lumped in with our retail sales tax.

When you look at the money that was actually spent by individuals in our Province last year, $104 million in lottery sales and $111 million in tobacco tax - and that doesn't even include alcohol - and government are now going to spend $175,000 to address gambling. We have huge problems in our society, in our Province, with gambling addiction whether it comes from drugs or alcohol or gambling.

I also notice that in the government ‘s own material they have provided an extra $250,000 for the Kids Eat Smart program in our Province. That tells a lot of things about what is going on with our children today. One-third of the school children in our Province need to avail of a school lunch. One-third of the children in our Province need to avail of a school lunch every day. That is staggering, that kind of thing. When you also look at the fact that 200,000 children last year had to use the Kids Help Phone to get guidance on issues that were bothering them - you know, the school population in our Province is only 60,000 but 200,000 had to make calls for help.

We do have a lot of social problems within our Province and I think this is a good step for Aboriginal communities to take, and let them be in control of who and when and whether or not they want to sell alcohol in their communities. It is certainly a good step.

I want to commend my colleague, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, who is very passionate about her district. That was so evident a few minutes ago as she spoke to Bill 30, The Historic Resources Act. She, herself, could write a tourism booklet, because in her own words today she talked about different parts of the Province and the historic significance of different parts of the Province. She was giving a special recognition, of course, to Labrador, and she has every reason to do that, because Labrador is beautiful.

I wanted to just make a quick comment, when you talked about Labrador and historic issues and so on, the new tourism booklet that is being published by the tourism department this year, now I know there have been good comments but I have some constructive criticism about that booklet because in the past that tourism booklet was always award winning. It was a booklet about this size and the idea of making it smaller was so people could slip it in their travel bags or their briefcase or whatever, or a pocket in their car or so on, but when you first open that book now this year, you will notice that all you see is text. All you see is text, very few pictures. Try and find a place to stay in that book. The first thing you have to do is go to the map for whatever region it is, try to find the place you are going to and look at a grid.

For instance, if you wanted to stay at L'Anse aux Meadows, you would go to Labrador and you look across, it could be B7, then you have to find a place to stay, under a nights sleep. Everything for the entire Labrador will be under that place, a place to sleep. You know, it is so complicated just to find an ordinary accommodation, whereas last year and every other year - for instance, if you are going to Central Newfoundland, all the accommodations were there. So, it is a major chore. You have to take three or four steps now to find a place to stay. Maybe people around this Province think it is great but I think it is too much text when you look at it first. We were always showcasing the beautiful pictures of our Province, and that was a draw in itself. Just the booklet was a draw, showing all the different parts of our Province, our lifestyles, our cultures, our wildlife, our scenery. That alone was a draw, but now to open up that small book, all you see is text, very few pictures. Try to find a place to go and a place to put your head in the nighttime, I tell you, it is a big chore. That is what I found out. Now I do not know if other people agree with me but I would like for people to actually take that booklet and try to find a place to stay in it. It is a chore, and if you are not from Newfoundland you hardly know where to look. Anyway, that is my comments on the new tourism guide.

Getting back to the bill, I think this is a good piece of legislation. I must compliment and commend the people of Labrador, our Aboriginal population in the Inuit communities along the Coast of Labrador who took the initiative to say that they want their community a safe community. They want their community a dry community, where liquor will not be sold and they will control the fact that liquor will not be sold in their communities. Hopefully, in time that will lead to better communities all around Labrador, and we will not have the social issues that we are facing today.

There was one question I asked earlier, I want to know if it will be necessary in the future for this type of bill to come to the House, or will this be a bill that can be used at any point by the communities themselves? Will they have the ability to make decisions surrounding their communities regarding the sale of liquor, and will that give them authority, I guess, forever to make their own decisions within the community rather than having to come to government for that decision? I think it is the right move and it is a move that was generated by the people themselves to ensure their own futures.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, and I will definitely be supporting this bill.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Government House Leader speaks now he will close the debate on Bill 14, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I was so engrossed with a tLte-B-tLte, heart to heart, with my sick colleague from the other side who, we are all glad to hear, looks like he is going to live.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I do not want the Deputy Opposition House Leader to take that to heart because I know he is not well either.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the other side for her comments. This is an important piece of legislation from the point of view of the Inuit communities on the North Coast of Labrador. I thank her for her contribution and I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 14, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act, be now read second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act. (Bill 14)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time.

When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. RIDEOUT: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act," read second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 14)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, Order 9, second reading of Bill 24, An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 24, An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997." (Bill 24)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill, Bill 24, that is before the House today, is to amend section 84 and section 118 of the Schools Act, 1997.

Section 84 deals with school property. It provides that all properties which were used for the purpose of education at the time of school board consolidation on January 1, 1998, can be used by the new school board for as long as they are required by the school board and for the purpose of education. Section 84 states that the continued use of these school properties is be without compensation to the titleholder.

Section 84(4) references school properties which are vested in denominational authorities. Prior to school board consolidation, the titles to school properties operated by the Roman Catholic and Pentecostal school boards were vested in denominational authorities. Schools which were, prior to 1969, operated by the Anglican, United and Salvation Army churches are also vested in these denominational authorities. Financial interests in these school properties is shared by government and the denominational authority which holds the title.

Section 84(4) requires the denominational authorities to enter into agreements with the school boards regarding the management, maintenance, use, equipping and improvement of the property. Section 84(4) also requires the denominational authorities to enter into agreements with the school boards regarding the disposal of property when it is no longer required for the purpose of education.

Section 118 provides Cabinet with the ability to make regulations respecting certain sections of the act. The current legislation does provide for the sale of denominational school properties when they are no longer required for education, but it is silent on whether the denominational authorities can sell their interests while the school continues to be used by the school board. The primary responsibility of government is to ensure that the students attending these schools continue to do so and that the school boards continue to have the ability to use them for as long as they are needed. That being said, it would be unreasonable for government to prevent the denominational authorities from selling their interests in these properties, if they wish to do so.

The proposed amendments to section 84.4 will acknowledge the sale of denominational interests in school properties; ensure that the terms and conditions of church agreements which have entered into between the denominational authorities and the school boards will apply to any person or group that purchase the denominational interests in these properties; and establish the power for Cabinet to make regulations to modify the terms and conditions of these agreements as they apply to third party purchasers.

These modifications, Mr. Speaker, will be required to remove some of the terms which apply only to churches, such as the right to use schools for religious activities and the right to require the school board to change the name of the school. These rights would not be extended to third party purchasers; therefore, they will be deleted from the regulations.

These amendments will satisfy the wishes of the denominational authorities to sell their interests in school properties which they own while permitting school boards to continue the operation of these schools for the students they serve.

Thank you.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to make a few comments with regard to Bill 24 and to thank the minister, I guess, yesterday for her explanation to me, because sometimes when you read the explanatory notes you have questions, and I was pleased that she did come forward and explain it to me.

Mr. Speaker, I can understand where government is coming from on this, because I guess we all know different situations. I know, not in particular to this case here, I had an incident in my district back a few years ago where a denominational entity transferred the school over to the board, only in this particular case the school closed out and amalgamated in the Bay Roberts area, but when it came time for the board to transfer it back to the denominational authority they ran into difficulty because I think there were six pieces of property there that encompassed the title and they could only find deeds to five of them. There was one piece that they could not find. When the denominational authority turned it over to the board it was the same situation but it was accepted, but when it went in reverse order it never got back to the denomination. To my understanding, the building, after, some young people got in and burned the place down. All that is left there now is the piece of property that was never, ever, transferred back to them.

I can understand where the minister is coming from here because - I was under the impression that they could not sell them, but I know what the minister is saying. She is saying the laws there are silent on it, and rightfully so. Now the government is saying that if the denominations turn it over or sell it to a third party they want the rules, regulations and conditions in place so that they can carry on the work that is there now through the school boards. That is only fair, Mr. Speaker.

Having said that, that is the only issue I had to raise. I am not aware of anyone else. Maybe there are some other people on this side who would have questions on it. The only thing I would ask the minister, and probably in Committee: I don't know if there are denominational authorities who are in the process of selling their properties or what have you, and if there are I guess that is their right, but I was just wondering if government has been approached by different people who want to do this and this is why this is coming into play at this point in time.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I have no objections to Bill 24 and I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. the Minister of Education speaks now, she will close the debate on Bill 24, An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, just in relation to the question that was asked, we have no indication at this time that school properties are going to be sold to a third party. However, we were asked if we were interested in buying out the denominational interest in the properties on the West Coast. Of course, government is protected in legislation regarding compensation for the church properties. That was established when the Schools Act was changed in 1997. At this point in time we are not advised or aware that any of the school properties will be sold to a third party.

As the hon. Member for Port de Grave indicated, the original bill and the intent of the law was to make sure that the schools, as long as they were required by the school boards to operate as schools, would be protected. However, it was silent as to whether or not if the denominational authorities sold their interests in the schools to a third party what the rights of the third party would be.

This, Mr. Speaker, is an intent to ensure that the schools that are being used to educate the students in Newfoundland and Labrador will be there for that purpose and that the intent and the spirit of the legislation will be extended beyond the denominational authorities to a third party to ensure that we do have access to these schools and we are able to operate them.

With that, Mr. Speaker, if there are no other speakers, I will close debate on the Schools Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 24, An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997, 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 To Amend The School Act, 1997, Bill 24.

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. RIDEOUT: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 24)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Order 14, Second Reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999, Bill 29.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999." (Bill 29)

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

MR. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say a few words on Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999.

Mr. Speaker, this bill really has a lot to do with the implementation of the regional services boards and corporations throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador into the future and how the legislation itself will be implemented. This amendment provides statutory authority for municipalities and local service districts subject to ministerial approval to establish municipal service delivery corporations to administer regional service delivery initiatives, such as waste management. It could be firefighting, regional firefighting. It could be supply of water, or whatever the case may be, Mr. Speaker.

This amendment also provides authority for municipalities, local service districts to enter into agreements with municipal service delivery corporations for regional service delivery. In other words, this will give the authority to the municipalities to work out agreements with these authorities to implement the services and to provide the services to the regions. Also, the regional service boards and municipal service delivery corporations will be exempt from all forms of municipal taxes, other than water and sewer taxes. So, therefore, Mr. Speaker, you can have these regional authorities - for example, again, a waste management authority within a region and the municipalities under the existing legislation could actually tax those authorities. That was a weakness in the legislation when it was first put in place and it was proclaimed a few years ago. So, really, what we are looking to do now is to exempt these corporations and regional authorities from taxation from municipalities.

What had happened in the past, in one incident, one municipality had imposed a tax on the regional authority, which is the exact amount - I believe, from memory - that they would have had to pay to utilize the regional authority and the waste management site. So, although the town would benefit from it, they were going to try and tax the authority. We had to stop that, by the way, Mr. Speaker, and this will prevent that from happening in the future.

This amendment addressed and identified the legislative weakness, as I said, allowing the imposition of property and business taxes. It was never intended that the municipality controlled entities would be subject to municipal taxes. This amendment addresses that issue. Without this amendment the regional services delivery corporations could be subject to municipal taxes, thus creating a significant impediment to ongoing efforts to regionalization of municipal services.

As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, again, we have a strategy in place now that was put in place by the - most of the strategy was put in place by the previous Administration. We did not have the money in the short term or the long term to implement the strategy. It was only a short time ago that we had a major announcement with respect to implementing the Waste Management Strategy. We have the dollars to do it and now these things here will actually - this amendment to the legislation will actually help us along the road to get, in particular, the Waste Management Strategy up and running.

Municipalities will not be restricted from imposing municipal taxes on private sector entities contracted to provide municipal services in a particular area. In a municipality, anywhere within the Province, if there is a company that is doing work with respect to waste management for a municipality, they will have the right to tax the private sector. There will be no restriction on that. It would have to be a reasonable amount of money, of course.

All communities, regardless of the service area, will be treated equally. Again, the Waste Management Strategy that we have in place is quite an all encompassing strategy for all municipalities within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and not only the municipalities and local service districts but communities that are not even incorporated. Therefore, this really is an amendment to the legislation to improve the process whereby we can implement the Waste Management Strategy and any regional authorities or corporations to implement the strategy itself. Now, the corporations themselves could be a body that could actually develop into the regional authority itself, in due course, Mr. Speaker.

With that, I think my critic on the opposite side might want to have a few words to say on this but I really think it is certainly an improvement to the legislation and will help us in the long term.

Thank you.

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have a few words on Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999.

As the minister said, this particular amendment is brought in as a result of legislation that was brought with the previous Administration. I might have even brought it here myself, being the minister at the time, I am not sure - a number of years ago.

What it does is provide to government - give government the authority to set up different management regional services delivery initiatives. The minister already mentioned one that we did in Green Bay for the Waste Management Material. There is also a possibility now that there will be one set up in Central Newfoundland to look after the waste management there, one to be set up in Corner Brook, and one on the East Coast to be set up by the minister as well. That gives these authorities the right to set it up, subject to the minister giving approval. Really, in a sense, what it does is really a step forward here, because in many of the smaller municipalities and in the larger areas, we see that it is possible to deliver services more efficiently, more cost-effective through an agreement where you would do it on a regional basis.

I think of, for example, in Central Newfoundland where you have the Exploits water authority. When I was minister, the mayor from Botwood, who was here earlier today, we decided with the town there, and Peterview, and possibly in the future Northern Arm, to be a part of the Exploits Valley water authority. As a result of that, they have become a part of that delivery agency. They pay a part into it so that particular authority can work.

Now the minister mentioned earlier, and I think in the third bulletin that he gave, about the regional services board be exempt from all forms of municipal taxation, other than water and sewer. I can remember very well when the Green Bay Waste Management Authority was set up. We had one municipality where this authority would be in its jurisdiction and we, at that particular time, came to an agreement with that municipality that the government would give them a grant for the use of that particular service or that particular site, but after that particular municipality would have to pay into the waste management authority like everybody else. Of course, they wanted to tax it, and the minister brought in this amendment to prevent it from happening. If you allow that to happen and you are going to have another regional authority set up for waste management in Central Newfoundland and it is near one of the municipalities - if this amendment was not in place, then that municipality could tax that authority and the other municipalities who would serve it would have to pay those taxes. So I can see that being a very important part here to make sure that this does not happen.

It was never intended, as the minister said, that the municipality controlled entities would be subject to municipal taxes, but it was tried. Therefore, in this case, the minister is making sure that it does not by putting a stop to the loopholes to make sure that it does not happen. Now, on the other hand, as the minister said, this does not stop the municipality that is nearest to that regional delivery site to provide water and sewer to it. If they do, then obviously, that particular municipality should be compensated for that particular service. Other than that, it probably should not.

Again, he says, and I agree with him, that if in those particular regional service areas a lot of the work is going to be done by private contractors or private entities, and you probably have a public-private cost-sharing arrangement to deliver these services, then they could be eligible for taxation. No doubt that taxation, as I see it, would then go to that entity to make sure that it would have the necessary funds to run it rather than just for the individual towns.

What is does here is make sure, as the minister said earlier, that all the municipalities are treated fairly, whoever they might be, to take advantage of that particular service. I think that is the way to go. I believe that is the way to go. As the communities have smaller populations in the rural parts of the Province, many, many more of these regional service boards will have to be put in place to deliver, as the minister said, firefighting - they might not always be able to deliver water because those communities are far fetched, but there is nothing to prevent it from delivering waste management and firefighting and other services that might be available to the communities within an existing radius.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs speaks now, he will close the debate on Bill 29, An Act to Amend the Municipalities Act, 1999.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank my hon. critic for his comments in support of the amendment to the legislation.

He is correct, I believe, the previous administration did bring in the legislation with respect to regional authorities in the Province. It had gone through the House of Assembly but it had not been proclaimed. That was one of the first things we did as a government, I think. In January of 2004 we actually proclaimed the legislation with respect to regional authorities within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

With the comments I have made on this amendment, Mr. Speaker, and the comments made by the hon. critic, I think we have covered the bases on this at this point in time. We will probably be moving into Committee later on, and if there are any other points that need to be made I am sure they will be made at that point in time.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: 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 To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999, Bill 29.

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. RIDEOUT: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 29)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain bills.

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 certain bills.

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?

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.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Collins): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Committee of the Whole, consideration of Order 12, Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act.

CHAIR: Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act." (Bill 26)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 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'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act, passed without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Order 15, Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 30, An Act To Amend The Historic Resources Act.

CHAIR: An Act To Amend The Historic Resources Act. (Bill 30)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Historic Resources Act." (Bill 30)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 4 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 4 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'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Historic Resources Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 30, An Act To Amend The Historic Resources Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Order 6, Committee consideration of Bill 14, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act.

CHAIR: Bill 14, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act." (Bill 14)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 and 3.

CHAIR: Clauses 2 and 3.

Shall clauses 2 and 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 2 and 3 are carried.

On motion, clauses 2 and 3 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'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 14, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act, passed without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Order 9, Committee on Bill 24, An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997.

CHAIR: Bill 24, An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997." (Bill 24)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 2 is carried.

On motion, clause 2 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'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 24, An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The bill is carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Order 14, Committee on Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999.

CHAIR: An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999. (Bill 29)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999." (Bill 29)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 7 inclusive.

CHAIR: Clauses 2 to 7 inclusive.

Shall these carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 7 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'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999, passed without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999, is carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sign again.

CHAIR: The motion is that 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'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

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

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 26, Bill 30, Bill14, Bill 24 and Bill 29 passed without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: 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 Bill 26, Bill 30, Bill 14, Bill 24 and Bill 29 passed without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the said bills be read a third time?

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, by leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, by leave.

On motion, report received and adopted, bills ordered read a third time presently, by leave.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 12, third reading of Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 26 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act. (Bill 26)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has been now read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 26)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, Order 15, third reading of Bill 30, An Act To Amend The Historic Resources Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 30 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Historic Resources Act. (Bill 30)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Historic Resources Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 30)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 6, third reading of Bill 14, An Act To Amend the Liquor Control Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 14 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act. (Bill 14)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 14)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 9, third reading of Bill 24, An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 24 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997. (Bill 24)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 24)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 14, third reading of Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 29 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999. (Bill 29)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 29)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will now move to Motion 1, which is the Budget debate.

I believe the debate on the amendment was adjourned by the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think I have around forty minutes. I do not know if we will be able to use that up this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: It is my understanding that the hon. member has something like thirty-nine minutes remaining in his address.

MR. REID: That is pretty close, Mr. Speaker. I know I am good with numbers. That is why I rise to speak to the amendment that we put forward, to the non-confidence vote in the Budget.

I guess, between now and two or three o'clock tomorrow morning, a number of those opposite who sit on the government side of the House will stand and pat themselves on the back and do as the Member for Terra Nova said he has been doing lately, going around slapping himself on the chest about what a great Budget it is and how people are running out of their houses as he drives through his district, or jumping out of their vehicles while they are still moving, to tell him what a great Budget it is. I say that with a bit of humor, Mr. Speaker, because if you listen to the Member for Terra Nova - I pick on him a bit here lately. That is probably because of some of the remarks that he has made in the House of Assembly. I find him so humorous that I have to make a bit of fun at him.

Mr. Speaker, they will stand at various times tonight, like they have been standing at various times in the last two or three weeks, and talk about how this is the best Budget since 1949 and how we, on this side of the House, could not, in all conscience, vote against this Budget. I know that the Member for Terra Nova is a novice when it comes to longevity in the House of Assembly. It is his first term and he hasn't been around for many budgets. I didn't hear him, by the way, in the 2004 Budget, get up and applaud himself, because you were half afraid. I guarantee you there weren't people jumping out of their vehicles in your district that year, nor in 2005, I say to the member. Most of you, in fact, including the Chair, who is sitting in our Chair today: Sure, they put an ad out in the paper. In 2004, the first budget we had, you gutted the Public Service of the Province.

People forget quickly, I say to the members opposite, about how the Premier came on with his State of the Union address back in February, 2004 and talked about the dire straits we were in, and that we are going to have to lay off half the Public Service and increase every known fee that we have ever paid before and then freeze the wages of the Public Service; two years with zero and zero, and then give three and three for a total, over the four-year period that you have been in government, of 6 per cent, which comes out to, I believe, 1.5 per cent a year, when the inflation rate was 2.5 per cent.

Everyone in the Province actually got poorer while you were in government in the last four years, and now you are patting yourselves on the back because you are giving an income tax break to some individuals. Well, they are giving it to all, but what the Member for Terra Nova - and again the reason I mention him is because he is the one who brought it up, about the income tax break. What he failed to mention is that those who make the higher incomes in the Province are getting the largest income tax break because they actually get a double tax break.

I do not know if most of them over there understand. I would have no problem with a tax break across the board for everybody, but I have real problem when those who earn the largest income in the Province get a double tax break; because, when we were in government, when the Liberal Party was in government, they realized at one point that, because of deficit problems back in the, I am not sure if it was in the early or late 1990s, I was not here at the time, they realized that they had a deficit problem and they put a surtax on what they would call the rich in the Province. They put a surtax on individuals who earned above a certain amount. So, they paid their income tax like all of us but they were charged more. In fact, they put a surtax of 9 per cent on the wealthy.

What this government has done this year is, they have eliminated not only the surtax on the rich but they have also given them a tax deduction so that people who are making $100,000 or more will be in a far better position next year than they are this year. In fact, they are getting the highest tax break of anybody.

I said it before and I will say it again, the people who sit in Cabinet opposite are going to be the biggest beneficiaries of this tax break, not simply because they have a higher income but because you are going to get two tax breaks when everybody else in the Province, the lower and the middle income earners, are only going to get one tax break.

I do not think they want us to talk about that. They do not want to talk about that because they feel, for some reason, that the rich in the Province should get a bigger tax break. They should get two tax breaks, whereas the lower and the middle income earners should get one.

Now, that has always been the philosophy of a Tory government, whether it is anywhere in the country or with their cousins in the United States, the Republicans, because the Republicans and the Tories are similar parties and they believe in looking after big corporations and wealthy people. They put them before they put the middle class and the lower income earner, whereas the Liberal Party in Canada, like the Democrats in the United States, lean more to the socialist side. They are more interested in trying to help those who are finding it more difficult to live, to get ahead.

That is the reason that Bill Clinton, for example, a Democrat who would be called a Liberal in Canada, was so popular, because Bill Clinton did more for the minority groups in the U.S. probably than any other President before him. That is why he left with such a high rating in the polls while George Bush, who is on his way out the door in another year from now, finds himself so low in the polls. In fact, I would say he is probably the lowest of any President of the United States, certainly in recent times and probably ever, but it is all because of their philosophy.

The Liberal Party of Canada, and the Liberal Party of Newfoundland especially, have a philosophy, and it has always been the case, right back to when Joey Smallwood first established the party and first got elected in 1949. I guess Joey Smallwood, having come from an outport community, the little boy from Gambo, realized what it was like to come from a poor family, and the struggles that his family and others like him in rural parts of the Province had to endure.

I guess, when he became Premier, he realized that he had to look after those whom he associated with most, and that was the lower to middle income earners in the Province. As a result, Mr. Speaker, most of the programs that Joey Smallwood brought in, and which other consecutive Liberal Premiers followed, was one with a social conscience, one that was geared towards helping people in need, providing health care services, providing social programs for those who are less fortunate.

Whenever we had a Tory Party in power, they are more concerned about balancing budgets, giving tax breaks to the rich, and passing money over to those who do not need it, their friends and buddies in business.

Mr. Speaker, that is the difference, the philosophical difference, between the Liberal Party on the left and the Tory Party on the right. It has always been the case. Anyone who has studied business, or anyone who has studied politics, I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, will find that the Tory Party always stood for what they call fiscal responsibility. In other words, do not waste your money on social programs, do not waste your money on what they consider to be handouts. What you do is give tax breaks to the rich and the big corporations. Their philosophy is, if you give tax breaks to the rich and the large corporations, these rich and large corporations will employ more poor people.

It is the same philosophy, as I said, as the Republicans in the United States, only even the Tories in Canada are not as bad as those in the United States. That is the reason they do not have, for example, free health care. They believe that even if you get sick you should pay, and those who have the most money should get the best treatment. We are getting to that point now, Mr. Speaker, in this country, which is sad to see. We are getting to that point in this country because what I have never heard of I have witnessed in the last few months, and that is, I have talked to individuals who, they themselves, have gone outside of the Province to seek medical treatment. When they do, they have to pay it themselves because they cannot get the treatment here in the Province. That is a sad scenario. Not that I agree with paying for health services, because I totally disagree with it, totally disagree with any move by any government to do away with Medicare. It should be universal and we should not be setting up two-tier systems but, unfortunately, that is happening in this Province. It is not surprising when you see what has happened in this Province in the last few months, or what has come to light in the Province in the last few months because it has been going on now for two years. I am talking about the hormone receptor tests that the media finally broke, because even though this government calls themselves an open, accountable and transparent government, they release no information unless they are forced to. They release no information unless they are forced to release it.

Every time that I want a piece of information from government about something that they have spent money on, whether it be a trip that a minister took to Ireland and what he spent his money on, or a trip that he took to Alberta or anywhere else in the world, I have to put in a Freedom of Information request and I have to pay to get that information from our own government. I sit here in the House of Assembly where everything is supposed to be honourable and people are supposed to answer questions and give you the information when you ask, yet I have to pay to get information.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, what has come to light in recent months is the unfortunate incident concerning the hormone receptor tests, that they were flawed and that this government knew about it as early as May, 2005, and decided to keep that information secret. It was only through the tenacity of some local reporters here in St. John's that this information came out. It is through the media and through the questioning of both Opposition parties that it became an issue, because if we did not raise it, if we did not continue to ask, I say, Mr. Speaker, the residents of our Province, and especially those who are directly affected by this test, would know little or nothing about it.

So, for the Premier to be talking about open and accountable governments, I find it laughable actually, when we have to pay for every single piece of information that we get out of it. Even though we live in a democracy where we can stand every day and ask the government questions, we have to pay to get the information because we do not get it in the House when we ask it.

Mr. Speaker, I am getting a little off the topic. I was talking about the difference between a Liberal Party and a Tory Party, and I got on to health care because the Liberal Party always believed in universal health care and we will maintain universal health care as long as there is a Liberal Party, at least in this Province, I say, Mr. Speaker.

The other difference is that the Liberal Party has a social conscience. They believe in helping those who need help, whether that be through increased payments in social services or helping in any way those who need the assistance, because they are not earning enough money or unable to earn enough money to live. We always feel, the Liberal Party, that these people should be helped. We also believe that the middle-class should not have to pay for everything for the lower class or the upper class. What we believe in is those who make the most should pay the most. I think that is fair. We are all decent, I suppose, individuals who are supposed to have a social conscience. Whenever there is a disaster anywhere in the world, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are the ones who step up to the plate first and give their donation. We are known for that, Mr. Speaker. Canada used to be known for it around the world, but Canada is after slipping back a little bit, but Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are still there. When someone needs a hand we are ready to step up.

I will digress a little bit more because that brings to mind what is happening on the Northeast Coast of our Province. When I say the Northeast Coast of our Province, I am saying everything above Bonavista, I take it, Mr. Speaker. I do not know if the fish harvesters in your district are still finding it difficult to go out to their pots or not because of ice conditions. Even though Newfoundlanders and Labradorians agree to giving whenever there is a natural disaster anywhere in the world, we take up collections and send it there, we have, what I consider to be a natural disaster happening on the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland and throughout the Coast of Labrador, and that is people are unable to fish, or the vast majority of them are unable to fish and they have been cut off any source of income, namely EI, since the first or April and tomorrow is going to be the first of June.

I cannot get it through the heads of the provincial Tory government, or the federal Tory government that these people need help and help should be given. It is just impossible to beat it through their heads that help needs to be given. Now I have contacted the federal Minister of Fisheries on a number of occasions. I have had personal conversations with him, when he told me two weeks ago that he was working on something. I have asked the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries here in this Province what they have done about this issue. For two months I have been talking about this now here in the House from time to time, not every day, but from time to time I do raise the plight of these individuals. Yet, there is no relief coming for these individuals. That is the difference I say, to any of you who want to listen over there, that is the difference between a Liberal philosophy and a Tory philosophy. The Tory philosophy is that you do not give anything to the poor and those in need, you give tax breaks and stuff to the rich.

Mr. Speaker, I have asked the question of the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries. The Minister of Fisheries, two weeks ago Sunday coming, was sitting in an office in Ottawa right across the table with the federal Minister of Fisheries, and when I asked him on Monday, after he returned home from his visit on Sunday to the federal minister, if he talked about this issue with the federal minister, he said, no. Now, I can't believe how he could ever forget something that was so significant, that affects so many thousands of people in our Province.

The Premier of our Province was in Ottawa last week for the full week. I happen to think that he was up there because he didn't want to sit here and answer questions on the very serious health issues that we have in our Province. If the Premier thinks that being in Ottawa addressing a group of students from across the country is more important that being in the Province dealing with very serious health issues and issues confronting the fisher people on the North East Coast of Labrador, then I think he has his priorities all wrong. I honestly believe that.

I ask him today, as I asked him on Monday: When you were in Ottawa last week for a week - I don't know what he was doing, Mr. Speaker, because I know he doesn't talk to Stephen Harper. He doesn't talk to Stephen Harper, he doesn't talk to Loyola Hearn, and we all know how he feels about Fabian Manning. Not only does he not talk to him, there are other things he would like to do to him that I can't express in the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, because you would call me unparliamentary.

We had a Fisheries Minister who was in Ottawa two weeks ago and never brought up the issue of the people starving on the North East Coast because of ice conditions. We had a Premier who was there for a full week last week, and when I asked him today in the House of Assembly, Premier, did you meet with any minister including our own, Mr. Hearn, in Ottawa last week or the Prime Minister to address this very serious issue confronting fish harvesters in Newfoundland and Labrador, the first time I asked him he didn't answer the question at all. He went on to talk about some other topic totally unrelated to fish and ice compensation. The second time I asked him the question he finally got up and blurted out: Nope, didn't talk to him. Stephen Harper wasn't in Ottawa. Now, Stephen Harper wasn't in Ottawa. The Prime Minister was in Afghanistan, so he didn't speak about the plight of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians up there to anybody. I happen to think that he left the House of Assembly last week because the temperature was too hot here concerning the health care issue and he thought the issue would be dead by the time he got back this week. It is not going to be dead until we get the facts, Mr. Speaker. We are going to continue to ask the questions until we find answers to them.

Mr. Speaker, here is the problem: There is no thought - that is what scares me, really and truly scares me, that there is not even a thought given to those people. You know, as well as I do, that these are not the richest people in the Province. In fact, many of them, the majority of the people of whom I talk today, not coming close to being rich. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would say the vast majority of the people of whom I speak today fall below the poverty line when you look at Canadian standards at $23,000 a year. If you do not make $23,000 a year then you are below the poverty line. I would hazard a guess that most of the people I am talking about today fall below that, because they eke a living from the sea, and because of the mismanagement of the resource that they harvest in the sea they are faced with little prospect of making large incomes any more.

Now, some of you opposite who do not represent rural districts may think, for example, that all fish harvesters are rich because they own sixty-five foot vessels. Some of you may think they are rich because I hear people say, because they drive a $40,000 pickup, and for some reason these people who say that - well, I am not worried about him because he has a $40,000 vehicle - it is almost, the way they talk, like these individuals are not entitled to a $40,000 vehicle when I doubt very much there is anyone sitting in this House of Assembly today who has a vehicle much less than that, and if you do you probably have two. You forget that a pickup is instrumental to any fish harvester to get his gear to and from his boat.

Anyway, to find that neither the Minister of Fisheries nor the Premier would even address this issue, what I find even more repulsive, I suppose, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that they do not even blame it on the federal government for not acting. I have not heard the Minister of Fisheries up yet in this House of Assembly, since this issue arose two months ago, condemn the federal government for their inaction. I have not heard the Premier, in this House or outside this House, mention the issue of ice compensation or an EI extension. You have to ask yourself the question: Why? Why?

Maybe some of you can stand up and tell me, when I sit down, why hasn't the Premier mentioned this issue? Whether to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Fisheries or any other minister in Ottawa, why has he not made it a public issue in our Province? We hear him bawl and scream about lots of issues that are of importance to the people of this Province, but he does not mention that one. I do not know what the real reason is.

I have my own theories. One is that he is still angry with the fish harvesters in this Province because of the strike they had two years ago because of the raw material sharing, when he told them he did not care that year if they ever fished. He made that comment, Mr. Speaker. You represent Bonavista, in that area, you know what the fish harvesters were saying down there.

When those fish harvesters went on strike and said we are not fishing, the Premier said he did not care about that, he did not care if they even fished that year, so he was ready to sacrifice their livelihood that year. I think he is still angry about that, and that is the reason he is not willing to step in and try to help these people.

The other reason I think, Mr. Speaker, and maybe the more important one, is that he just does not understand. No disrespect to the man for that, but he does not know a lot about how people live in the rural parts of our Province. He has been around there.

The reason I say that again, Mr. Speaker, and it is with no disrespect, I remember in 2001, after he had just become the Leader of the Tory Party - I think it was in June or July of that year - when he was standing on a tee box on the golf course in Corner Brook. Now, for any of you who do not know what a tee box is, that is where you hit the ball; you hit it off the ball. You put it on a tee and you hit it off the ground on a tee box and you head towards the hole. Well, he was standing on a tee box in Corner Brook and do you know what his comments were? I didn't realize how beautiful rural Newfoundland was. I should have come out here before.

Now, think about that. When I said he just does not understand, here is what I mean. You take an individual who owns three golf courses, who lives in the largest town, St. John's, in this Province, and he goes to Corner Brook, which is the second largest town in the Province, and he is teeing up on a golf course and he is saying: Had I known rural Newfoundland was so beautiful, I would have been out here before.

Now, if you do not believe me, there are tapes with CBC and NTV that can show you that, I say to the Minister of Tourism. There are tapes where he actually said that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: You do not like the truth again, Mr. Speaker. Maybe you can tell him to quieten down a little bit, because I know they do not like to hear the truth and they get rather rambunctious. They are probably hungry now and they are starting to yap. The fact of the matter is, I still have a few minutes.

What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that there is one of two reasons that the Premier is not helping these fisherpeople in the Province, or asking for help from the federal government. The first one is that he is still angry with them over the raw material sharing, or he just does not know, just does not understand, the fact that someone who made $12,000 or $14,000 last year in total income, drew unemployment the winter, is out of money. They are out of money. When their last EI cheque was cut off on the first of April - they are out of money. Are they worried? No. If they were, they would be speaking about it. I think they should be ashamed.

On the other hand, when you are talking about money, we are sitting - I have asked the Premier today, and here is the reason I asked him the question. The federal government is not reacting to this problem. Yet, the Province, after all the bills are paid this year, are still going to have $260 million left over. That is what they are saying in their Budget. They are saying that even when all the bills are paid for health, education, road construction, water and sewer projects and everything else, that they are going to have $262 million or $268 million left over. Now think about that, Mr. Speaker. Think about it.

Do you know what that is equivalent to, Mr. Speaker? That is equivalent to me paying my light bill, my phone bill, my mortgage on my house, paying for my car, putting gas in it, paying for the insurance, paying for everything, and still having $268 left but I will not buy food for my kids. That is what that is equivalent to. Just think about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) your Visa?

MR. REID: Yes, after I have paid my Visa. Is that what you want to hear? Yes, because I have one of those, by the way, right there. Do you want to check the amount on it? Ask the Commissioner for Oaths, or the Commissioner for Members' Interests, because he can tell you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, that is what it is equivalent to. They are sitting on a $268 million surplus this year and they will not help the people on the Northeast Coast.

That is the difference between a Liberal government and a Tory government. We could not do that. I, in all conscience, Mr. Speaker, could not allow that to happen. I could not allow that to happen.

You on the opposite side, led by the Premier, will not even give these individuals social assistance. You will not give them social assistance. I know individuals who have gone to the welfare office and asked for help because they cannot make the payments on their vehicles, they cannot pay the light bill, they cannot put food on the table. Do you know what the welfare office tells them? Sorry, we can't help you. You got a cheque on April 5. You got your last EI cheque on April 5 and you are not eligible for help under social services for sixty days after that, which is going to be June 5.

Maybe that is the reason the government is holding off; let them go on social services rather than help them. I find that despicable and shameful. That is the difference between a Liberal Party and a Tory Party.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, what they will not spend money on, people like the fish harvesters and the plant workers. I am not just talking about the fish harvesters and the plant workers. I am talking about anybody in this Province who find themselves in dire straits like that, whether they be working at a MacDonald's in St. John's, whether they be pushing a broom in this building because that is what the people in this building make, I might add, too. The people who clean the floors in this building make the minimum wage. That is what they make. They are making seven dollars-and-some-odd-cents an hour. That is what they are making and they are supposed to raise families on that. Well, I say, Mr. Speaker, that is not the Liberal way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, with all of this - now they are getting a bit riled up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: I say to the members opposite, you can say what you like, you are sitting on a $268 million surplus after all the bills are paid this year. You ask yourselves what you should do it with.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Yes, and I am going to tell you that later on tonight, because I get another hour, why I am going to vote against the Budget, I say to the Minister of Health, the poster boy for trust magazine, the member for Clarenville.

Now, Mr. Speaker, after not helping these people who are in dire straits, let me tell you some of the things that they do not mind spending money on and what they spent money on in the last year. Does everyone remember? I bet you all of that crowd opposite remember because they were there when they were down at the Convention Centre about ten months ago, I think it was. When were the Premiers here, July or August? You were all down there. You had a great time. You must have. When was it, I say to the Member for Topsail? July, when the Premiers' conference was on here, when they spent $200,000 in one night for booze and entertainment, $200,000. Seventy-five thousand was passed to a band for performing for an hour-and-a-half. There was $25,000 given to Rick Mercer when he flew from Toronto to St. John's and performed for fifteen or twenty minutes. He was given a cheque for $25,000 and all of his bills were paid, all of his expenses; his plane fare from Toronto, first-class I might add, put up in a hotel and fed. After he performed and told a few jokes - I like Rick Mercer, a great performer. I think the world of him. They gave him $25,000 and he went back to Toronto. Two hundred thousand dollars on entertainment, $100,000 on a band and a comedian, and the rest went in booze and a bit of finger food to show the Premiers across the country what a great bunch we are. Today, when people are starving in our Province, we cannot find a cent to give them. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is one example.

The Premier went to Ireland this spring. I do not know what they go to Ireland for, because they are always back and forth to Ireland. I have not seen any jobs as a result of it. The Premier went to Ireland this spring, and according to documents that were released by his government, Report of Public Tender Act Exceptions. We got that last Thursday in the House of Assembly. Yesterday, I received an update on it. It came to my office yesterday. The update said a page in this book was wrong. There was one item wrong. It concerned a chauffeur service. In fact, that is who the money went to, a chauffeur service in Ireland. The bill for a chauffeur service in Ireland. The Premier admitted today that there were four or five people with him and I think there were two cars involved. He said today we will get a copy of it, because it was printing as we were speaking. He was there for three or four days with four or five people. They had two cars from a chauffeur service. Guess how much was spent on that? Twenty-three thousand, one hundred and ninety dollars and ninety-two cents. Just think about that.

The Member for Placentia laughs. Make no wonder you laugh, because I do not think you could do that. In all honesty, I do not know you very well. I know your background, I do not think you could do that. I do not think, in all honesty, you could do it and spend $23,190.92 for a couple of chauffeur driven vehicles for three days. No, I do not think so. That is the difference. That is why I am saying - that is the point I am making. There is a misconnect or a lack of knowledge about how other people live.

Now, you can shake your head all you like. You presented the documents to the House of Assembly. You did the amendment and presented that. It was delivered to my office yesterday. I did not come up with the numbers, you did. Just imagine! A big time down in St. John's last summer for $200,000 for booze and entertainment for one night for a group of Premiers. Just imagine, $23,190.92 - $23,000 spent for three days to a chauffeur service in Ireland in the spring of the year when things are nice and green. I will tell you one thing, the Premier never had to worry about ice conditions in Ireland. That is what the Premier spent while these people are out there struggling to survive, looking for something to put on their plates for their kids going to school. Most of them who have kids in high school, in Level III, are faced with proms this year when their daughters want a dress to wear to a prom and their sons have to wear a tuxedo. Now where are they going to get this, Mr. Speaker, when they are passing back the keys to their vehicles that they need to take their gear to their boats? Because that is happening, and I am not exaggerating. That is happening. Where are they getting it? How are they doing it? These are prime examples, Mr. Speaker, and let's go through some more because they are starting to get a bit testy over there now. They do not like what I am saying. If that was all they spent it would not matter.

There is $15 million in this Budget that they want me to vote for, for fibre optic cable. That is one reason I will never vote for this Budget, so that the Premier can give his buddies and business associates $15 million so they can run a cable across the Gulf and flip their company, sell it, because Persona, the company they gave this money to, was sold. Now some of you might be able to stand up later and confirm, but the rumour in St. John's - and I do not know if it is true or not, but the word in St. John's is that company was sold for $910 million, and we are giving that company $15 million.

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: The crackie is back, I say, Mr. Speaker, the Health Minister. He is not as flippant to get up and give the answers when we are asking him, but he will not shut up over there now.

Now, Mr. Speaker, $15 million for his buddies, for fibre optics. I mentioned the $200,000 for wine and booze and entertainment. I mentioned the $23,190.92 for limousine or chauffeur service in Ireland. I forgot to mention the $8,000 in fur coats that the Premier thought it was only proper to give Ralph Klein and his wife when they were here last year. Just imagine!

AN HON. MEMBER: I haven't seen them wear them yet.

MR. REID: Just imagine! You know, poor old Ralph Klein and his wife come to Newfoundland and, boys, you have to get them something. The poor old soul is retiring as Premier of Alberta, he is going to be out in the cold without a cent in his pocket. They are going to be cold, so we are going to give them sealskin fur coats, he and his wife. I wonder if they ever wear them.

MS E. MARSHALL: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: The Member for Topsail says, yes. Do you have a problem with that, I ask the Member for Topsail, giving Ralph Klein and his wife $8,000 worth of coats? Are you nodding yes or are you trying to say something? Do you agree? I ask you a question.

MS E. MARSHALL: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Okay.

Now, here is another one, Mr. Speaker. We have the fur coats for the Premier, we have the $200,000 in booze, we have the twenty-odd thousand dollar limousine service, we have the $15 million for his buddies for cable, and here is another one. I mentioned the Civil Service here just a few minutes ago. I mentioned the Civil Service there a while ago. This government took power in 2003 and in the first budget in 2004 they froze the wages of the Civil Service, those they didn't fire. They froze their wages. They gave them 3 per cent and 3 per cent in the last two years for a total of 6 per cent over four years. That is fine, and this is what I am talking about, not understanding how the rest of the people in the Province live.

The Premier had no problem with that, coming on and saying, boy, listen, you are not getting a raise for the next two years, those of you who are going to be left after I fire the rest of you, because I will list those too, if you want me to. This year, Mr. Speaker, while the Public Service after taking zero, zero and three per cent last year and 3 per cent this year, the staff in his own office - do you think zero, zero, three and three were good enough for them, the people whom he knows, his friends, his co-workers? No, it wasn't good enough; 16 per cent and 18 per cent increases. I am not talking about sixteen and eighteen dollars, I am talking about 16 per cent. The Premier's Chief of Staff now is making $130,000 a year. He just gave him a raise of $16,000.

MR. WISEMAN: Worth every cent of it.

MR. REID: The Minister of Health, I might add, says, worth every cent of it, but the Minister of Health can't give a raise to the nurses. He thinks that the Premier's Chief of Staff is far more important than that poor lady out in Botwood who quite her job because they wouldn't give her a holiday the summer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. REID: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member by leave.

MR. REID: Thank you.

I will clue up, Mr. Speaker, because I talked about the Premier's Chief of Staff, his PR Director, and all of them in the office who got anywhere between an $8,000 and $15,000 raise this year. Smack dab! I am going to give you $16,000, I am going to give you $12,000 and I am going to give you $10,000 because you are such nice people. That is what I am talking about, Mr. Speaker, the disconnect between what happens on that side with the Premier and the government and reality. There is a disconnect. There is a total, total mis-connect, disconnect, call it what you like.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I talked earlier about - you heard the speech before - the Tale of Two Cities. In this case it is not even the Tale of Two Cities because there are lots of poor people in this City. There is a disconnect between the friends, the buddies, the people who this government like, and the rest of us in this Province. That is the reason I will not be voting for the Budget, when you have no problem spending millions of dollars on frivolous things that we do not need while there are, not only the fish harvesters on the North East Coast and Labrador, who are going without, but many, many more people in every town, every community, every city in this Province who are also going without. It reminds me of the saying: Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

I will even talk about Marie Antoinette during the French Revolution, Louis XIV's wife, I think,

when the poor in France rebelled against the king because they did not have anything to eat. They have no bread, one of the King's wives said, or someone came to the King's wife and said, they are angry because they have no bread. What she meant, the person who was telling the Queen, was that they had no food. That is what the individual was telling the Queen, when the Queen was wondering why these people were rebelling and wanting to kill her. She came to the Queen and she said: Your Majesty, they have no bread. Do you know what her answer was? Do you know what Marie Antoinette's answer was? If they have no bread let them eat cake. How far out of touch was she with reality? That cost her her head, by the way, because she was beheaded. Once the revolution ended she was beheaded, and for making a comment like that she deserved it.

That is the kind of disconnect that this government has with the people of this Province, when you talk about how rosy things are and you beat yourselves on the chest for what a great job you are doing, when if you drive out to anywhere in this Province - you do not have to drive very far. I can take you down over the hill tonight here in St. John's, when someone flushes the toilet on the second floor or the third floor of boarding houses it comes out on the first or second floors. Poverty is everywhere in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member clue up please.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I understand that I am going to get an hour again later on tonight, because I have not addressed the main motion of the bill yet. I spoke for an hour on the vote of non-confidence, I spoke for an hour on the amendment to the non-confidence vote, but sometime between now and when we close the House I will get the opportunity to speak for another hour on the main motion. I have to do that, because if I do not, Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader will be out next week saying the Budget was not of much interest to Gerry Reid because he did not speak to it.

MR. RIDEOUT: No, I would not.

MR. REID: No, I don't guess you would.

Anyway with that, Mr. Speaker, I will see you tonight.

Thank you, very much.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased, delighted, ecstatic actually, to get up and talk on this Budget. Over the past-

MR. REID: (Inaudible) talking about the disconnect.

MR. RIDGLEY: Mr. Speaker, St. Francis now, the Leader of the Liberal Party, would like to have a few words. He just finished forty-five minutes and I sat back and listened attentively, I ask him to do the same. He would has us believe, Mr. Speaker, that he and his party are the St. Francis' and the Mother Teresas all rolled into one and we are over here stealing from the poor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: I encourage him, Mr. Speaker, to listen to a couple of words from the other side. As he says, he will have his other hour tonight, and please God - he has had two hours already and I have sat through it all, Mr. Speaker, believe it or not I have sat through it all, and I have yet to hear one constructive comment, one alternative that that group over there would present if they were government. They have torn down, they have been negative, they have been, Mr. Speaker, contaminated with negativity. They are rancid with negativity. That is all that is over there, and a number of our members and a number of members over there have referred over the past seventy or so hours of debate to the role of the Opposition and to tell you the truth, Mr. Speaker, I think that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador expect a little bit more than what we are getting.

These people over there will be going to the elections in some four months time and these people over there will put themselves forward not just as an Opposition, they will put themselves forward as an alternative to this government. If they want to be the government of this Province, they should say more than negativity, they should say, here is what we would do if we were government. I have yet to hear one suggestion.

Mr. Speaker, I listened when the Member for Bellevue was up with his comments. I am not sure exactly what they did as a caucus, because the Member for Bellevue was up again with negativity. He spoke about how we are training the people here in this Province and they are leaving. His suggestion, and I am not sure if it is the suggestion of the Liberal Party, for the $261 million that the Leader of the Opposition just spoke about, was that we should have free education. That was the suggestion from the Member for Bellevue. We should have, in fact, free education. I would love to have free education. Is this the position of the Liberal Party that we put that $261 million towards creating a free education system? I do not know.

The Member for Grand Bank got up and spoke about - and again, I think she would have us believe that she was Mother Teresa. She got up and she spoke about how senior citizens who are sick cannot afford an ambulance fee. She would have us believe, she would have the people of the Province believe, that she is concerned about the sick people and they cannot afford an ambulance fee. I wonder did she have the same concern when she was a minister in the government of this Province and the Province was sinking into debt and they were spending money on all sort of frivolous stuff, which I will not mention again because they have been mentioned enough times in this House?

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile got up and he waved around the book which was called The Economy. He went down through some private sector investments and he tried to convince the people of this Province that we were putting this forward as government initiatives, government investments and so on. Of course, later on that evening, our own House Leader, the Member for Lewisporte, got up and gave what only could be compared to Jimmy Swaggart and the rest of them all rolled into one. It was a true sermon in this House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: He spoke about the lack of credibility on the other side. He went back in history and he showed year after year after year how successive governments have presented the same booklet. He presented the Red Book of The Economy and repeated books that the Liberals, when they were in power, presented with exactly the same analysis of the economy.

Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to point out is that while there is an epidemic of negativity over on the other side - I suppose we could call it, in short, stinkin' thinkin', because that is all we have heard, stinkin' thinkin', negativity on the other side of the House - there is an epidemic of negativity but there is no harm to say that credibility has been eradicated, a complete eradication of credibility while an epidemic of negativity pervades.

We just heard the leader of that party get up and say - after a couple of days ago in the House, as Chair as the Social Services Committee, I made the point that this government is spending some $3.7 billion of the $5.5 billion will be spent in social services programs - the Leader of the Opposition got up and said that the Tory Party, the present government, is concerned about fiscal responsibility. The bottom line, that they do not waste money on social programs.

When we are spending 70 per cent of this Province's Budget on social programs -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: - the Leader of the Opposition would have you believe that we do not have a social conscience.

He put forward the Liberal Party as the party with the social conscience, Mr. Speaker. Again, what it is all about right now is what I am going to call the election in October - the people over there on the other side of the House - it is all about the hunt for red October. They are trying to make sure that when the election occurs in October that it will, in fact, be a red October.

I would like to put forward to the people of this Province, and to this government, that hunt that will take place in October, this hunt for red October, we will not need to set a bag limit on that hunt, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: Mr. Speaker, I listened to these different members as they got up, the Member for Bellevue and the various ones who got up and spoke on the Budget. As I say, there was a real credibility gap, so I said: Where I should go now and find out what that party really thinks is to go back to their finance critic. The Member for Grand Falls-Buchans is the finance critic, so surely she will know. She will not be full of negativity. She will have the party position on what they think of this Budget.

I know, Mr. Speaker, when I say this you are probably going to accuse me of misleading the House, because the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans spoke for some three hours and I actually sat down, when Hansard came out the next day, or the day after, and read back through it. I went back through it. I know it is difficult to believe, but I took it because I wanted to know for sure, before I spoke on their position, what exactly they think over on that side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I went back through it and, again, all I found - I said, surely she will have an alternative because she is the finance critic and she will say: Very good, if it were our Budget, here is what we would have done.

I could not, in forty pages, Mr. Speaker, in Hansard, find one concrete suggestion as to what they would have done, a different Budget they would have presented. It was all complete negativity, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Were you surprised by that?

MR. RIDGLEY: One of the members asked: Was I surprised by it? I was not entirely shocked, Mr. Speaker, because all we have heard is negativity, but I said I had better give the member the benefit of the doubt, so I went on back through it.

Mr. Speaker, I will refer to a couple of points that their finance critic made when she spoke. She spoke, first of all, of last year when our government had somewhere around a $70 million surplus and we put it against the existing debt at the time. She referred to it, that $70 million - $70 million is indeed a lot of money - she referred to that, in terms of our debt, as being a drop in the bucket, and indeed it is. It is equivalent to, if you had an $1,100 balance on your Visa, if you paid $7 against that $1,100. It is the same proportion, Mr. Speaker.

If we talk about the $11 billion that still exists - the Member for Twillingate & Fogo just got up again and spoke about the $260 million projected surplus that we will have this year, what are we going to do with it, and we are sitting on it as if we are coveting it and hiding it in the back corner.

If, in fact, we do have that surplus and if, in fact, it goes against the debt, Mr. Speaker, again it is equivalent to paying $26 against an $1,100 Visa balance. How long, in heaven's name, will it take to pay off the debt of this Province at that rate, Mr. Speaker?

The point on this, Mr. Speaker, even though last year it was, in fact, $70 million, it was, as the member called it, a drop in the bucket, but at least it was some payment against the debt of the Province.

She went on from there and she spoke about - this will tell you exactly where that party is coming from - she spoke about the $2 billion that this party paid into the teachers' unfunded liability, Mr. Speaker. The context of her remarks were: Well, you didn't get the most political benefit from that because the President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association said he was not entirely pleased.

Now, that is their type of thinking. We did it because we thought it was the right thing to do. The motivation on the other side: Let's do it where we can get the most political benefit. An entirely different philosophy, Mr. Speaker, in terms of where their party is coming from and where we are coming from, an entirely different thing.

Mr. Speaker, there were a couple of, I am going to generously call them themes in the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans - I will call them themes. Now, some people might call it repetition of the same thing over and over and over, but I will generously call them themes, Mr. Speaker. One of what I will call themes in there was, this Budget is a flash in the pan. She mentioned that, I would say, somewhere probably around seven or eight times. Her reference to the flash in the pan - and here is again where the difference in philosophy of this government and where we are coming from and where at least that member was coming from, and I would say her whole party - is this. She referred to it in these terms: You cannot sustain it. They cannot sustain it. It is going to run out.

It is again, Mr. Speaker, a difference of - they are almost jealous and they are waiting for us to fall down as a government. The philosophy, Mr. Speaker, is that this Province may not be able to sustain it. All of us together, Opposition, government alike, whether we can sustain it; it is not an us and they proposition, Mr. Speaker. It is almost again as if they are waiting for us to fall.

The point has to be made, and again she talks about an oil-based economy as being unsustainable, and this is exactly where this government, Mr. Speaker, is coming from. Of course it is not sustainable over time because it is, as we have been saying for years and for months and months, non-renewable resources. That is why, Mr. Speaker, this government, this party, this Premier, wants to make sure that we get the maximum benefits from those resources because they are, in fact, non-renewable. Whether it takes five years, ten years or fifteen years, at some point in time, Mr. Speaker, those resources are going to run out - obviously, not sustainable.

Mr. Speaker, again I will call it a theme in the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, the other - it was a repetition. It was not a theme, it was a repetition. I was trying to be kind, Mr. Speaker, but I am going to call it, because she did say it over and over again. She said: There is no plan. We do not see a plan in this Budget.

I reflected back and I said: Well, maybe they were better when they were in government. Maybe they did have a plan. I wonder, are we without a plan? So, I said to myself, I will go back in time. So, I went back in time and it was obvious they did, in fact, have a plan how to finance this government. They took advantage of every one-term payment they could get. They went to every cupboard door, every drawer that was in the kitchen. They went to Term 29, they went to the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, they went to the Labrador transportation fund, and they were on their way to selling off Hydro when they were stopped dead in their tracks, Mr. Speaker. That was their plan, to avail of one-time funding to finance whatever was on the go in the Province. What else can we spend? Where else can we get money? They did not have the creative insight to look at the Atlantic Accord and to go back and maximize the benefits of that Accord by signing a new deal with the federal government. Obviously, it was a short-sighted vision when those people were in government. It was short-sighted from the point of view: Where can we get more money right now because we have to do this?

The Member for Grand Falls-Buchans said: Your mandate should be to create jobs. Of course it should be to create jobs, we would love to have some jobs, but it is more than just getting the immediate job at the expense of doing away with the resources on a quick term basis. It has to be more than creating jobs. It has to be making this Province wealthy, making this Province, as we have said in the Budget a number of times, stand on its own feet, masters of our own House.

The Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, Mr. Speaker, also spoke about university. It was the one time in her speech where she almost came up with a suggestion. She spoke about the people who come to St. John's or come to the larger centres to go to university. She said something should be done for them. Obviously, she did not hear what was put in the Budget in terms of the upfront grants, because these are the people who will avail of those upfront needs-based grants, the people who are coming in from rural Newfoundland, coming into St. John's or going to Corner Brook.

Further, in terms of the Budget, Mr. Speaker, I have to commend the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans because there was, in fact, some humor in her forty pages. She was kind enough to give us a couple of light moments, and I found two of them, which I thought I would refer to here, on page 167. She went on actually from pages 133 to 172, but on page 167 I found a little bit of humor. I thought it was terrific, I had a grand chuckle over it. She said: I think what is happening in this Budget, all you are hearing is the good stuff and you are hoping that the good stuff is going to get you through the next election. As if we were in dire straits, Mr. Speaker, we were looking for something to help us make it through the next election. I can only think that she might have had a mirror around at the time, I do not know, but this Party is confident going into the next election. We are not focused on it. We are trying to do the right thing day after day and to then put ourselves before the people of the Province and say, here is the best we can do, can we go back again and do some more of these good things?

Mr. Speaker, the other one which I found particularly good, and this was the second point of humor, I had more than a chuckle over this one. She says on page 155: If we were government now - now that is a big if - we would have the same revenue as currently being shown on the books. Obviously, she missed something in terms of about a $2 billion settlement from Ottawa.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: Just to reflect back to when the then Premier Grimes was in Opposition and the Atlantic Accord was about to take place, we all remember that the then-Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Grimes, said: Why don't you take the $1.4 billion. Those were his own words, Mr. Speaker. Of course, the member from Ottawa said the famous words: Take it or leave it. It was their own Leader of the Opposition who said: You are walking away from $1.4 billion. Why are you doing that? You are absolutely crazy.

The member goes on to say that they would have had the same revenue. Obviously, even if they had the creativity to think of the Atlantic Accord, they would have settled for $1.4 billion. I do not think that is the same revenue as they have right now.

Mr. Speaker, after forty pages from their Finance critic, I have to go to just about the last page in Hansard and this, after listening for three hours and some four minutes, the member says - now there is a little bit of repetition. This is short and there is a little bit of repetition anyway, but that is the way she like to do it. She says, I will summarize what I had been saying and it will not take me long to say it. I thank you for your indulgence. I have to say - and here it is, Mr. Speaker - I will summarize what I have been saying all day, the fact of the matter is, this was a good Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: She went on, Mr. Speaker: There is no question about that, this was a good Budget. This was the Finance Critic of the Official Opposition. She says - and I will say it again. She repeated herself and I will repeat this just once: The fact of the matter is, this was a good Budget. There is no question about it, this was a good Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: I cannot see why she would not vote for it, Mr. Speaker. There was a period at the end of that phrasing there. She acknowledged the fact - she did not say it was a good Budget but -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time for speaking has lapsed.

MR. RIDGLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just summarize by saying -

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. RIDGLEY: - they either did not sit down as a caucus, they did not consult with their finance critic and did not know what she was going to say, either that or maybe she is going to have a session with them later on and say: Look, ladies and gentleman, this is a good Budget. We should all vote for it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to stand up and have a few words on the Budget.

I say to the member, I do not want to criticize your speech but if you are going to talk on how you should be positive you should try and practice what you preach. If you want to be negative be negative, if you are going to be positive be positive. I don't think the Member for Lewisporte is anything like Jimmy Swaggart. He is much to principled of a man for that. If he is going to use an example like Jimmy Swaggart, you are much too principled and you are much better than Jimmy Swaggart when you are on your feet, let me tell you that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: I will say to the minister, you are much more entertaining than that. We may not believe anything you are ever going to say, butt you are much more entertaining than that. I can guarantee you that. I remember when that Member for Lewisporte was Premier, he got up here one night giving a speech about how he would not hold on to power, clinging to power by his fingertips. I remember when he was out in the Bay of Islands when he was the Premier, back in 1989, when he went to the Town of Humber Arm South (inaudible): If you vote PC, you get $650,000 for roads and $450,000. You never clung on but you definitely tried, I say to the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: They didn't vote for it.

MR. JOYCE: They didn't vote for it, no, because they knew the difference. They also did it over in Summerside. So, when you want to stand up and give all these theatrics about grabbing hold of your fingertips, you tried. They just did not listen to it. You tried. I will give you credit for trying. I guarantee you, I will give you credit for trying. When you stand up, I understand some of the history that goes back.

Mr. Speaker, it is almost like when you are on this side of the House of Assembly and you stand up and speak against the Budget or some issue, you are almost tainted as you should not be. You are brought into this House of Assembly and if you say something that is a bit negative or something that is a bit positive or anything, you should not say it because the emperor there, the Premier, may not like it. He turned on the member the other day, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, he actually turned on her and degraded her in talking about, how dare she ask a question like that about the health care. For a fellow member of the House of Assembly to not have the ability to stand up and ask questions that you feel -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: - and obviously, your residents and your constituents are asking you, it is almost like McCarthyism, you should never question anybody.

Now the members opposite may get that because we know from Fabian Manning that there were five of them who went down with the Premier, with the Member for Terra Nova; five of them went down and by the time the Premier went up, Fabian Manning went up one side of him, down the other side of him. Fabian Manning said the Member for Terra Nova, he had to look over to see if he was breathing, he was so quiet. He did not even know if he was breathing.

So, let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, when you are on this side, you can speak as you feel. If the members opposite feel sometimes you cannot say it because you may upset the Emperor or you may say something to upset the Premier, I say, sobeit. You wonder why sometimes you are not voting for the Budget and there is always the hidden things. Everybody here is saying what is in the Budget. I will tell one thing that is not in the Budget and one area that is neglected in the Budget, and I have a bit of support when this guy told me personally, and the Leader of the Opposition was with me, there is not a lot there for rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. JOYCE: After the Budget, when we went outside I spoke to Wayne Ruth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: I went out and spoke to Wayne Ruth, Mr. Speaker. As I spoke to Wayne Ruth, President of the Mayors and Municipalities in this Province, Wayne Ruth said this is disappointing. He said rural Newfoundland and Labrador is neglected. His exact words: neglected. He said there is $2 million in here for debt relief, that is all; $2 million. I am just telling you what Wayne Ruth said to me personally and the Leader of the Opposition. You can call Wayne Ruth. Wayne Ruth can say what he like to you but I know what he said. Wayne Ruth will stand up and say that. Then he said the increase in the MOGs that they had been pushing, no increase in the MOG. So, when Wayne Ruth, the President of the Mayors and Municipalities out there told me, personally, that he is disappointed because rural Newfoundland and Labrador is left out of this Budget, I am on good grounds that rural Newfoundland and Labrador is left out of this Budget.

Mr. Speaker, we hear now about how good rural Newfoundland and Labrador is when you get up and you have your prepared script to go off and say how good rural Newfoundland and Labrador is doing. You have your notes that you prepared in front of you because it is about the eighth, tenth time now you stood up and not a plan. You are not bringing in any ideas.

Mr. Speaker, when you sit down and listen to the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, he has been in government now - what? Six years I believe, six or seven years and he was talking about how good rural Newfoundland and Labrador is doing and how good his district is doing. How things are going. It just happens, Mr. Speaker, when you actually get the facts - if rural Newfoundland and Labrador is doing so good, since 2003, the district that got the most make-work programs, job creation - which I agree with, by the way. Job creation does serve a benefit in a lot of parts of Newfoundland and Labrador. I have no problem with it whatsoever. I will be the first to say there is a need for it, there is a time for it and I know there is a lot of good projects, a lot good work done with this here. The person and the district that received the most since 2004 is the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North. That is the most who got job creation in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

When he stands on his feet and talks about how good his district is doing, how it is booming up in his district, how everything is just fine and rosy up in his district, how everything is good since 2002 since he got in, 2003 is better since the Premier got in. Why is the member, with the highest amount for job creation in his district, saying everything is so good? If the rural plan is that you could not roll out before the election because you did not want the Liberals to steal it. Why is everything so good that you have to spend over $1 million - and the highest one in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development

Mr. Speaker, we will go on a bit further. The ones with the most projects - I will skip the first one because the Member for Baie Verte, I know some of the situations he had in his way. But the second one who stands up and paints that everything is fine, everything is just great, everything is fine, there are no problems in rural Newfoundland whatsoever, is the Member for Terra Nova. The second largest for the most projects in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is the Member for Terra Nova. He is over there clapping, right happy, telling me to keep saying it. When the member gets up, he will start talking about how good rural Newfoundland and Labrador is, how everything in his district is doing just great. I have no problem with any district with job creation, absolutely none. I avail of it in the Bay of Islands also. I have absolutely none, but when you stand up and you just want to say how good everything is; oh, there are no problems in rural Newfoundland and Labrador; all the issues are all taken care of; everything is just going great. All of a sudden when the true facts come out, the Member for Terra Nova has the second highest number of projects than all forty-eight members in this Legislature. Then he has the audacity to stand up and say everything is just fine, everything is just rosy.

Then the next one after that is the Member for Bonavista South, who stands up on a regular basis and says how everything is fine, how we are pessimistic. He is the third. So, when we stand up and bring out some points or issues in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, some other things we like to do, some other things that we like to look at. What happens? We get criticized. When they are over there, the emperor passes them all their little speeches, they stand up and read their speech off, except for the Member for Lewisporte. I have to say, he usually speaks pretty good without notes, but everybody else stands up with their own little written script and goes off and says what they have to do. When you get the true facts, Mr. Speaker, rural Newfoundland and Labrador is not doing as good as they say here, and I am glad.

We had an article out in Deer Lake, actually. It is an editorial, Mr. Speaker. Here is the last time Premier Danny Williams asked the Province for support. He praised gospel on rural renewal. An editorial out in Western Newfoundland. What happened to that agenda in the last few years? The recent census painted a grim picture for rural Newfoundland. The Humber Valley District is still losing people to the mainland and beyond, and there has been little done to stem the flow. Towns like Hampden, Howley, Jackson's Arm, Norris Point and Baie Verte, just to name a few, saw their population deplete upon 10 per cent over the past few years. If the government's only solution is to throw money to the Rural Secretariat, then you may as well pack your bags, book your ticket and leave now. Maybe this is a case of your worst fears coming true, but it is hard to accept that rural Newfoundland and Labrador is an endangered species. That is an article about the rural plan of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I believe my time is up now and we will adjourn debate and I will be back at 7:00 o'clock to spread some more of the truth and gospel as the facts (inaudible).

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

By agreement we are going to take a break now until 7:00 o'clock for supper. So, by agreement - we do not have to adjourn, but by agreement we are adjourning.

MR. SPEAKER: The House is now recessed until 7:00 o'clock.


May 31, 2007 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 22A


The House met at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Collins): Order, please!

The House will now resume rebate on the sub-amendment to Motion 1.

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure I have a few minutes left, just to talk about the Budget itself and some of the issues that we have in place and some of the problems that we have. Before I was interrupted, before we adjourned debate at 5:30, I was talking about rural Newfoundland and Labrador, the lack of plan and the lack of vision and how it is just not members of the Opposition.

I will just go back and speak a bit about the editorial that was in The Western Star on the West Coast. I will just read it again, Mr. Speaker. Towns like Hampden, Howley, Jackson's Arm, Norris Point and Baie Verte, just to name a few, saw the population depleted by more than 10 per cent over the past five years. If the government's only solution is to throw money at the Rural Secretariat then you might as well pack your bags, book your ticket, go west now. Maybe this is a case of our worst fears coming true, but it is hard to accept that rural Newfoundland and Labrador is an endangered species. That is from an editorial in The Western Star out in Corner Brook concerning this government, the rural plan for Newfoundland and Labrador. We always get criticized because it is the Opposition over here who are doing all the complaining: Oh, we are just a bunch of whiners; we are negative.

I have another article, Mr. Speaker. I always say that it is nice to be away from St. John's because you get a real sense and a real taste of what is happening outside the overpass. You will always hear that, when I am outside, because you do not get the same flavour when you are in St. John's where gas and oil runs the economy. Out in Newfoundland and Labrador, in the rural parts of the Province, you get a sense of how desperate things are and how much they rely on this government and this government says everything is fine when it is not.

The Mayor of Port aux Basques - they are trying to get fabrication work in Port aux Basques and the mayor was saying certain things, how frustrated he and his council were with the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development and how they lacked vision. In some of the statements that he made - and you want to talk about the Premier talking about the thousands of jobs and how we are promoting local people. Here is what the Mayor of Port aux Basques had to say on May 1, 2007, in The Western Star: We have been without two economic development officers for two years. We have no representation on the Rural Secretariat and we cannot even get the government to rubber stamp an EDGE application. That is what the Mayor of Port aux Basques is saying about this government. We hear everybody standing up and saying how good things are and how much we are promoting, and it is only us being negative, that is the Mayor of Port aux Basques: We are tired of writing letters to departmental officials only to get smug replies. The time has come for the Province to act. Stop talking about the rural plan. Show us, help us, work with us.

That is what is being said out in rural Newfoundland and Labrador today. It might not be said in this House of Assembly because how dare any of us stand up and criticize the emperor or any of his little followers over there to say that there are some new ideas we could put through or there are some other initiatives, or things are not going as good as they say they are. How dare we do it? But here is the Mayor of Port aux Basques: This was a lead we generated on our own and not a single minute of government time or a penny of provincial money went into the development of this lead.

All of a sudden, here we are again, another mayor out in the town talking about the frustration he has dealing with this government, dealing with this rural plan, dealing with the problems facing the common people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Yet, we have this government and government members when they get their script, sitting down and reading their script, talking about how good things are, how rosy things are, and it is different.

Mr. Speaker, you wonder why we are voting against the Budget, or I will be voting against this Budget anyway, and if you want to talk about some of the things that are in the Budget that you feel should not be in the Budget - I will tell you one thing that I feel should not be in the Budget, that is in the Budget, is $15 million of government money to Dean MacDonald and his company. It should not be in this Budget.

MR. RIDGLEY: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: The Member for St. John's North is over there saying something. I am not sure what he is saying, but I will just tell you now - and I say to the Member for St. John's North, obviously, either you are not allowed to know the difference or you will not talk about it. Here is what the Premier said when he had this feel-good ad: M5 Marketing Communications, $200,000; a feel-good ad. The Vice-President of M5 Marketing just happens to be the co-chair of the PC campaign and here we are, the $15 million untendered in this Province. Lots of companies around this country could have done it. We are always talking about the long-term care facility, how we have to tender it, how we had to do it.

Here is what the Premier said out on the West Coast. I know the Member for St. John's North might not be allowed to speak about it or stand up against it, because I remember what happened to the Member for Topsail when she spoke about it, she got the flick. She got fired. That was only $150,000. You and the deputy minister got the flick. Here is what the Premier said about the $200,000 out on the West Coast when questioned about going through untendered. The Premier reiterated: The ads were not designed to get a pat on the government's back and call the tendering issue. It was a minor breach. Giving away $200,000 of taxpayers' money and he called it a minor breach. Then he turned around and said: All I can say is that anything done was done innocently, inadvertently, quite honestly.

So, here we have a Premier saying that (inaudible) supporting the Public Tender Act, going off and giving $200,000 to another one of his buddies. What does he do? He turned around and gave $15 million to some of his friends.

I just got a note there saying the Member for Topsail said she was not fired. I guess she just did not like his leadership style or his approach.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: You never got fired. I am sorry. I think you did say that you withdrew your services as a Cabinet Minister because you did not like that being done. You disagreed with giving $150,000 so his golf tournament would not be interrupted, and that you did not like his leadership style. So, I apology for that if I said you were fired. I am sorry for that.

Anyway, it is nice to see you are honest, that you did not like his leadership style, but it is too bad you are back in the fold. If you were the Auditor General with this $15 million being given out, you would be up in your office right now still writing it up. If you were the Auditor General when this $200,000 for M5 Marketing was given out, you would be up in your office having some fun with it now. Oh, we know you would. We know that you would be having some fun with the $200,000. We also know that you would have some fun with the $300,000 that was given to Griffiths Guitars when the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development went against it, the Minister of Finance at the time went against it, but the Premier went ahead and gave them $300,000 against the two recommendations from both departments.

The Premier got up today and talked about John Risley. Take a guess at who was on the Griffiths Guitar board and who lobbied for $300,000 for Griffiths Guitars? Griffiths Guitars, who was taking their company and sitting it up in China, making the guitars in China, shipping them to a distribution centre in New Jersey. Take a guess at who was on the board, who lobbied for the $300,000, against the recommendations of two departments? John Risley was on the Griffiths Guitar board. That is who was on the board, and here is the Premier standing up today talking about: Oh, you gave us John Risley. Yet, John Risley could walk up in his office and lobby for $300,000 and walk away with $300,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: Two ministers. Not one now, get it straight. The Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development is one, and the Minister of Finance was the second one who turned it down and said no.

The Auditor General today, in his report, said the money was used to set up a factory in China to ship guitars to New Jersey.

Now, to the Member for Topsail: How would you feel if you were the Auditor General and you had all of this now with the VON coming up? - which you walked away from, give yourself credit. Too bad the deputy minister had to go with you, because anytime there is a problem the Premier takes the deputy ministers and gives them a flick anytime there is a problem.

Then you have $200,000 to M5. You got $15 million here now to Dean MacDonald. Dean MacDonald is one of the Premier's partners who, just like the telephone deal - and the former Auditor General knows what I am talking about. Just like the telephone deal, before the ink was signed they had a deal to split the company to make money. The Member for Topsail is shaking her head in agreement, and I know. That is exactly what happened because I have the documentation. That is why one of their buddies, when he went up to get his commission, the judge ruled and said: Dean MacDonald does not make a good witness. That is what the judge said.

The same thing here with the fibre optic deal. Before the ink is even signed, it is sold. The work is being done by the way. I do not know how many people know it. There are people out there, as we know it, laying cable coming across the Gulf right now - as we speak, by the way. I do not know if people know that. I know that some of the Cabinet ministers are probably not even aware of that but the cable is being laid as we speak, right now. And you wonder why I am voting against the Budget?

If this Auditor General was ever in now - the Member for Topsail was ever in now, I will guarantee you, if she never had aspirations to take over that government some day she would walk away. If she stood true to her principles as the Auditor General, with this $200,000, with this $15 million fibre optic deal, I can assure you that she would not stay over on that side, Mr. Speaker. Then you wonder why I am voting against the Budget.

The Premier even said it was a minor breach, the Public Tender Act. The VON -

AN HON. MEMBER: What did Chris Henley say about this?

MR. JOYCE: Chris Henley thinks he is great. Everything is just fine over in China. Business is doing well in China, actually.

MR. SWEENEY: No, no, not Griffiths, Chris Henley.

MR. JOYCE: Chris Henley.

MR. SWEENEY: The guy who won the court case.

MR. JOYCE: The guy who won the court case? No, that was their buddy. He won, I don't know, $600,000 or something. He is the one who took them to court, went up there and it all came out in the court records. Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: The Premier and Dean MacDonald took him to court because it was proven in court documents that before the telephone contract was signed in this Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. JOYCE: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member by leave.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the telephone contract that was signed up in this Province - and I have a copy of the Premier's own press release when he was running the company, how he was going to invest $10 million in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to create local jobs. While he was sending out the press release he had Dean MacDonald and Henley up and had the company flipped. Before the ink was signed, the deal was struck. It came out in court documents, the same way as this fibre optic deal. The exact same way as this fibre optic deal, there is no difference. The only thing that held up the deal was when they came back and said: Before we will ink it, we want the deal signed with the Province. They came back and had it signed - I don't know, April 30 or May 31, I think - June 7 the big deal was all signed. That is what I say, and, Mr. Speaker, you wonder why I am voting against this Budget?

AN HON. MEMBER: The golf tournament was in (inaudible) wasn't it?

MR. JOYCE: I do not know about that now. I am just talking about the $15 million that was given out to their buddies. We are talking about the VON contract. We are talking about the M5 and the Premier looks at the Public Tender Act as a minor breach.

Mr. Speaker, I can go on and talk about the long-term care facility in Corner Brook, how we do not want to do the Public Tender Act because - we can do it for the cable but we cannot do it for the workers out in Corner Brook. We cannot do it for the workers out in Corner Brook, oh, no, but we can do it for the cable. We can do it for Dean MacDonald and fibre optics but the workers out in Corner Brook cannot get it done. We turn around and say we have interprovincial trade, but how about the fibre optic deal? Fifty percent of all the work that is going to be done in the fibre optic is going to be done in Quebec, Mr. Speaker. This Province could have put some stipulations in to have the work done locally. So, you wonder why I am voting against this Budget? It is very evident, Mr. Speaker, because you cannot have a Premier turn around and look at the Public Tender Act as a minor breach, and turn around and do what he likes whenever he wants to and be like the rest of the members opposite over there, having to stand and put your hand up whenever you are told, because I will not stand and let the Premier use the Public Tender Act any time he wants, any day he wants. I will not stand for it, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for the leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am very pleased to be able to stand this evening and speak to the Budget, and the Budget amendments, but first of all I would like to make reference to some of the comments of my colleague from across the way, the Member for Bay of Islands. He spent about five minutes of his time saying what I think, and speaking for me. I would like to assure the hon. member opposite, and all of the members opposite, that I am quite capable of thinking for myself -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS E. MARSHALL: - and speaking for myself, so I do not need the member opposite to get up and speak for me and tell me what I am thinking.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address now the Budget that is before us in the House, and the amendments. One of the things I would like to start off with is, yesterday we debated government's Poverty Reduction Strategy. I want to speak tonight about some of the education initiatives that are in the Budget. As I was thinking about it, there is really quite a connection between the Poverty Reduction Strategy that we discussed here yesterday and the education initiatives that are outlined in the Budget.

Looking over the Poverty Reduction Strategy, a couple of things that really jumped out at me when I was looking at the educational aspect is that about 60 per cent of the people in this Province who are living in poverty have not completed high school. That really struck me, that there was such a big correlation there. So, after making that connection, education initiatives that are in the Budget are really attacking poverty in the Province.

Knowing that, we think about, then: What is the solution to poverty now that we have made the connection between poverty and the lack of education?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS E. MARSHALL: One of the things that comes to mind is that, when we are trying to address the issue of poverty, it is not just a matter of giving people more money, as some people would think, to try to enrich their lives and provide them with more money. Rather, the solution isn't that simplistic. It is really much more complex than that. If we are going to solve the issue of poverty we really have to look at a number of things, and that would include things like economic development and social programs, things of that nature, but really, really, important, because of the connection between poverty and lack of education, a lot of funding has to be put into educational initiatives, Mr. Speaker.

When we looked at the Poverty Reduction Strategy, it outlined a number of objectives and a number of goals. Actually, I think there were five goals and then there were some objectives. One of the things that struck me mostly - again, because of the connection between poverty and lack of education - is that we do need a better educated population, and that this would be one of the ways we could attack poverty in the Province.

Because of this strong correlation between poverty and education, there is also a correlation between education and incomes. What we find, Mr. Speaker, is that the more educated the population is, the higher the income. The less educated the population, the lower the income. So, one of the things we have to do as a Province is to educate the people within the Province so that they can make it on their own so that they are not in need of government programs such as financial assistance and things of that nature.

I do know that our achievement levels are improving, that the population is becoming more educated, that our high school graduation rates are increasing, but there still is a need to focus on educating the general population in the Province.

When I spoke a little while ago about the Budget, Mr. Speaker, I did have an opportunity to very briefly touch on some of the education initiatives that are in the Budget - but only briefly, as I said - and I would really like to speak to them in more detail because I think they are very, very important for the population of the Province. I don't just say the youth of the population, because there is a segment of the population that is older, that is taking advantage of continuing their education in order to improve their lives.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by speaking a little bit about Memorial University. I was going to speak first about post-secondary education and work my way back to the K-12 system. For Memorial University and also for the College of the North Atlantic, one of the major items in the Budget, of course, is the extension of the tuition freeze, and this was an issue that was addressed in the White Paper on Post-Secondary Education. The extension of the tuition freeze has been very well received by not only the students in the Province but also by parents and by families.

There are a few other initiatives there that are actually quite high expenditure items that I would like to talk about also, Mr. Speaker, and that is the student loan debt relief program. That program is going to cost about $11 million, and there are going to be approximately 8,000 students who are going to benefit from that program.

The second aspect of that program is the reduction of interest on provincial student loans. That is being reduced to prime, Mr. Speaker. It is going to affect about 46,000 people who are repaying their student loans, and it is going to cost approximately $3.7 million this year. As a result of these initiatives, Mr. Speaker, the average provincial student borrowing is going to be reduced by 38 per cent, from about $3,500 for an academic year to just over $2,000. I would also like to add, Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that students in the one and two year programs at CONA and the private colleges are going to qualify for a non-repayable grant.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about education, and post-secondary education - and, again, I am speaking about MUN and CONA - while we talk about things like student loans, and the cost of tuition and things of that nature, we also have to remember that there is an infrastructure there in our post-secondary institutions that has to be maintained.

We all know - I mean, you can just see it visually over the last numbers of years - that these facilities have been running down. I know that Memorial University here, the residences here at Memorial University, I think most of them were built probably in the 1960s. I think that one of the residences - Burton's Pond Apartments - may have been built in the 1970s, but there has really been no major expansion of the residences there at Memorial University.

I know that when the students do come to St. John's - a lot of the students are coming in from rural Newfoundland - they have to find accommodations. Of course, international students, when they come into Newfoundland to attend Memorial University or CONA, also have to find accommodations. So, in this year's Budget there is over $15 million to provide funding to get a start on a new academic building for Corner Brook, a new residence for Corner Brook, also a new residence for St. John's. Of course, the $15 million is just the budgetary allocation for this year, Mr. Speaker, and actually the cost of the residences over the next five years is going to be $62 million, so that is quite a significant infusion of money into the capital structure at Memorial University both here in St. John's and also in Corner Brook. The total cost for the academic spaces for Sir Wilfred Grenfell university is $8.8 million over the next several years, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned international students a few moments ago, and I would like to say there is $200,000 in the Budget to support international students. I know several international students who are here attending Memorial University from other countries. Of course, over the last number of years, even when I was a student at Memorial University back in the 1960s and 1970s, there were a number of international students at the university. Of course, as we all know, Newfoundland is a very homogeneous population, and the diversity that the international students bring to the Province is quite beneficial. We get students from a number of countries. I have gotten to know a number of students from China, and also students from Central America. I think it is a good recognition of the value that these students bring to this Province by budgeting money in the Budget to support these students.

Many of the students who come here - actually, most of the ones I speak to - enjoy Newfoundland very much. They enjoy the campus. They enjoy the Province. They find the people here very, very friendly. Most of them do very, very well with their studies. They enjoy the culture here very, very much. I would say probably the only thing they do not particularly care for is our weather. Other than that, they are enjoying the life here at the campuses.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to speak a little bit about the College of the North Atlantic. Over the years, the College of the North Atlantic has grown quite significantly. There are now about 20,000 students attending the College of the North Atlantic. There are seventeen campuses, plus there is the Qatar campus. If you look at the financial statements of the college, you will find that it is a $100 million enterprise, so it is quite a big organization.

There is a significant infusion of funds going into the College of the North Atlantic this year. Of course, there is a lot of funding there, a significant amount of funding, for capital issues such as equipment, facilities, key programming areas. Also, there is quite a significant amount of money going into improving the infrastructure at the College of the North Atlantic.

I know there is an extension in the Happy Valley-Goose Bay campus and also the Labrador West facility. There is $2 million for facility improvements and, of course, we just have to look outside our door here and we can see that there is significant improvement to the Prince Philip Drive campus, which is currently undergoing a major refit.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to talk about the funding that is included in the Budget for enhancing career and employment services. There is about a $4 million allocation there to expand services in rural areas through five new career information resource centres, and that will take up about $1 million of the $4 million.

There is also $1 million there to implement employment and business development projects in rural areas, and there is also $1 million there to expand the Graduate Retention Program to help an additional 100 graduates.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, there is $500,000 there to hire ten new career information officers to work with teachers and students in the K-12 area.

Mr. Speaker, I can remember years ago, when students were coming through the K-12 system, that there was really a limited amount of information provided to them with regard to what possible careers could be there that would attract them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has difficulty hearing the speaker, with the noise going on in the House. I ask for the co-operation of all hon. members. The hon. member has a right to be heard.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Topsail.

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

I will continue on with my discussions with regard to the funding for education initiatives in the Budget.

I would like to indicate that the Skills Task Force under the leadership of the Member for St. John's North has reported back and there is additional funding there for skills training and apprenticeship. There is about $3 million there, Mr. Speaker, to improve and expand offerings at the College of the North Atlantic. There is about $500,000 there to support national apprenticeship standards. Also, Mr. Speaker, there is $500,000 there to strengthen participation of women, Aboriginal persons and youth in the apprenticeship system, and also to establish scholarships for the promotion of further education.

Mr. Speaker, in the K-12 system there is a significant amount of money there, approximately $41 million, in addition. There is about $15 million there, Mr. Speaker, for new school construction.

As we know, Mr. Speaker, over the last number of years we have seen the schools throughout the Province deteriorate, and for the last few years, since this government came to power, we have been trying to play catch-up, trying to repair the schools, do significant modifications to a lot of the schools, and in a number of cases we have made decisions to construct new schools or provide extensions. This is very important, Mr. Speaker.

I know in my own district, the Paradise Elementary School, there were significant problems encountered with regard to mould and children being sick. Actually, Mr. Speaker, the school was eventually closed and the students from that school are now placed in three schools throughout the St. John's-Mount Pearl area and government is, at the present time, deciding what course of action we are going to follow with regard to the schools in that area.

One of the issues that we have to address in the Topsail District is, that is one area of the Province where there is significant population growth, so, of course, there have to be schools out in that area to accommodate the students. There have been quite a few new families moving to the area, new subdivisions and entire new neighborhoods, and it is requiring some modifications to the school system out there and that is something that is currently in the works.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to talk about the maintenance of the schools. This is one area where, a number of years ago, the maintenance funding for the schools on a general basis was decreased over the years, and this year there has been a significant amount of money put back into the system. Right now, there has been an increase from fifty-five cents a square foot to ninety-two cents a square foot to enable improved maintenance to the schools throughout the Province.

Mr. Speaker, also, there is additional funding put in the Budget for extension of the physical fitness and equipment program. I think that is a very good idea. I know last year, Mr. Speaker -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order.

MR. REID: No disrespect to the member opposite, or you either, Mr. Speaker, because you said earlier that we could not hear the member speak. We cannot hear you over here. There is obviously a problem with your microphone. Even when we are silent over here, we cannot hear you speak.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, on a point of order.

MS MICHAEL: Oh, I am sorry. I thought the speaker was finished.

There is no point of order.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I was speaking about the provision of additional funding for physical education equipment in the schools, in the lower grades. I know there was additional funding provided in the Budget last year, and there was some question raised in the House as to whether the provision of funding for physical education equipment and things of that nature was beneficial. I would like to say that last year there was additional funding put in for high schools, and last year, after some of the funding had been spent, I did receive a very nice letter from one of the schools in the Province which indicated that they, as a physical education teacher and as principal of the school, were very, very pleased with the funding that had provided the equipment. In addition, there was some information, some comments there from the students who also indicated that they felt that it was very beneficial having this additional physical education equipment put in the school.

I think, Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we should learn from this is that, even though some of the initiatives that are put in the Budget probably do not seem like a whole lot of money, they do make a significant difference to the students who are in the school system.

One of the other areas I would like to touch on is the Cultural Connections strategy. This is something that I was very interested in, because it was initially announced in 2005 and it was a three year program. It was intended to be a $10 million program and so much would be budgeted each year for three subsequent years. The objective was to enhance the arts program and the cultural content in the schools.

This has been fairly successful in that the arts and music programs are more predominant now in the classroom, that there has been a Newfoundland and Labrador history course introduced, and generally these programs that have been implemented within the schools also reflect the heritage of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to talk about the $13 million that was budgeted for the free textbooks for students who are in Grade 9 to Level III. I am getting a lot of positive feedback in my district because many parents find, especially at the higher grades and high schools, that the cost of textbooks is really quite expensive. If you have more than one child in high school, of course, it becomes a very expensive proposition at the beginning of the school year to have to pay out several hundred dollars for textbooks. The provision of textbooks to students at the senior level, of course, is very beneficial.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

MR. REID: We will give her a couple of minutes, Mr. Speaker. We can't hear her, but we will let her stand there for a couple of minutes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the Member for Topsail.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did want to touch on a couple of areas that are not expenditure related, but of another nature. One is the reduction of fees, that some of the fees in the Department of Education have been reduced. I think there are about twenty fees in total, and most of those would be for examinations and re-examinations. I think that would be a big help to the students.

I would also like to talk about the Teachers' Pension Plan because the Teachers' Pension Plan was always a big concern to government and, of course, to teachers, because there was quite a significant unfunded pension liability, Mr. Speaker. At the end of March, 2005, there was about a $2 billion unfunded liability which, of course, government would have been obligated to honour at some point in time. Because of the funding that was received under the Atlantic Accord, which was put into the Newfoundland Teachers' Pension Fund, that unfunded pension liability has almost been eliminated, but the Teachers' Pension Plan is now on a more significant and secure footing, Mr. Speaker.

So, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down and let somebody else have an opportunity to speak, but I will look forward to having an opportunity to speak again.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am quite pleased to stand tonight and continue some of my analysis of the Budget and related issues. I am going to pick up a bit from where I was speaking yesterday afternoon when we were speaking to private member's motion that was on the floor. I was starting to look at the issue of women and women's poverty and how we deal with that. That is one of my disappointments with the Budget. A government that has a Women's Policy Office and a Women's Policy Office that does gender based analysis, I would like to see a budget that shows it has a gender based analysis.

For those people who may be watching us tonight - and I think many more people watch us than we realize - a gender based analysis means that when you put policy together - when a department works on policy it looks at the policy from the perspective of: How does this policy affect women, and are women and men equal in this policy? A lot of what I am going to say tonight is coming from that perspective, with some of the different things that are in the Budget and some of the different things that government is doing, how is it affecting women? Did the government take that into consideration when the Budget was being put together? That is where I am coming from and that is what I will be pursing a bit tonight.

For example, because the Budget continually refers to the Poverty Reduction Strategy and because government keeps telling us that the Poverty Reduction Strategy was something that they were really thinking about when they were putting the Budget together, I am going to continue looking at some of the goals in the Poverty Reduction Strategy and see how the Budget does or does not deal with those goals.

Where I was heading yesterday, but reached the end of my time, was looking at the third goal in the Poverty Reduction Action Plan, and that third goal talks about improved earned incomes. Under the third point of the goal it talks about greater supports for labour force participation and improved earnings from employment. Under that, one of the things it says is that government will want to improve results for women's employment for medium and large scale development projects by strengthening requirements under the environmental approval process. What that is talking about is that under the environmental approval process government has been demanding that large scale projects have an employment equity plan in place; that they show government they have an intention of hiring women and going after women, recruiting them and hiring them and having policies that will help them stay in the workplace.

Why this is so important when it comes to these projects is because we are talking about medium and large scale development projects where the jobs that we see women moving into are high paying jobs. The more that women can be hired in the jobs in the oil and gas industry, the more that women can be hired in jobs in mining, in the same way, the more that they can be hired in the pulp and paper industry, the more they are getting into skilled trades jobs or they are getting into science positions and engineering positions and they are earning more money. So, having a policy in place which recognizes that we have to actually retain women, we actually have to go after women, we actually have to make the workplace a good place for them to work, by doing that we can improve women's earnings. However, the weakness with our government is that it says it is going to do it for other companies but then when the government actually looks at putting something in place with regard to skilled trades, which they did quite recently when they responded to the report of the task force on skilled trades, government turns around and puts in a stipulation for itself but without a gender based analysis. So, that is my problem.

When government responded to the recent report of the task force on skilled trades, the government said that it will try to increase opportunities for apprentices to gain work experience. Then it says that one of the things it will do is that the provincial government's tender specifications will stipulate a requirement to hire apprentices for significant government contracts that are projected to cost in excess of $5 million which have a significant labour component. Now that is really wonderful, and I am really glad that is going to be a goal of government. However, what the government does not say is that there should be a gender balance among the apprentices who are being hired; that we should try to have employment equity in the apprentices who are being hired to work on government projects. That is very disappointing.

If government says yes, they are going to demand companies in the oil industry and they are going to demand companies in the mining industry to do that, but they are not laying it down for themselves as a stipulation. I read that and I really get disappointed, because the same minister who is in charge of responding to the report of the skilled trades task force is also the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women and she is in regular contact with the Women's Policy Office and knows about gender based analysis. I get very disappointed when I do not see the gender based analysis brought to bear. So, if government is really serious about trying to decrease poverty for women, then they have to help women when it comes to getting apprenticeship positions.

Big efforts are being put into getting women trained in trades and technology in this Province. The women in resource development, a major agency in the Province, is working at that. They are working in conjunction with the College of the North Atlantic. There has been all kinds of interaction with the Women's Policy Office. Efforts are being made to get women trained, but a report from the government, its own report, says that there are many barriers for women getting into apprenticeships. So, if government is serious about getting women into trades and technology, if they are serious about getting those women employed, then government is going to have to stipulate, in the tender specifications that go out for government projects, that the people who come forward with the tender proposals are going to have to have an employment equity component to their proposals. They are going to have to show that they have a plan for having women apprentices. It is missing, and that really upsets me. It disturbs me that such is the case.

It is the same way in response to another part of that goal that is in the report of the task force on skill trades. Government says it will establish a process to assess if the proponent is committed to hiring registered apprentices and engineering and technology students with a committee established to develop a quota of percentage hires. It does not say that they will be looking for how many of those apprentices, or how many of the engineering and technology students will be women. We have women out there being trained in all of those areas, so it is absolutely logical that the government who is doing its own gender-based analysis in its departments, is holding workshops in its departments, should have that analysis right here. It should be saying that the proponent, the company that is coming forward to do a project for government, that proponent should be putting forward an employment plan for women when they put their proposals forward, and they are not saying that.

The government also talks about, in its response to the report, that it will expand -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: - its current hiring apprentices initiative to other government entities, such as health and school boards, doubling the number of apprentices hired under the 2006 Budget. Again, no reference to the fact that women have a very, very difficult time being hired as apprentices.

The report that was put out by the Department of Education two years ago on apprenticeships identified that women have a much harder time getting apprenticeship positions for no other reason, other than the fact they are women. The report of the government actually makes that statement.

So, it is very disappointing for me, as a woman who has worked in this field, as a woman who, before I was hired to be here in the House as an MHA, actually worked with government in the sense that I worked in partnership as a member of a community organization, worked with the Women's Policy Office, met with ministers who were the different Ministers Responsible for the Status of Women, to try to enlarge the numbers of women in trades and technology and engineering, in science, and yet we once again get a Budget that does not have a gender-based analysis. We get a Budget that does not focus on women. We get a Budget that does not acknowledge, number one, that women are the poorest members in our society, and it goes for every grouping. No matter how you look at it, if you say women in general then women have the lowest income. If you look at people with disabilities, women with disabilities have lower incomes than men with disabilities. If you look at Aboriginal peoples, Aboriginal women are poorer than Aboriginal men. No matter which way you cross it in our society, that is the way it is. Yet, we have a Budget that is not doing that analysis. As I said, this is very, very, disappointing for me.

I am very happy that the government is giving $100,000 to each of the Women's Centres. That is important, and the Women's Centres do use that to hire women, both to work with women who are in need in the community and also to do some advocacy work, although it is not a lot when it comes to hiring people and running a centre. That is good, that the government is doing that, but money going to a Women's Centre to help offer services to women is not helping women with their own individual poverty, and that is what we have to look at.

I want to move on. I want to look at Goal 4 in the Poverty Reduction Strategy. Goal 4 is: Increased emphasis on early childhood development. That is great, and I am delighted to see that goal, but when I come down and look at the objectives of the goal, I get disappointed because I see, "Continue to work with existing and new licensed child care settings to improve the quality of services and programs." That is good. "Continue to increase access and affordability of licensed early learning and child care services, including rural and other underserviced areas." That is good. Then, the third goal, "Strengthen measures to improve recruitment and retention of early childhood educators." - but there is absolutely no recognition that the women - and it is mainly women, and this is the issue - who work within the early childhood and child care system are working for a pittance. They get their certificates, some of them go on and get degrees, and then they have to come and work, in some cases, for salaries that are just above minimum wage, in other cases for salaries that probably are $10 or $11 an hour.

Government can talk all it wants about improving recruitment and retention. The way that they are going to improve recruitment and retention of women working in early learning and child care is to have adequate remuneration for the work that they do.

This Budget shows no recognition of that. This government, so far, has not shown any intent to increase, in a significant, meaningful way, the salaries of those who are working in early learning and child care. It is a disgrace. It is an absolute disgrace. I am of the belief that early childhood learning should be part of the same continuum that kindergarten begins. It should start with early childhood. We are educating our children, whether they are three years old, five years old, or fifteen years old, and I do not see this government dealing with that issue yet.

So, government can put down all it wants a goal to improve recruitment and retention of educators working in this field, but until they can earn a decent salary after they have gotten their two year certificate, or after they have gone and actually gotten a degree, unless we can give them adequate money, they are not going to hang around in our Province to work in this field. They are not going to do it. It is very, very disturbing for me when I see that, because once again it shows that, even though I know that there are members inside of government and inside of Cabinet who know what gender-based analysis is, it is not coming to play in the policy of government. It is not showing up in government's policies.

When I look at the Budget, I am looking at: What are the policies that government is promoting here? It is not, definitely not, promoting increasing women's economic situation; because, if it were talking about increasing women's economic situation, this is one example of where government would do something significant.

Another example of where government would do something significant is with home care. I am going to back up a bit. It is known, without any doubt - and if anybody thinks about it, I think they can figure it out for themselves - that the reason why there are certain areas in our society where work is payed a very, very low wage is that it is work that women traditionally did in the home.

Child care was work that women did in the home. Cleaning houses was work that women did in the home. So, whether you are cleaning in your house or cleaning in a workplace, oh, well, that is only work that women do. We do not say that, but that is how it develops systematically. It is a system, and we have to recognize the system and we have to break it and say this cannot continue.

Now, we have done that with some traditional jobs that women did. For example, teaching used to be one of the lowest paid things that somebody could do. I think most of us in the House of Assembly are old enough, if not to actually have done it ourselves, to know about when teachers were poverty-stricken when they were teaching. They were paid so little, they were poverty-stricken. That got changed. Initially, it was because historically women were really the ones out there as teachers. That got changed.

The same way in the health field. Nursing used to be really not well paid. That got changed, but where is it transferred to now? It is transferred to LPNs, Licensed Practical Nurses. It is transferred to personal care staff, and now, with the new move by Eastern Health, it is going to be transferred to people - women mainly, I am willing to bet - who sit and watch somebody in a bed. All of these jobs are very, very low paid. They are a bit better paid if they are happening inside of the public system, if they are happening in a home for senior citizens or in one of our hospitals, but out there in the private home care sector they are just slightly above minimum wage, most of them, and this is women's work.

In this area, this is where the Budget has let me down. Our government has not recognized at all that women are the poorest of our society, and the reason they are poor is because of the fact that they do not earn enough money.

In the last page of the action plan for reducing poverty there is an interesting statement here - and this is government's document: If you ask most people who live in poverty why they are poor, they will answer because they do not have an adequately paying job. This may be because of low skill levels or lack of access to benefits and work supports.

Well, what I am putting forward to government is that for a large group of people, mainly women, it is not because they do not have low skill levels. The women working in early childhood have their skill set - they have to have their skill set in order to work there - but they are not being paid enough money, and it is not because they do not have the skills; they do have the skills.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: Just a couple of minutes to clue up, please, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: To clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS MICHAEL: The point I am making - and I will have other opportunities, I am sure, if there were some areas where I did not get tonight - I am glad I focused on the employment issue because it is a direct Budget issue. We have to deal with it. We have to deal with women's poverty, and that means we have to put policies in place that are radically going to change women earning such low salaries. That means we have to budget for that to happen.

That is a challenge that government has, but if government is committed to what it is saying it is committed to, then that is its challenge. As we go on, no matter who is in power after October 9, my challenge is, to all of us, that we put in practice, in the Budget, the real budgetary lines that are going to support the policies that will really try to get at women's poverty.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly a great honour for me tonight to stand in my place and speak in support of this Budget. As I said in my introductory speech last week, I am very proud to be part of a team that has delivered such a comprehensive Budget, a Budget that has something for everybody in this Province, probably the best Budget in the history, or certainly since Confederation, of this Province.

I can really say that, except for the Opposition, I have not heard one negative comment on this Budget, not one negative comment. This Budget is widely accepted everywhere across this Province.

Mr. Speaker, during my working career I developed and I presented quite a number of budgets, and a lot of those I had to put a little bit of a spin on them to make them look good. I can tell you quite honestly that this Budget does not need any spin. This Budget speaks for itself. I do not need to embellish this Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: It is incredible how the Opposition can stand in their places over there and say that they have no confidence in the way this government is managing the finances of this Province, how they cannot vote in support of this Budget, particularly after the financial mess which they left this Province in, in 2003.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, they say a picture is worth a thousand words, but I can tell you there is one picture in this Budget that speaks volumes. There is one chart in here that speaks volumes of the difference between the previous Administration and this particular government.

The Leader of the Opposition was up early this evening talking about the difference between a Liberal Administration and a Progressive Conservative Administration. Well, yes, there is quite a stark difference, Mr. Speaker. If we just look at this chart for a moment, this, I think, will tell us exactly what that difference is.

As I said, when we took power in 2003 - if we just go back to the last four years that the Liberal Administration was in power, we can certainly see the record of that government. In year one, in 2000-2001, they ran up a deficit of nearly $400 million in that one year. The following year they went one better than that. They drove it up to about $450 million in the second year. Now, in the third year - I mean, it gets worse - $600 million, Mr. Speaker, in the hole. We were certainly drilling down, going towards China. In the fourth year, the year when they were finally turfed out of government, we were headed probably for a deficit in excess of $1 billion but, thank God, this government got in there in time and sort of turned it around. Even then, in that particular year, we had a deficit of about $900 million.

Now, that four year period alone, the last four years these guys were in government, they managed to run up a deficit - in other words, they spent more money than the revenues allowed for this Province - of $2.4 billion in the last four years they were in power. Add that on top of the pre-existing debt that this Province already had, it brought it up close to $12 billion.

Let's put that into some kind of perspective, $12 billion for a Province with a population of about 500,000 people. That is close to $25,000, a debt of $25,000, for every man, woman and child in this Province; or, if you look at it in terms of a family of four, they left us with a debt of about $100,000, a liability for every family in this Province of about $100,000 each. Incredible, Mr. Speaker. Talk about irresponsibility.

The cost of servicing that debt alone was running close to $1 billion. Can you imagine, $1 billion, if we did not have to take $1 billion and send it off to our bankers, what we could do with that $1 billion? What kind of an education system would we have? What kind of a health care system would we have? The possibilities are endless, where we could be, if we did not have to have that millstone around our necks.

Now, let's see where we go from here. As I said, thank God, in 2003 the voters of this Province had the good sense to finally turf them out of office and put in a government that had a plan for this Province, someone who would turn this mess around and get this Province back on a sound financial footing. Certainly, the biggest financial challenge that this government had was to deal with that particular debt.

Mr. Speaker, in the first year that this government was in power we were able to take that $900 million deficit in the previous year and reduce that by 50 per cent. We improved that by $450 million in the first year alone.

Now, let's see what happens in the second year. In the second year, Mr. Speaker - this is incredible - we have gone from a $900 million deficit back in 2003-2004, in a two year period, to a surplus of $200 million; or, in fact, that is an improvement of $1.1 billion, from $900 million in the hole to $200 million of a surplus. Now, is that a fluke? I do not think so.

Let's look at the second year, a $70 million surplus, despite the fact in that year we had - and that is in the year just completed, March 31. There was a drop in oil production in that year at Terra Nova, but this government had the good sense to keep the expenditures of the Province in check and managed to bring in a surplus of $70 million in that year.

Now, the Budget that we are debating today shows a surplus of $261 million. This will be the third consecutive year of back-to-back surpluses. It is certainly a record that has been unmatched since Confederation. What a record, Mr. Speaker!

If we look a little further over here, these surpluses are going to be maintained into the future. If we look at the two year forecast for 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, we are going to see this trend continuing. We are projecting a $266 million surplus in year four, and another $217 million surplus in year five, so this government certainly has this particular issue under control and we are certainly headed for economic prosperity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I heard the Leader of the Opposition say this afternoon that this government is sitting on a surplus of $261 million, or sitting on a surplus of $70 million. I think he should know that this $261 million, or whatever the number is, part of that is being used to pay off the debt and the rest of that money is being reinvested into infrastructure, the mess in which you guys left the infrastructure of this Province. This government is reinvesting into the future of this. We are not leaving a debt back to the -

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

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order.

MR. REID: I just want to correct the new Member for Labrador West, when he talks about putting the $261 million in surplus - you said you are putting part of that on the debt and you are putting part of it into infrastructure. I do not think you are correct there, I say to the member opposite. Maybe the Minister of Finance should explain to you how budgets work. What you are spending on infrastructure this year is outlined in your Budget as an expense. It is not coming out of your surplus. Do you understand what I mean?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: You cannot say you are using your surplus to do road construction in the Province. (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: I don't think the Leader of the Opposition understands how finance works.

AN HON. MEMBER: He certainly doesn't understand a surplus; he never had one.

MR. BAKER: No, you would not understand what a surplus is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Anyway, to use this surplus to pay down the debt, to me, is a very sound and sensible policy. Paying down the debt reduces the interest that we have to pay. This frees up more money that we can spend on programs. We could take an irresponsible stand, like the previous Administration did, and not pay down the debt. We could continue to rack it up and pass this on. What would we be passing on to our grandchildren and future generations?

Mr. Speaker, I am going to keep my comments brief. I think everything that we need to say about this Budget has been said. I made some comments in my introductory speech last week of all the good things that are in this Budget. It just amazes me how anybody, really, who has - I guess I had better keep my language parliamentary in here, but it is incredible how anyone can really, with a straight face, stand up and say they cannot support this Budget. I mean, it is just totally ridiculous.

Just to clue up, I want to say that this government has a sound financial plan for this Province. We have chartered a course to economic prosperity. We look to the future with great confidence, and we will control our own destiny. This Budget puts us on the course to meet that objective, and I am certainly very proud to stand in my place, when the time comes, to support this Budget.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed a pleasure tonight to rise and speak on a non-confidence motion in this government. It is very interesting that the hon. Member for Labrador West talks about a $261 million surplus, and he said that the surplus would be going for infrastructure and road construction. If it is going to go for infrastructure and road construction, I guess it is not going to be a surplus. If that is the case, therefore, there is something wrong with the Minister of Finance's Budget. You cannot have a surplus and spend it on infrastructure and road construction and end up with a surplus. The former Auditor General is over there, and I am sure she would give them a lesson in the caucus tomorrow morning about surplus and spending money on infrastructure and road construction.

Today in this House of Assembly I would like to point out, in terms of inaccuracy, whether the Budget is accurate or not. I have in my possession here today what is called the exemptions to the Public Tender Act. One time over history - this particular document is part of the law of the Province, actually, that if you do exemptions to the Public Tender Act they have to be tabled in the House of Assembly. The exemptions have to be tabled in the House of Assembly. At one time it was tabled by the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation and it was part of the mandate of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to table exemptions to the Public Tender Act because our tendering in that division was a division of the Department of Works and Transportation for many, many years, I guess, ever since Confederation. This government, in the last year or so, changed the legislation and now this particular document is tabled by the Speaker of the House of Assembly. It is actually a document that is tabled by the Speaker of the House of Assembly. Actually, what it is, it is accurate information of exemptions to the Public Tender Act. It is the actual money that was spent, and there was always a reason.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: Yes, if you are going to do an exemption to the Public Tender Act there are certain provisions within the Public Tender Act, there are certain items, certain things, that you can go out and do without public tender: if there is only one source -

AN HON. MEMBER: An emergency.

MR. BARRETT: - an emergency, and that sort of thing. For example, we have in this particular document here school textbooks, very natural. I mean, there is only one history book. If the educators of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador decide there is a particular history book that is going to be used in Grade 10 or Grade 11, and there is only one publisher, one supplier, they would supply that particular textbook and it would be recorded here as only one supplier.

The other one, for example, we have it here: Harbour Construction Limited in Witless Bay was awarded $19,250 for salt and sand mix required for winter operations for the Southern Shore area. That particular contractor was paid $19,250 for emergency salt and sand, a normal expenditure that happens every year. Every year since Confederation, normally, within the department, certain divisions run out of salt and sand and they go out and they do an exemption to the Public Tender Act and they get the salt and sand. Another one here, Century Office Systems, they went out and got some equipment, but that was the only supplier of that particular equipment.

Then we get down to where the Premier was wrong this afternoon. He said they went to Ireland and they decided that they were going to hire a chauffeur service in Ireland. The chauffeur service cost $23,152.92. It says: chauffeur service for trade mission in Ireland - a pressing emergency. I guess they were stuck at the airport and could not make it out of the airport so they had to get the chauffeur service - a pressing emergency, urgently required - to ensure availability for the trade mission to Ireland for the Premier and the ministers.

Now, all it says here is that the Premier and the ministers who went on the trade mission to Ireland spent $23,152.92.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I cannot sit here this evening and listen to the hon. member opposite make statements that the Premier misled, or that the Premier made a statement in the House today that was incorrect, when the member opposite knows full well the difference.

He seems to suggest here this evening that there was an actual expenditure of some $23,000 which, in fact, is incorrect. The actual expenditure was $8,998 and not the $23,000 as the member suggests. Even though this afternoon the Leader of the Opposition was corrected several times by the Premier, and later today the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development issued a release correcting the information, despite all of that, the member stands in the House today and continues to suggest that there was an actual expenditure of $23,000.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the member is making a point of order, I ask the member if he would get to the point of order so the Chair can rule and recognize the member in debate.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is a point of order and I will get to it. The point of order is simply this: The member stands in this House and makes statements when he knows the difference. He gets in this House and makes a statement that there is $23,000 in actual expenditures when, in fact, it was only $8,998.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order.

What I said was that the Premier stood in this House today and said that this was inaccurate. What I am talking about here under the laws of this Province, any exemptions to the Public Tender Act have to be tabled in this House of Assembly. Right here, right now, the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, and then it was corrected to be the Department of Innovation and Trade, indicated that they had spent $23,000 for chauffeur services in Ireland. This is a document that the Speaker of this House of Assembly tabled, and it is supposed to be accurate. If you based it on that, I guess there is nothing in this document that is accurate. If that is the case, none of this is accurate.

Mr. Speaker, what is in this document is actually the expenses they spent in Ireland on chauffeur services.

MR. O'BRIEN: (Inaudible) making a fool of yourself.

MR. BARRETT: The Member for Gander says I am making a fool of myself. All I am doing is quoting what was published by the department, tabled in this House of Assembly as being accurate in terms of what was spent.

Mr. Speaker, I sat here this afternoon and the Minister of Health -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I sat here this afternoon -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, one of the privileges of a Member of this House of Assembly - and you can check the rules of the House - is that when a member speaks in this House he has the right to be heard in silence. There are some issues here that I need to address and, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you enforce the rules of the House, please?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the member sitting down because he is finished debate, or is he waiting for a response from the Chair? I am sorry.

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

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Bellevue is not finished. He simply asked the Chair if you would enforce the rules of the House and have some silence so that he can make his point.

Anyone on the other side, everybody, has a right to speak in this House. The Government House Leader or the Opposition House Leader, to my knowledge, has not denied leave to anyone who wants to make any comments and get up and have any speeches here. They do not need to chirp at each other. The Member for Bellevue is just asking you to enforce that here, and his right to be heard.

MR. SPEAKER: There have been a fair number of shouts back and forth on both sides of the House, even though the numbers might be different, but I say to the hon. Member for Bellevue that the Speaker does not interrupt every time somebody says anything. If people keep shouting, or keep directing comments back and forth at each other, then the Chair will interrupt.

I realize - and I ask members for their co-operation - members have a right to be heard when they are recognized by the Chair. Every member has a right to stand and be recognized for the time limit that is shown in our Standing Orders, Standing Order 46, and I ask all members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was very disturbing. The hon. members from the other side were shouting and bawling and it was very difficult to speak in the House of Assembly.

I sat here this afternoon and listened to the hon. Member for Mount Pearl talking about what happened back in the days of the Liberal government, what happened back in the early 1990s in terms of when the government rolled back wages and did all of these terrible things. I want to remind Members of the House of Assembly that I was part of that government at that particular time. Actually, at that particular time in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador we were in a crisis situation. Mr. Speaker, at that particular time in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador it was, I guess, one of the darkest days in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador. When Mr. John Crosbie came to this Province - and John Crosbie, in my books, was probably one of the best people who ever represented this Province in Ottawa, and I give credit where credit is due. John Crosbie was a tremendous Cabinet minister, a great federal representative for this Province, a great spokesman for this Province. I always admired the man, even though we were of different political stripes.

One thing that John Crosbie had to do was come to this Province and go down to the Newfoundland Hotel and announce that the cod fishery in Newfoundland was closing down and there was a cod moratorium. For those people who were not aware of it at that particular time, and were not aware of the situation, the closedown of the cod fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador put 28,000 people in Newfoundland and Labrador out of work. Twenty-eight thousand people were on the street in Newfoundland and Labrador, and on the roads and on the sea, without a job.

The government was faced with a very difficult situation. We had negotiated, in good faith, the contracts, and we had given people a substantial raise. Not only did the public service at that particular time take a great hit, but one thing as a government that you have to ensure is that you have the money to be able to provide the social safety net for people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We were headed for disaster, there is no doubt about it. Every fish plant in this Province was closed down and we were in dire straits.

I guess for Mr. Crosbie, it was very devastating for the man to have to come here and come back to his home Province and sit in the Newfoundland Hotel where people almost knocked down the doors to the hotel because people were having a very traumatic experience.

As a provincial government we were faced with almost a complete collapse of the economy of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We had no other choice but to do what was done. As a matter of fact, not only did the public service of the Province take a hit at that particular time, but just about everybody in the Province did. Not only did the public service take a rollback in their wages, or we did not enforce the collective agreements, or we were not able to go through with the collective agreements that were negotiated, but the MHAs who sat in this House of Assembly at that particular time also took an 8 per cent cut in pay. The MHAs took an 8 per cent cut in pay at that particular time, Mr. Speaker, and everybody in this Province realized the difficulty that was being faced by everybody in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot of federal-provincial relationships, and this was an example where Mr. Crosby, in terms of his clout in Ottawa, was able to get a fair amount of money at that particular time. In terms of the cod moratorium, there were benefits that came to Newfoundland and Labrador, and working with the provincial government at that particular time we were able to turn things around a bit.

I want to, for a minute, talk about tonight how we would - we are talking about our relationship with Ottawa. We hear a lot today about our relationship with Ottawa. Well, one of the first speeches that I ever gave in this House of Assembly was on the Meech Lake debate, and I want to go back for a moment tonight and talk about what was important in terms of that particular debate. We all know that in this country called Canada we have ten provinces and three territories. We have a House of Commons that is very much dominated by the larger provinces of Canada: Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta, and some of the other larger provinces. I guess, as in every Assembly in the British Commonwealth, the numbers really call the game. As we see it in this House of Assembly, the Progressive Conservative Party in Newfoundland and Labrador have the largest number of people in this House and they dictate which way the government is going to go.

The same thing happens in this country called Canada. When we have so many members from Ontario and Quebec and all the other jurisdictions, there seems to be more towards the centre of Canada than towards the fringes of Canada. I guess the whole Meech Lake debate was: How can we get some equity in this country? How can we form a government or how can we organize this country so that the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, the people in P.E.I., the people in Manitoba, the people in Nova Scotia and the people in New Brunswick have just as much clout in Ottawa as Ontario, Quebec, and the other larger provinces? I guess the whole Meech Lake debate centered around the Triple-E Senate and that the only way we are going to get fairness - the United States of America, for example, have the state governments and they have the Congress, which is based on larger populations. The Congress have more members from the States than the - in the Senate, the little State of Rhode Island has two senators and the State of California has two senators, and the Senate has a dominate role in running the country.

In Canada, we have a Senate which is appointed for life based on political patronage only. It is not based on abilities or anything else. What happens is that, in this particular country, it has very little in terms of an effective role. I guess the debate back in the 1990s - and it should be a debate now for the year 2007 and 2008, it is no different. If we are going to have effective representation, the only way we are going to get it is to make sure that we do have something that resembles a Triple-E Senate, but it also needs to be effective in terms of being able to overrule certain jurisdictions within the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, we need to really look at our relationship with Ottawa. I guess what is happening now in terms of our relationship with Ottawa, unless we are prepared to have a discussion and have a look at the whole structure of this country, things will never change.

Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot about: Why should we vote or not vote for this Budget? Well, I can tell you right now, in the district that I represent, when I was elected in 1989 within the District of Bellevue itself, I had roughly 186 kilometres of gravel road. In a seventeen year period previous to 1989, there was very little money spent in my district, very little money in terms of road construction. As a matter of fact, Mr. Peckford, who was campaigning in a by-election, threatened them with a letter, saying that if you did not vote for Bas Jamieson you were not going to get anything. Well, they never did get anything. That is what happened.

I am proud to say that over the eighteen years that I have been the Member for the District of Bellevue, there has been roughly $45 million spent on roadwork in the District of Bellevue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to get into some of the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave to clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member by leave.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make the comment that there was $45 million spent and that there was a fair amount of dirt road within the district. Right now, this particular government - in the allocation of roadwork in the District of Bellevue, in the last three or four years it has been roughly around $2.5 million, which is really peanuts. All they are doing this year is some bridges that need to be done.

I would vote against this Budget just on the fact that my district is getting very little in terms of roadwork, but I understand that I have another twenty minutes at a later date, Mr. Speaker, when I can get into more elaboration in terms of the District of Bellevue.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to speak to the Budget again. I spoke to the Concurrence Debate on Estimates and highlighted many of the great initiatives of this Budget. I am proud to be part of this government.

Mr. Speaker, overall, there are many groups in society today that this Budget is quite positive for. As I mentioned when I spoke before, when this government took office in 2003 there were many challenges that it faced; none more serious than the financial situation of the Province and its efforts to get our financial house in order.

Mr. Speaker, as mentioned earlier by my colleague, we had very high debt servicing costs climbing each year, and we had to get those under control to get our House in order. Now we are at a point where we can reinvest. Based on strategic decisions that were made, we can now reinvest and rebuild our Province as is needed.

Mr. Speaker, right now we look at economic indicators in our Province. We have strong GDP growth. Participation in employment rates are at a near record high. Retail sales continue to grow and personal income and real disposable income continues to grow as well. These are signs of a growing economy and signs that there is money in people's pockets so they can spend and reinvest as well.

Mr. Speaker, I want to, in the few words I have, speak to an issue in the Budget by my hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance, who is near and dear to me - and I think needs attention, much more attention in the years to come - and that was the issue regarding investing in personal health. Specifically, the minister talked about promoting physical fitness and healthy living and proceeding with a number of initiatives to benefit the young and the old. He talked about this year launching a Recreation and Sports Strategy and action plan, which is to promote the benefits of sport, recreation, health benefits, social benefits, education and economic benefits alike, and funding was provided for that. This initiative is to look at Newfoundlanders and Labradorians taking greater responsibility for their health through positive engagement of recreation and strong pursuits in fitness.

Mr. Speaker, I was glad to see recently that the minister announced a Recreation and Sports Strategy - the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation - to look at, basically, what was outlined in the Budget. We all know that healthy living at a young age and exposure to a healthy lifestyle is so important for our young people, and so important as they grow that they adapt to that way of life. It certainly helps their learning. It helps their overall life experiences and it keeps us as a healthy society. We all know the cost in our health care system and the importance of healthy living.

At the end of May, as I said, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation launched the Province's first Recreation and Sports Strategy and that will look at the issues, the opportunities and directions we must take in recreation and sport throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. As I mentioned, it plays heavily in the social and economic health of ourselves and our communities. Government shares in that vision and is making funds available to make that available and accessible to everybody.

Other initiatives that are pursued in this Budget; it has been mentioned already in regards to making sports equipment available in our schools and reinvesting in infrastructure. I know in my district, the District of Ferryland and different communities, we are looking at upgrades to playgrounds, sports grounds to ensure our young kids have accessibility to recreation and are able to do the things they need to do to be engaged in a healthy lifestyle.

As well, we have seen major infrastructure in this Budget, major spending in the area of new schools. Obviously, with that comes new auditoriums and an abundance of facilities, which is so vitally required. A lot of those are going to the rural regions of the Province, Mr. Speaker, which is so important.

Mr. Speaker, this overall contributes to the health and well-being in our schools, our neighbourhoods and our own communities. What is very important here, too, Mr. Speaker, is in many of our communities across this Province, and in Labrador as well, we have partnerships with government volunteers, community leaders, and as well, the private sector, which is so important. Everybody gets involved. Everybody recognizes the importance. Everybody plays a role, and it could not be done without volunteers in our communities and they certainly need to be congratulated. Overall, we are trying to increase participation and physical activity at all ages, as I mentioned, which is so important, and to experience the enjoyment and excitement of sport.

Mr. Speaker, also in the Budget this year as well, we looked at increasing community recreation grants which are so important, especially in rural communities. It could be anything from developing a walking trail to, as I mentioned before, upgrades to maybe a playground or those types of things, which are not huge but they do promote healthy living and give accessibility to everybody in our communities in terms of activity.

Mr. Speaker, a healthy and active lifestyle is important to everybody, especially children and adults as well. The Recreation and Sports Strategy is going to look at setting priorities in terms of existing facilities across Newfoundland and Labrador. There are needs. We are attempting to fill those needs and, no doubt, in a long-term plan we will succeed in doing that.

Another option that is being looked at is providing funding to cover liability insurance to supporting the sharing of school facilities for community use, which is so important. In many of our rural communities we have facilities available. This government is going to step up and look at liability insurance to ensure that there is accessibility to those facilities. As I mentioned, community recreation grants in terms of their importance. As well, we will look at four additional recreation directors in regions of the Province to assist in the initiative of the strategy.

Mr. Speaker, as well, I just wanted to note that in the Memorial Gazette, just a recent publication, it referenced the fact that the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services announced funding in regards to another initiative that is very important, looking at developing active school programs in five identified schools and looking at addressing some of the concerns in regards to our youth and young children and ensuring they become active.

Dr. Anthony Card from the university, to quote him, said: Children are not getting sufficient physical activity for optimal growth and development. That is what this government and this Budget is looking to address on a long-term basis.

Mr. Speaker, as we know, in this Province, and nationally, there is some concern in terms of overweight and obese children. According to some statistics, one in four children in this Province is overweight and that is a real concern. These initiatives will help to address that. Some of the long-term health concerns in regard to that, in terms of overweight, looks at the risk of obesity in adults and Type 2 diabetes in children as well. A very serious issue. The whole intent is to instill lifelong health habits that will impact them for years to come. It is very important, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that issue for me is quite important. I am very pleased to see that this government and the ministers involved are engaged. As I said, this has been complimented by initiatives that are taken in schools, infrastructure, our Poverty Reduction Strategy, in terms of our social conscience and looking at putting money back into parents' pockets, whether it is low income parents, middle income, so that they can have the funds to provide proper food, proper nutrition for their children and, as well, that they can access recreational facilities which is so vitally important.

I spoke today in terms of sport, there are some young people who will go on and excel in sports and athletics and this government is stepping up and looking at making sure we have the infrastructure in terms of our young people being able to compete at a national level. We are seeing initiatives like a state-of-the-art provincial sports centre that is being built in partnership with this government. As well, other sporting facilities around the Island which will help those elite athletes that we develop to be able to compete at the national level, but, more importantly, be able to practice and receive the appropriate training that is required to compete at that national level, which is extremely important.

Mr. Speaker, there are many important initiatives that are in this Budget. As I said, it is comprehensive. It touches many facets of society. It is certainly a privilege to be part of this government and I look forward to speaking on it again. That is the issue I wanted to speak to.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to say a few words this evening on the motion. Budget times are usually interesting times and when we have an election looming off four or five months, they are usually a little bit more interesting than some of the more humdrum ones we have had in the past. The interesting part of it all, we are dealing with information, and one thing I found that this government is good at is the way it handles the flow of information. The response it has to different problems and the way things are fed out to the public is quite interesting.

This past week or so we were given a document and the document was entitled: The Report of Public Tender Act Exceptions. This afternoon there was a little bit of furor here in the House regarding one contract. As a matter of fact, the contract number is 206058114 for an amount of $23,152.92. When the Leader of the Opposition today mentioned this number for chauffeur services in Ireland, it came back: No, no, that number is wrong. We did not spend that much money. The report at the top of each page contains all sorts of items that are listed. The top of the page says: Contracts reported by government-funded bodies without tender invitation for all agencies in 3-1-2007 to March 31, 2007. This is on page four of thirty-three pages.

Mr. Speaker, if the Premier says that this number is inaccurate - which he has, he has come out with a release this afternoon - what about all the other numbers here? Are they inaccurate? Was the amount paid for salt and sand mix required for winter operations on the Southern Shore area to Harbour Construction, $19,250, was that an inaccurate amount?

Mr. Speaker, those are the things that people have to be aware of when you are listening to some of the facts and figures that are being expounded here tonight by the members of government.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member when he says that people need to be aware of the facts, people need to be aware of the figures. I want to make him aware, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador aware, that the $23,000 he is suggesting, and members opposite have been suggesting several times today, that was spent in Ireland is, in fact, an inaccurate figure. The actual figure, the true figure, is $8,998. The actual expenditure was $8,998 and not $23,000. So, if we are going to stand in this House and debate and talk about a Budget - particularly when we talk about budgets because we are talking about figures - we want to make sure that we are using actual data, real data and valid data. So, once again, it is not $23,000, it is $8,998.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. It is a point of the minister providing information to the House. No point of order.

Is the hon. Opposition House Leader rising on a point of order?

MR. PARSONS: I was going to respond to the Minister of Health's point of order but you ruled it is not a point of order, but I would like to raise a point of order as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Opposition House Leader if he is rising on a new point of order?

MR. PARSONS: Yes.

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

MR. PARSONS: We have had the Minister of Health stand here a couple of times, and the issue is quite clear. We have had this document tabled in the House here called the Report of Public Tender Exceptions. The Opposition did not table it. The government did not table it. It was tabled here by the Speaker. Now, I have no problem whatsoever with the Minister of Health - in fact, I appreciate it. When something is misinformed and we do not have the right information, I fully agree that we should have the information tabled in this House to rectify it. We had this document submitted. The Speaker also put in an amendment to it yesterday and we have not had any tabled documentation here today whatsoever by the Premier, by the Minister of Health, or by anyone else saying that this information is (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Minister of Health and I remind the hon. Opposition House Leader, both are entitled to speak in this amendment to the Budget Debate; neither have spoken so far. If you want to use your debate and talk about that particular document then you are free to do so, but I ask also that you respect other members' right to speak here.

The Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace has been identified by the Chair. I call on him now to deliver his wisdom.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for his willingness to share so much information with us. I wonder where he was for the past fifteen months, or eighteen months, when he did not share the information with the public on what was going on with the breast cancer screening in the Province, when he was parliamentary secretary to all the ministers of health, and now the Minister of Health. He can sit there and smile. Yes, you are entitled to do that, but there is nobody else out in this Province, I say, minister, smiling about this whole issue.

MS DUNDERDALE: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: You will have your time, I say to the Minister of Natural Resources. Whenever you want to get up, you can get up and speak when you want to. I am exercising my twenty minutes here in the House as much as anyone else is entitled to do, I say to the minister, and I will do that. If you want to, I can say: Go to your seat and get up and speak.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the members opposite are so touchy; so very, very touchy about this stuff. When you do not listen and believe everything that they believe that is being presented to them and you have proof otherwise, then they get touchy.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very valid document that was brought through the means of this House to the members here and to the public. If one number is inaccurate and somebody else comes in with an $8,000 number versus a $23,000 number, why do we have any credibility or credence in this whole process here, if this is what is happening?

Mr. Speaker, the point I was making has just been verified by the Minister of Health. Information is a wonderful thing, as long as it is accurate and as long as it is presented in a timely manner. Unfortunately, a lot of information that this government is presenting to us is not being presented in a timely manner; a point that I will make upon investigation today of some insulin pumps. There are 100 insulin pumps announced in this Budget. It so happens that very few people at the Janeway or at the Department of Health have any knowledge of these pumps, except the fact that there are 100 now ordered, funding approved for 100 of them. I might add, there are fifty approved for the Avalon Peninsula and there are fifty for the rest of the Island.

So, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of questions that arise from there. I have constituents calling me. I had one lady with a nine-year-old son who is taking six needles a day. She is trying to find out if there is any help here for her son but cannot get any answers. She is coming back to me and to members in the Opposition here asking questions. She cannot any answers through the other routes.

Mr. Speaker, that is what I am saying about information. Floating out good news but waiting for it to become reality also causes a lot of stress and strain upon the general population out there. I am sure there are probably going to be more than fifty people here on the Avalon under the age of eighteen who would qualify, even the ones who are in excess of fifty, with only 100 pumps. Anyway, I am sure the minister will get up in a little while and share all of this knowledge that he has with us.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I will leave that topic and move on to another one. We talk about roads, the Minister of Transportation and Works shouted across to me one day this week: Did you see the press release that I have for you and the Member for Port de Grave? There is $700,000 announced for your district. I said: Yes, I saw it. There is not much information in it other than the $700,000. He had the big smirk on his face, the big grin.

Today, I get a letter from the Deputy Mayor of Salmon Cove and he says: On behalf of the Town of Salmon Cove and its residents, minister, I wish to voice our displeasure of your recent announcement. You announced the resurfacing of a section of Route 70 between the Town of Victoria and Salmon Cove, a distance of one kilometre. Wow! Although this is appreciated, the remaining two-point-one kilometres is in deplorable condition and should have been included in your announcement as it was promised in 2006.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is what I say to you about information. Sharing something out, getting people's hopes up and then dashing it all of a sudden. Trying to blindfold the devil in the dark, I say, Mr. Speaker. Coming out with all of these good news stories and people, finally when the information is disseminated and getting back to them, finding out that what is announced is not what is actually happening to them. It is about all the good things that were supposed to happen in the long-term care sector. The good things that happened to the people in Carbonear and Harbour Grace and surrounding areas is that the government moved in and closed the protective care unit. The residents now are being put in homes here in the city, down in Placentia and elsewhere, creating all kinds of hardships on families trying to get to visit their loved ones. Mr. Speaker, when we talk about budgets, we also have to talk about the social implications and the social conscience that governments must have when dealing with these issues.

In 2003 the Department of Health released a report saying that Carbonear needed a long-term care facility. It was ranked as the number one priority in the Province. Lo and behold, four years later, it is still not on the radar screen. It is still not there. Mr. Speaker, I find that unacceptable. The people of Conception Bay North and Trinity Bay deserve a long-term care facility as much as anyone else in this Province. There is no reason, no just cause, after officials in the Department of Health do a study and no action is taken, especially in light of some of the things that we have seen take place in this Province. I am not going to get into any of the things that money was spent on, the good news stories and all that stuff. I am not going to get into that because I do not want to take away from the concerns that I have about what is not in this Budget. It is troublesome, Mr. Speaker.

We are going to deal with the Fishery Products International Act in a few days, I guess. That concerns me, because the people in my area have lost sixty to seventy jobs because the crab facility is no longer there. I might add, that crab processing licence was not just given to Earl Brothers Fisheries for them to make a pile of money or anything else, it was given to them to try to provide employment for the people of the district. Yes, I have a letter from the Minister of Fisheries and he says that the owner of the facility, Ocean Choice International, intends to redirect snow crab to an affiliated operation.

I am happy for the people in your district, Mr. Speaker, because it offers them some hope, and the people in Fortune, but it also takes away a lot of hope from the people in my area because establishing that tannery in Carbonear is not going to create the same number of jobs that were there. There is going to be an awful lot of people this summer wondering what they are going to do this winter for their family. That concerns me because I know all of these people. They are all my friends. I grew up with them.

It is troublesome when I stand here, and I guess I am expected to support the Budget, but there are shortcomings in the Budget, a number of shortcomings. I find it troublesome. A full processing of seal pelts - granted, yes, it should. The key word here: should extend the operating period to over forty weeks. Well, let me tell you, there is not much happening in that regard to give me comfort that it will be for forty weeks and that it will be thirty or forty people who will get those hours. You might say: What is he saying, that he only wants to see sixteen weeks or fourteen weeks for his people? I would love to see them working fifty-two weeks of the year, if I could. There would be no greater feeling, I do not think, for any of us here in this House. I do not think we should pretend to expect anything less for our people than to receive a valuable means of income, a reliable means of getting an income to feed their family.

It troubles me when I see an airplane leaving Torbay airport at 7:15, seven days a week, taking our young men and women and now our middle-aged men and women, and in some cases our seniors, because they are following their families. I am a Newfoundlander and I have great pride in my Province and great pride in my people, and when I see those people going off and having to make a living in another province, it troubles me, it bothers me.

When I hear all these stories and I hear flippant answers and information being put out in different ways and in different lights, I keep waiting naively enough for a rural strategy; a rural strategy that we inquired about four years ago. We said to the Premier, who was then the Leader of the Opposition: Show us your great rural plan, your great rural strategy. Show it to us. We have not seen it yet, four years later. He was afraid then because the Liberals would steal it. Well, whoever stole it, I say, Mr. Speaker, bring it back so our people can come back and find some meaningful employment here in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I know that this may not seem a serious issue to some members, but to me it is an issue that troubles me. I have a daughter who is working on the mainland and I would love to have her here in my own Province working. I have a son who just got home this evening from the mainland for a brief visit. I would love to see him here.

When I hear about offshore deals going sour, bad deals with Ottawa, bad relationships with Ottawa, one can only be perplexed as to why this man, who proclaims to have all the answers, would have deteriorated a bad situation to something that is even worse when we are dealing with their federal cousins this time. We were always accused, four years ago, of a bad relationship with our federal cousins and that everything would be made right when this government took office. Mr. Speaker, I have not seen anything right with regard to this. Yes, it is great that we can put infrastructure in the schools and we can do all the other things, but what would be better again is to have students and people living in our communities. Not just living here in the city but living out in the rural parts of our Province, where you come from, Mr. Speaker, and where I come from. I am sure you are troubled as well and you are refreshed this week by the news of a deal for your two communities that relies so heavily on the fishery.

Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said about rural diversification, rural strategies; all sorts of rural plans and rural committees, development boards, you name it. There are all kinds of buzzwords out there, things that are appropriate, but let me tell you, I do not see much action. I do not see much taking place, expect every now and then something will pop up and you keep your fingers crossed that it is going to work. We do not have much hope in a lot of our communities. As a matter of fact, that despair, that sense of loss of hope is being felt now by the silence that is being experienced out there. That sense of hope does not exist.

Mr. Speaker, further to that, some of the complications that are taking place now - and it was in the news the other day - is in our environment, the problems we are having with our garbage in a lot of the rural communities. People are finding it easier now to dump it in the woods, to take it into an abandoned trail somewhere and dump it off in the trees. A lot of communities cannot afford to pay the tippage fees and the haulage fees to get their garbage to Robin Hood Bay. There was a sound plan in place at one time for Dog Hill Pond, a waste disposal site that would have given some of these communities a little bit of a chance.

Mr. Speaker, transfer sites, transfer terminals would have created meaningful jobs for some of the people in these rural communities, but now we are left with four big waste disposal sites here in the Province. The side effect of that, and a very bad side effect, is what is happening to the fridges and stoves, the shingles that mysteriously disappear from somebody's roof, because it costs $400 now to rent a dumpster to put those shingles in. So when you start looking at the cost involved - I say, a senior citizen who managed to be fortune enough to get a grant through Newfoundland and Labrador Housing for $2,800 to replace the shingles on their roof, they have to pay $20 a bundle, another $20 or $30 to get them put on, and another $400 to get them hauled away.

Mr. Speaker, people who are not living here in the city experiences some of these problems. In communities like yours and mine, people are experiencing these problems. Members opposite know full well because those from rural communities are also experiencing these problems. All that we can do is stand and raise these issues, and hopefully somebody is listening, and that people realize that this Budget is not the panacea that it is proclaimed to be. I cannot beat my chest about this Budget. I certainly cannot pat this government on its back for this Budget.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace that his time for speaking has lapsed.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure at some later date I will have a chance to speak again and continue on with some of the issues in my district. There are numerous issues, and I have not even gotten to the problems with the potholes and the deteriorating pavement or any of that stuff in some of the communities that we have.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your time and your indulgence (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, the first thing I want to do is take a little bit of my time to address the situation that has been brought up by the Opposition a few times about a trip to Ireland. They are talking about documentation that they have in their hands which shows $23,000. Now, that information is correct, but it is correct as a projected estimate for that trip, done before the trip ever took place. The actual figure for the cost of the limousine service or the car service was almost $9,000. I would say that information will be brought out tomorrow, Mr. Speaker. We have it now.

Mr. Speaker, the first thing I want to do is go on record and make a statement, which is pretty obvious. I am opposed to the sub-amendment that is out and I am also opposed to this motion of non-confidence in the government, which is only obvious to expect from me. Now, the reason why I am opposed to it is because it is foolishness. Total foolishness!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: It is meant for one reason. It is meant to drag on the debate. That is pretty obvious.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DINN: I am not here eighteen years. I am here three-and-a-half months, and if you do not mind, I would like to have the floor now.

The sub-amendment was made the other night based on out-migration. Now, when did out-migration start? Did it start in 2003? I don't think it started with this government. If I am not mistaken, out-migration is something that has been on the go in the Twentieth Century, the early 1900s. It had different waves all during the Twentieth Century, especially the 1950s, the 1960s and in the 1990s. If I am not mistaken, there was a lot of it going on prior to 2003.

My question is: What did the Opposition members do when they were in government about out-migration? I would ask them now: What would you suggest we do about it?

MR. COLLINS: They have all out-migrated. They are all gone.

MR. DINN: They are all gone, yes.

I see two possible things that could be suggested as solutions for out-migration. One, we could take money and create LIP grant jobs like were on the go years ago - we have some of that now when people need it - or we could legislate that people not be allowed to leave this Province any more. Let's legislate anyone who is in this Province, gets trained as a teacher, a nurse or a doctor, you are not allowed to leave any more. Stay home.

You know you cannot do that. We live, today, in a global economy. We are in competition with the rest of Canada. We are in competition with the United States. We are in competition with the whole world for skilled trades and skilled professionals, and very often these skilled trades people, these skilled professional people, are getting offers from different parts of the world.

I will give you an example. I know a young fireman who is married to a doctor who was offered $250,000 to relocate to the States. Now, they did not do it, but how many in that boat would have done the same thing? Remember that. You cannot just simply say: Here, correct this problem - because it is global.

We also have to remember, too, that Newfoundland is evolving from a have-not to a have Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: As a government, we cannot interfere with that process. You cannot go and say: All right, now, to keep people here in Newfoundland, what we are going to do, rather than have the minimum wage at $7 we are going to bring it up to $18. If you did that too quickly you would ruin what is here now.

All of this evolution will take time, it will take fixing, and the day will come, not too long in the future, when we will be on the same footing as Alberta. You can mark that down; we are well on the way now.

This Budget is a good Budget. Now, who is saying this is a good Budget? Who is saying this? The tradespeople, the trade unions, provincial labour people, the students. You have ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians saying that this is a good Budget. It is not being said just by this government here. It is a good Budget. It is probably the best Budget that was ever produced in this Province.

Now, I have heard on the other side, too, in the last week or so - I cannot say it in a bad way, but I will say it this way - that, as a government, we were very lucky. The reason why we have a good Budget is because oil prices are high; Voisey's Bay is performing well. Let me tell you, that is not the only reason. The reason that this Budget is as good as it is, is because of the good leadership that we have here. It is because of the fiscal management and responsibility that this government has taken on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: I will give you a good example. Take what this government has done with debt reduction. When this government took over in 2003, like some of my colleagues said earlier tonight, we were paying almost $1 billion interest on our debt. This government took the initiatives, paid down debt where they could, got the Atlantic Accord, which is a tremendous asset, had some pension initiatives, refinanced the Public Service Pension, and today there is over $250 million being saved that can be used in other places because of the initiatives of this government. I think that is one of the big reasons why this government is doing what it is doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: Now, there is one other thing I like about what this government is doing. When they brought in this Budget, they did not just restrict all the goodies for a few. This government brought in tax measures for everybody. It brought in interest reduction for all students, not just a few. It brought it in for every one of them. Textbooks are free for children from K-12 regardless of your income. Now, all of that is important.

I heard also the week that this Budget, in its tax reductions, is looking after the rich. Don't forget, even though someone making $100,000 is getting a savings of $2,500 in taxes provincially, those people, when you add your federal tax on it, are still paying $30,000 or $35,000 a year in taxes. Don't forget that. That is important.

I have been here three-and-a-half months, almost four months, I have been in the House of Assembly probably twenty times, and I get puzzled sometimes when I hear what is going back and forth. I wonder, am I reading the same documentation that these people have over here? I sometimes wonder, do I have the 2007 Budget documentation and they still have the 2002? I really do wonder that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: I know, as an Opposition, they have a role to play. As a matter of fact, I think one of the things I am going to do tomorrow is write the crowd who are responsible for the Genie Awards and have a new category of best performance by an Opposition debating the Budget.

MR. COLLINS: In a non-supporting role.

MR. DINN: A non-supporting role, right, and I think we probably know who would win that. As a matter of fact, I have the envelope.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: Anyway, my time is up. I will conclude by saying this: This is probably the best Budget in the history of Newfoundland, only to be surpassed by next year's Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have a few words on the non-confidence motion that has been put forward.

I want to say to my colleague from Kilbride that I have been here for eighteen years. If I am here for eighteen years more, it does not matter who is the government or who is the Opposition, you are going to hear a non-confidence motion in the Budget. It is probably the first time ever that there has been a sub-amendment to it. I cannot remember that there has been one, but that is the parliamentary process. That is the way it works, and I am sure that long after I am not here somebody else will raise it. Whether it is going to be the Member for Baie Verte or the Member for St. John's Centre or whoever, probably somebody in the future will do the same thing.

There are a couple of things. I was listening to the Member for Labrador West talking about some of the challenges that they, as a government, found when they came to power, and it is probably rightly so, but do you know what? In the Budget of 2007-2008, if there was no Hibernia, if there was no Terra Nova, if there was no White Rose, if there was no Voisey's Bay, I guarantee you one thing, there would not be a budget surplus in this particular Province. It would not happen. These are the realities of it. As a result of that, the thing is - am I pleased that these revenues are there? Sure, I am, obviously. The thing about it is, as we have been elected for a number of terms in the House, we are not here just representing ourselves; we are representing the people who sent us here. When there is more revenue coming to government than there are expenditures, that is a good thing. We can improve in health care. We can improve in education. We can improve in road structure. We can improve in the infrastructure for the municipalities. There is no two ways about that, and we all recognize that.

Talking about some of the things that I would like to have seen, that are not there in the Budget - I think the Member for St. John's North talked about it today. He was saying the Member for Grand Bank, when she was bringing it up, probably was not all that serious about it. I want to tell you, it is a very serious problem for people in rural Newfoundland. It is not just people who sit in the Opposition. It is not only for me, who represents the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, but for every member, especially in the rural part of the Province, whether you are from Bellevue, or whether you are from Baie Verte, or whether you are from Exploits or whatever the case might be, and that is the ambulance fee. The ambulance fee is a deterrent, a big deterrent, to people who are on low income. It is a big, big problem when you have to pay $115 and $75 - and then you have to pay the attendant's fee - $115 to take the ambulance to go from your community, if you are in the community, to the hospital, and the hospital back. These are two particular ambulance charges that you have to pay. That is a big, big problem for people, as I said, who are in low income, and even people who are in probably the lower part of the middle income. It is a real problem. There is no two ways about that.

With the extra money that government has, they addressed some of the fees that were there, previously raised by the Administration when they came to office first. This is one that I think should have been addressed. It is a serious problem. There is no two ways about that. It is not a figment of somebody's imagination. It is real.

If we could have done something for our seniors, if we could have done something for our low-income people, that was one of the fees that we should have been able to address and look at and make some changes. That is one of the things, and I have talked about that a number of times that I have stood, and I talk about it because it is real, because it is there and the people tell you about it. They tell us in no uncertain terms that it is an inhibitor to many of them who would want to go to the hospital in emergencies, because they cannot afford the fee. That is one of the things.

One of the other things that I would like to have seen as a part of the health budget would have been a PET scan for the Province. We do not have one. We do not have a PET scan here. I think there are two of them in the country. One is in Edmonton and one is in London, Ontario, I believe it is, and it is an upgrade from a CAT scan. What that PET scan does, unmistakably, no matter what it is, when a person gets a PET scan, if there is a trace of cancer or anything else it will 100 per cent show, no questions asked. It might have cost $40 million to buy it, but when you look at what it can mean to the person, for example, who has a cancer diagnosis and so on, for peace of mind, I think that should have been something that we should have been looking at in the Province.

When we look at the health care and we look at the reports for people in Eastern Health and, as the Premier said today, there might be another problem in some other health care, health care is really, in a sense, something the people have to put their trust in. Right now all of us realize that people's confidence in the health care system is somewhat shaken and obviously we need to rectify it and make some things happen. That is another thing that I would have liked to have seen in the Budget and it was not there.

Early childhood education is another one. If we, as a society, are going to improve, if we, as a society, are going to reach our full potential, then there is no doubt about it, education is the key. Education will bring us to the level that we would want, whether it is in technology, whether it is in skills, whether it is in university, and childhood education is very, very important.

Another things I would like to have seen would be full day kindergarten. In some jurisdictions they do. When you think of people who have small kids, one or two or three children, and they are in daycare, it costs a lot of money to put these children in daycare, probably as much as $400 or $500 a month, and probably more than that. If you have two or three kids, that costs a lot. If you had a full day of kindergarten it would eliminate a lot of the fees that many of the parents would have to pay; but, more important than that, it would enable the kids to even get a better start on the education system and be able to improve the educational standard within the Province. We should strive for the best. We should strive for perfection. We should strive for the stars, if we can only reach the moon, because we know and recognize what it really means for us, as a society, to educate us, to see the strengths and weaknesses of whatever it might be, whatever facet of life we are talking about.

I remember a few years ago when we brought in free textbooks from Kindergarten to Grade 9, a good start. This year, the government has continued to do that for Level I, Level II and Level III. That is good. Any time you can alleviate parents of costs for education there is nothing you can say negative about that.

When it comes to post-secondary education, some of the things that government did: they raised the level of exemption; they raised the level of combined incomes for people, students going to university, who can avail of loans and grants. That is good, but do you know what? I really believe, honestly believe, regardless of income, that every student who goes to university or post-secondary school, regardless of family income, should be entitled to some grant, probably a grant in year one or two or three or four.

In the recent election in Prince Edward Island where Robert Ghiz just won the election, one of the items in his platform is this: Every student who is in university or post-secondary school in their fourth year, they are going to give them a grant and free tuition because they recognize the importance of education.

There is no doubt in my mind that I recognize that as well. Can we afford it? Yes, we can. Can we afford not to? No, we cannot. The thing about it is, there is nothing worse than having the students in university and in post-secondary coming out with large loans, and anything we can do to alleviate that would be great. I would go even further to suggest that, if we are going to give loans to students at university, why would we want to charge them prime plus two? Why would we want to charge any interest on the loans that students would have at university? They pay back what they borrow. What would be wrong with that? Why do we want to make extra money off them? That is the way I see it. These are things I think should have been there and they were not there, but there is always room for diversifying of opinion. What I would think, somebody else probably would not.

The thing about it, Mr. Speaker, as I have said, is that the success of a society as I see it depends on education. When we realize our parents who are - both of my parents are still alive and in their eighties, and both functionally illiterate. They, like many of us who are in this House, saw the need for education and insisted that they do better for us than what they were able to do for themselves, and we are very thankful for that. We, as parents, try to do better for our children than we had done for us, and hopefully our children will do better for theirs than we were able to do for them. That is the way it is, to improve in education, to improve the level of society, to improve the standard of living. Once that happens then we all benefit from it. These were the things that I saw from it.

The other thing that I have seen a number of times, when we talk about - I think the Member for Kilbride said and talked about it only a few minutes ago - one of these days we will have a standard of living higher than that of Alberta. Well, I hope we do. I mean, who would not hope that, as a parent and as a grandparent or whatever? Who would not hope that our grandchildren would have a higher standard than they would in Alberta? I am telling you, we have a long ways to go and there is no two ways about that.

When we think about it, a lot of our young students or our young professionals, our young engineers, our young doctors, young teachers and nurses or whatever, a lot of them are likely to go to Alberta because the wages are higher, and we recognize that. Do you know what? I did not hear the full conversation, and I did not hear the full text of the speech that was made by Vic Young a few nights ago, but what I did hear on the news really was food for thought, for all of us to think about.

I think one of the first things he said was, in order for us, as a Province, to move ahead, there has to be co-operation among governments, between the federal and provincial governments. He also went on the say that there has to be an understanding, there has to be a mutual trust, if you wish, between governments and big business, and these are the people who really supply a lot of the jobs. The other thing he says, he talked about our resources. Basically what he said was that our resources are there; nobody wants to give them away. There is nobody in this House or nobody in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador who wants to give away our resources. That would be unthinkable, to do that. What he did say was there has to be a deal made in order for us to maintain the industry that we have in the oil industry. We have recognized what has happened in this city here because there is no deal with Hebron-Ben Nevis. All you have to do is think of the real estate. There are houses still selling in this area, houses that are probably less than $200,000, but the houses that are more expensive than that, the market is gone for it. What has happened of course is that many of the people who were coming here to live, engineers and managers and so on for the Hebron-Ben Nevis under Chevron, their offices, for all intents and purposes, are closed, and we have lost that. Now, that is the reality of it.

The other large project for us was Hibernia South. It is not happening. As a result that it is not happening, then it does have a negative impact. If we had these two particular projects on hand then, no doubt, many of the supporting industries would not be closing up and leaving. They would be here and we would see literally hundreds and hundreds more of our young professional people who would be in the Province here making a good living for themselves and bringing extra revenue into the coffers of the provincial government to improve, again, the standard of living for people in this Province. There would be more cars being sold, more all-terrain vehicles, more houses and what have you. So, that did not happen.

The other thing that concerns me is the Lower Churchill project. I would hope and pray that it would go ahead. I am sure that every Newfoundlander in their right mind, so to speak, would like it too, if it did go ahead. If we have value for our dollar there from our resource then it could also employ literary thousands of people in this Province in construction and our people would not be going to Alberta. They do not want to go to Alberta any more than we do, but they have no choice. When you have no income, and they cannot do it anymore on make-work projects or on $8 an hour or even $10 an hour as a breadwinner. They cannot do it. You and I cannot do it and they cannot do it. Therefore, in the interest of their family and in the interest of making a standard of living that is acceptable to them and their family, they go ahead and do it. These are very, very important things that I see to improve the standard of living for people in the Province.

One of the other things that I would have like to have seen from the Minister of Government Services - when we talk about fees again, and the millions of dollars that is incurred into that - would be the fee for the registration of vehicles, $182 a year. It is really, really too high. People who are on low income and seniors, if that $182 was spread over two years it would be more manageable for them. When we think about many of the - and all of us realize that, as I said, if we are rural members, it does not matter which side of the House we are on, we have people in our district who find it very, very difficult to make two ends meet. Again, it would give them a bit of reprieve.

The other area where I thought we might have seen a bit of reprieve again was the elimination of tax on home heating fuel. That did not happen either. There are many, many people that I know of and that you know of, who have no choice but to burn wood. They do not have the wherewithal to buy the oil or to buy electricity. It is not right when you see people in these conditions. Some of them chose to burn wood and some of them have no choice but to do it because they cannot afford the other types of heating, especially oil. So, I would have hoped for something like that to happen.

The other thing - when I see, for example, what happened in Prince Edward Island only a few days ago with Robert Ghiz. Somebody asked him what did he attribute his success on? Because when the election was called, by the way, you could not find Robert Ghiz. You could not find him if you had a searchlight, he was so far behind Binns in popularity. Somebody said to him: What happened that you were able to not only win a majority but almost, in a sense, make a clean sweep in Prince Edward Island when nobody ever gave you a chance of winning? His response was: Good policies. We had good policies and people bought into it and saw what it was that we were up to. That is very, very important.

One of the things that he advocated as part of his platform was this, that every person in the Province of Prince Edward Island, by the end of the four years, would have a general practitioner. There are a lot of people in Newfoundland and Labrador today who do not have a general practitioner. We do not have the general practitioners to look after the needs of the people in this Province. So there are a lot of things that we could do and that we could find some ways to accommodate in some of the surplus that we have.

Also, I was thinking about it this morning. I was listening to the CBC, as I do most mornings, and I was listening to a lady from Botwood. I think her surname was Black. She had been a nurse in the Botwood Hugh Twomey Health Care Centre for twenty-one years. She was from Scotland. All of her family were coming to New Brunswick for a reunion. She wanted two weeks to be able to go. She had put in for it a long, long time before to be able to go to New Brunswick to have that family reunion. She was denied leave. Do you know what she had to do? She quit - after twenty-one years as a nurse in that institution. She was so determined to go to that reunion in New Brunswick with her family that she quit. Now, as a result of that, she finds herself back on the casual list. Of course, with the casual list, there are not the same benefits as there are if you are permanent; you do not have the same pension, you do not have the same health care, and that is a shame. I think in that situation there has to be - provided for over the summer relief - some help for people like her. Again, I think we are in a situation and the wherewithal where we can do that. It is not done, and I think to the dismay probably of people like Ms Black who found herself in that particular situation.

Mr. Speaker, I will have a chance probably later to say a few more words. I understand that my time is up and I want to thank you for your indulgence for the last number of minutes.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am not intending to take up my full twenty minutes this evening unless I become inspired in some way, and that is possible.

All of the big ticket items in this Budget have been covered many times over - very eloquently, I might say, and positively from this side of the House -items like health, education, infrastructure, minimum wage, tax cuts, anti-poverty and so on. So I am not going to spend any time on these. We are very ecstatic about these things over here and they have been referenced several times.

This is my last kick at the can, Mr. Speaker, for the Budget, so I want to talk about something that probably gets less attention than the big ticket items. I am talking about the tourism and culture industry. The tourism industry is one of the fastest growing industries in this Province. It is worth $800 million a year, 2,600 small businesses, involving 46,000 direct or indirect jobs. Over last year, our visitors increased by 6 per cent, which is 500,000 people. The yield has increased last year, by these visitors, by $350 million.

Mr. Speaker, in the Budget under Culture and Recreation - I will just refer briefly to it - but the key investment of $1.5 million for improvements and new construction in Port aux Basques - the hon. member's district over there, the Whitbourne Visitors Information Centre. This includes $725,000 carried forward from last year; $675,000 for revitalizing provincial historic sites throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, that is part of $2.2 million in funding over three years; $400,000 for upgrading and repairs to the St. John's Arts and Culture Centre; $200,000 for the Corner Brook Museum. I mention these just to lead into my topic, which is to speak to the growing tourism industry in this Province. It was not always that way, Mr. Speaker. Up until very recently, we had the attitude here in this Province that we really did not have anything worthwhile to bring people into see.

The hon. Member for Kilbride mentioned the word foolishness some time ago. I recall, and some of you might recall, Canon George Earle, who was a great member of his church and a great after dinner speaker -

MR. REID: Change Islands.

MR. COLLINS: Change Islands, absolutely. I visited his place in Change Islands a couple of years ago, I wanted to see it.

I remember him giving a speech one time talking about folklore, and in his usual custom of referring to Newfoundland wit and sayings, witticism and so on - he did such a great job at it - he said: Years ago in Newfoundland, before we came up with the word folklore, people called this all foolishness; this was foolishness. At the time they were developing a Department of Folklore at Memorial University, paying hundreds and thousands of dollars to develop a department of foolishness. A lot of Newfoundlanders felt that trying to develop a tourism industry in Newfoundland in the small villages and rural communities of Newfoundland was foolishness because we had nothing to offer, our lives were so simple. Why would you bring in people from away to see what we had?

We all went outside the Province on our vacations. I, like many others on our summer vacations, went to P.E.I. so I could play mini golf and ride the paddle boats. Some people came back from that experience and said: We should do this here, get people to come in and develop paddle boats and mini golf. Really, people were not coming to Newfoundland to row paddle boats and mini golf. We did not realize what we had.

Now, there is (inaudible) coming from the Leader of the Opposition today, who was quoting the Premier in Corner Brook, when he said: I did not realize how beautiful Newfoundland was. Well, the Premier, like a lot of other Newfoundlanders, came to realize how beautiful rural Newfoundland was, and as a result our tourism industry is growing on that today. He was one of the thousands of Newfoundlanders who came to realize what it takes to grow the tourism industry in Newfoundland. It has been a slow process, coming to the state of thinking that we have something here to offer people from the outside so we can grow a tourism industry in this Province, but it is taking off.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to use an example of this change in attitude that is growing the tourism industry in this Province. I am going to refer to the Town of Placentia, and try to keep from being inspired, the ancient capitale de Terre Neuve. Take that, hon. Member for Port au Port.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I toyed with the idea of giving some of this presentation in French, but I do not know any French. I only have two languages, Mr. Speaker. One of them is English, and I do not handle that very well. The other I can handle very well in certain situations but not in the House.

The Town of Placentia, Mr. Speaker, is an example of this change in attitude, this growing awareness of what it has taken to grow the tourism industry in this Province. The Town of Placentia has been developing a master plan for town growth and cultural heritage district improvement for a number of years. There are three components to it. I am going to refer to them briefly, because I do not want to take up too much time.

The first component of it is a town plan proposal, a town square. Placentia is one of the few communities in this Province that has a legitimate town square. A lot of communities claim they have a town square, but it is really a centre where there is probably a collection of buildings or most of their business building are located, but it has nothing to do with a town square. Placentia has a legitimate town square, right smack in the middle of the town, surrounded by the church, by the state-of-the-art new town hall just opened, by the museum, by the 200-year-old convent, by what we used to call the nuns garden by the Star of the Sea Hall, and by the new interpretation centre that they are going to build in years to come, and right in the middle of that is a war memorial where they are going to do some cobble stoning and what-not. It is going to be a beautiful legitimate town square. It is going to reflect the history and culture of Placentia. They have a great plan for it, a great proposal. This government is aware of it, and I am sure going to support it over the years.

During the 2006 Tidy Towns competition, the judges noted that the historical aspect of Placentia was one of the community's strongest attractions and should be accentuated and promoted. The cultural heritage is unique to this area and provides an opportunity for the community to showcase itself.

That is the first component of Placentia's plan. The second component of the plan, Mr. Speaker, is the archeological digs. Placentia is undergoing a fairly extensive archeological excavation program. There are no less than ten fortifications dated to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in Placentia: the Vieux Fort, 1600s; Fort Louis, 1691; the Great Beach Palisades, 1690; Castle Hill, 1692; and Crev-ve-coeur battery, 1690s. Then there were several others in the 1700s and 1800s.

When I was a teenager, and for some years thereafter, in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, I played softball on the Fort Louis ballfield, never knowing what was underneath it. It was before the time of a lot of members here. I played softball on that field for thirty years.

Fort Louis is now the jewel in the crown of archeological excavation in this Province, second to none. It was excavated two years ago, that archeological dig, second to none. The archeologist, Steve Mills, makes the architectural drawings in Ottawa, in the archives of the French fort developed in 1691. Later on, the British built their fort on top of it and it is now excavated. It is one of the best archeological sites in the Province.

The town is investing heavily in this uncovering of Fort Louis. Also, there are three other excavations going on with forts in Placentia. There is an archeological industry in Placentia for the next twenty-five years if you want to pursue it.

I will very quickly go to the third part of the program. The town is exploring the intangible cultural aspect of its heritage by gathering cultural data, not only of the history of Placentia but of the history of the relocation of Placentia Bay.

The reason why I mention all of these things, Mr. Speaker, is because the town sees this as a way of changing the economics of Placentia to overcome the losses of the past years, the industrial and commercial loss of the past years. It is showcasing what we have, and that is what grows the tourism industry. To get back to my first point, we grow the tourism industry by showcasing what we have, and we have so much to offer, but that is only coming around over the last ten or fifteen years.

This kind of activity in towns like Placentia - I realize there are other places, because the tourism industry has been driven by small groups, small towns, rural Newfoundland - this is the sort of thing that will develop a great tourism industry in Newfoundland. It will make places like Placentia a tourism destination.

Merci, monsieur le Président.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to speak in the sub-amendment to the non-confidence motion to the Budget. We get twenty minutes, of course, each to do that. I appreciate the opportunity. I am not number one tonight. I am not functioning on all cylinders here. I have had rough times the last couple of days with a bit of sickness, and probably do not have my usual enthusiasm, but I am sure I will still try to give my best.

We are talking about the Budget here, and this is an opportunity, of course, where you can speak for or speak against the Budget. There seems to be a little parliamentary piece that the members opposite, on the government side, seem to have some problem with, and that is that anyone on the Opposition side might possibly vote against the Budget because it has so many good things in it. They seem to miss the point here.

I listened, yesterday, very attentively. I was home sick, actually, and I was sitting back. Probably one of the best things on television sometimes is the House of Assembly. You see it from a different perspective when you are not in the bowl, when you are home laying on your chesterfield and you can watch it. I listened to the Leader of the Opposition talk on that very point, about why and who, in the past, have voted against budgets.

I am sure, at the end of the process, we will be there before the night is out. We will come to the end of the Budget process and there will be a vote on the sub-amendment. There will be a vote on the non-confidence motion. There will be a vote on the Budget, and we will be calling for division. In fact, I will give you a heads-up now; I am going to stand for division, actually You are not going to have to wait for the government members to say, stand for division. I will be on my feet as well standing for a division.

They do not seem to understand that, but there are lots of things that happen in budgets that people do not seem to like. For example, I went back and even the Speaker, I think, was referred to, in his days when he was in Opposition, that he voted against some budgets, even though there might have been some payment for his district, or members opposite who might have gotten hospitals or schools or whatever. The records show that even members sitting in this government now, I say to the Member for St. John's East, even those things that were in budgets - and the Member for Baie Verte - many things were in your budget and you stood up and voted against them. That is the process, and it will happen here again tonight, so we are not going to get too hung up on that.

There were some things that happened back then, as part of budgets again, and you wonder if people change their mind over the course of time. Sometimes they just deal with things on that event, that day, and based on the information they have, but then, of course, everybody is entitled to change their mind later on.

For example, Premier Williams gave a speech in this House on May 21, 2002. He was Leader of the Opposition at the time. He gave a speech in this House, and I am going to quote him. It ties in with the issue of Voisey's Bay, and I am going to come back to that issue because budgets are all about spending money, and what are your priorities you are going to spend on, and where does the money come from?

Now, we have a lot of money in this Budget this year. I do believe I went through your book of vision. It caused a lot of problems over there the last time I was up talking about your book of vision that outlined a lot of stuff going on in this Province, where they said it was a book of Vision and Action. Well, one of the things there said that Voisey's Bay is going to be worth $2.9 billion to this Province and that took me back to when I did the research on the Voisey's Bay issue. I said: I wonder where the Premier stood on Voisey's Bay back then, now that he is the Premier, the leader of a government that is spending some of that good money from Voisey's Bay?

The quote says: Mr. Speaker, when we talk about mandate, we talk about Voisey's Bay. What better example of a mandate when I talk about a Premier who is following his own agenda. His own agenda for some reason is to get Voisey's Bay done, and I would suggest to get Voisey's Bay done at all cost. The puppet, the Minister of Mines and Energy, he just tags along. The strings get pulled and he jumps and dances when the Premier says hop - I think we have heard that word puppet here a lot in the last two or three years, too. The problem with the puppet minister is that he is going to live with it for the rest of his life because when a bad deal is done in this Province people are going to remember Premier Roger Grimes and the Minister of Mines and Energy, Lloyd Matthews. That is who they are going to remember.

I wonder, does the Premier feel the same way today about those two puppets, when we, as a Province, got a Budget here that the Member for Humber East can stand up as the Minister of Finance - a big piece of that Budget is Voisey's Bay. You cannot have it both ways. He stood in this House, like I just said, in 2002 and criticized it to pieces, but yet so pleased now to have the dollars to be part of this Budget to spend. That is where it gets into the spin piece that I was talking about when I talked about the Vision book because you spin a lot of things, and this government is very good at spin.

I will give you a few more examples of where the money is coming from. By the way, there are a lot of factors that determine whether you get your money and how much money you actually get. For example, the price of oil might determine how much money is in your pot. Obviously, it does. I think we have had a factor here where I do not think the Premier has had anything to do with it. I really do not. I know he is pretty good. I know he has been slight of hand a lot of times, seen some magical stuff out of him, but I do not think he has had anything to do with the price of oil on the New York Stock Exchange. What is it they call it? The Texas barrel. I do not think he had a thing to do with that.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Mercantile.

MR. PARSONS: The Mercantile price. I do not think he had a think to do with that.

I do not think he had anything to do with the price of nickel that is coming out of Voisey's Bay. I do not think he singlehandedly, or with all of you over there, did anything to make the price of nickel on the world scene go up, all of which put money into the coffers of this government. Now that had nothing to do with your good government and that had nothing to do with the previous Administration's bad government. That is called world factors which does that. You should not be taking credit for spending money that you did not make - the Province is making, not as a result of your doing, but as a result of former Administrations. I went through the history of that the last time around.

I do not think it was a Conservative Administration that got Hibernia up and running. It was a Conservative Administration federally, Mr. John Crosbie who was the minister of the day, who pumped a lot of money when it came into a stonewall at one point and we thought it was going to fail. We have to give Mr. Crosbie a lot of credit. He came to the table with his money, but that was on a Liberal watch which caused that and it was a Liberal watch under Premier Tobin, think of the man what you like, that started Terra Nova. It was under Roger Grimes's watch that White Rose got going, and all of those projects put money into this Budget right here that you people over there can take credit for spending. By the way, I have no problem with you spending it. Absolutely! In fact, I like some of the things that you have done with some of the money. My problem and my difficulty is when, as a government, you claim that with some magical wand that you waved, that you created the money; which is absolutely untrue, absolutely untrue.

Now, you talk about rural Newfoundland, too. That has come up a lot. The Member for Kilbride over there, I do not know, maybe he has some rural areas in his district. I heard him talking about this out-migration problem that has existed for decades and years, as if: Well, it has happened, so what? Well, I say to the member, there is a lot of so what about it. The fact that out-migration might have been going on for decades, that is no reason why we should not stop it, that is no reason why we should not slow it down, that is no reason why we should not reverse it, that is no reason why we should not have a plan to do something to stop it so that we do not end up every fall with a 9,000 line-up on Kenmount Road.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many?

MR. PARSONS: Nine thousand people attended a job fair on Kenmount Road. Turning the corner they said. No doubt, we turned a corner all right. We turned a corner - 9,000 people up there. Now, you look at what was done in rural Newfoundland. I go back here again, because some people missed this thing about: Did the former Administration try to do anything, were they successful in doing anything, about rural Newfoundland to try to stop out-migration, and what has this Administration done since they took office in October 2003?

Well, some of the things I see that have benefitted not only rural Newfoundland, by the way, but the urban areas like St. John's - I do believe there is a company that operates in the capital city called Convergys. I do believe, from what I have seen in the last five years, almost every six months there is a piece in the paper that they are expanding; they are going somewhere else. I think they are even out in Mount Pearl now, with offices, because they cannot handle it. Well, that is a pretty good system to start, this call centre business. I believe there is one in Central, actually, the EXCITE centre it used to be. I do believe there is one in Corner Brook. I do believe there is one in Grand Falls. I do believe there is one in Carbonear.

Well, folks, I do not think those people who work in rural Newfoundland in those call centres are there by the good graces of this Premier and this government, not one of them, not a single one. You are in the process, no doubt, of trying to put one down in Marystown, but you were not the creators, the thinker-uppers, the innovative government that came up with that strategy, folks. That was invented before you guys came on watch. All you are doing is taking a cookie cutter and you are putting another call centre in Marystown, but don't put yourselves off and spin yourselves off as some kind of geniuses. It had started before you guys came along.

The EDGE program, a great thing. I sat here since this session started, this very session, about three or four weeks ago, and I asked a question of the Minister of Industry, because that is the department that looks after the EDGE program. By the way, for those who do not know, the EDGE program was created again under the Liberal government. What it does, to encourage people to come into this Province, we give them certain breaks when it comes to the purchase of land, Crown land, at a very reasonable price. Usually, it is a nominal fee of $1. You can get certain corporate tax breaks, provided you employ certain people. The municipalities bought into this. In fact, it was the Liberal Administration who said, in about 2000-2001, I do believe, in the Budget, this is not working perfectly like it should. We can improve this. Because, by having a Province-wide EDGE program - a lot of these companies want to come to St. John's, and what do we do? We have to get them out into rural Newfoundland. We cannot have them all coming into St. John's. So, the Liberal Administration of 2000-2001 said: We are going to do it even one better. We are going to make the tax incentives even better if you go outside the Overpass. That was a Liberal Administration, folks, that did that.

Let's take it a step further now. Flash forward to 2006. The Town of Port aux Basques has an opportunity to bring a company in from Alberta. That is a switch. Instead of sending bodies to Alberta, we have an opportunity to set a company up in Port aux Basques, Newfoundland, that would employ forty people.

Now, in fairness to the minister, the ultimate decision not to go to Port aux Basques was because the company had a downturn in Alberta, but factually - and you have to get your chronology right - that only happened, and that company only made that decision, in March 2007. In the fall of 2006, that company was coming here. They made an application for EDGE status, but guess what, folks? This Province did not have the committee in place that supposedly looks at, vets and examines companies who want to come into this Province.

I went to the Minister of Industry and I said: Minister, rather than just deal with this Petro Field situation out in Port aux Basques, which happens to be in my district, could you give me a list of all the companies in the Province that currently have EDGE status, or were ever given EDGE status? I said: By the way, could you tell me how many of those companies on that list were given EDGE status since October 2003? - because that is the telltale.

Those are the facts that I wanted. How many businesses have this Province given EDGE status to since October 2003? I have not gotten the answer back, folks. That was four weeks ago. Four weeks ago I asked the Minister of Industry: Tell me how many companies you have given EDGE status to since October 2003. I still do not have an answer, but I do know one thing. I do know that in December 2006 there was no committee even in place that could look at an application for EDGE status.

Now, I do not know, and I hope somebody gives me the facts, but if we had a situation here where this government was in power from October 2003 through December 2006 and never had an EDGE status in place, I would call that leadership; I would call that a plan for rural Newfoundland, no doubt. No doubt about it.

Those are just two initiatives for rural Newfoundland that I have seen work when they are properly administered, but I have not seen them properly administered since 2003. I wonder, what new initiatives have we seen come forward from this government for rural Newfoundland?

I am going to read a quote now - and you talk about how times change but circumstances sometimes do not change. I am not saying that every plan that one comes up with is going to work right off. I am not saying that any plan is perfect. We are not suggesting that it is even easy to come up with a plan, but you cannot tell the people that you had a plan, and go into government for four years and there is no plan. People figure that out. People see through that. Otherwise, the government has to go into full-scale spin mode just so that people forget that fact.

I was reading through some old clippings and readings of the House of Assembly here and I came across one from the current Government House Leader, who was in Opposition at the time, on May 11, 1999. You talk about how some problems do not cease, and they are very tough to tackle. We all know - the Member for Bellevue referred earlier tonight - that the biggest smack in the head that we got, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, with out-migration, came when the fishery was shut down in 1992 - the single biggest hit that we all took. It devastated everybody. From 1992 up until 1999 it continued. By the year 2001-2002 it was starting to level off, and it was starting to level off because you saw programs like a call centre program, you saw programs like an EDGE status program and so on. You had work on Hibernia - excuse me, not on Hibernia at the time but you had work on White Rose, which kept a few thousand employed down in Marystown, and so on, so you saw initiatives that kept the numbers in the Province, particularly some skilled workers, and that is why it started to level off.

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the Government House Leader, made a comment back then in 1999 - you could say nothing has changed. If he stood up tonight and made the same comment, it would be true. I quote from page 744. I am certainly not taking him out of context here. That is not my intent. My intent here is to show that it is a tough problem but that it has to be tackled, and I have not seen it being tackled. "I suspect what you are going to see when school closes is an increase in people moving with their feet from rural Newfoundland and Labrador. The U-Haul brigade will continue once again. It will be increased over what it was before, and that is devastation to our Province."

That minister of today made that statement back then in Opposition because he saw the devastation back then; and, folks, the devastation has not changed. We started to level it off, but it is still there today. Unlike the Member for Kilbride, who stands up and says: Oh, we have had out-migration for fifty years - well, that isn't good enough. That is not a good enough attitude to have. We are not looking for that kind of commentary, that we have had it for decades. This government said they had plans. Now, some are going to look across the House and it is very easy to say: Well, tell us your plans. Tell us your plans.

MR. REID: They had one.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, we heard that same echo, too, back in 2003 when somebody said: Well, we have a plan but we can't tell you because you are going to steal it on us.

We have been waiting four years in this Province to see what the plan is, and unfortunately - I am about to clue up now, Mr. Speaker, I know my time is coming to an end - unfortunately, or fortunately, we have good dollars to spend today. We have good dollars and good money in the pot to spend, but there has to be a recognition of where it came from. It has to be balanced in how it is spent, but you also need the plans; because, without the plans, this isn't going to last forever.

If you look at your Budget document on page 7, even program expenses, this year, 2007-2008, we are showing program expenses of $4.8 billion going up in 2009-2010 to $5.3 billion. That is a pretty substantial increase. I do believe that is about a 23 per cent increase in just our program expenditures.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to clue up here, that is a pretty substantial increase in our program expenditures, 23 per cent in the next four years. My concern is, we have to plan not only for the program expenditures, we have to plan for the money that is going to come in to pay for those increases. If we do not have the Hebron-Ben Nevis' take place because we are not talking to anyone, if we are going to sell off our fishing industries because we do not know how to deal with them, where are we going to be?

I just hope that this Opposition House Leader is not over where that Government House Leader is, eight years out, reading the same statement again that I just read about him, because we have to do something to stem that. The disappointing thing is, we do not see that plan.

It is easy to say, well, you vote for a Budget when you are spending money that you were not responsible for earning. Yes, I am going to vote against that Budget, because somebody is taking credit for something here that they do not deserve. That is the bottom line, and that is why I am going to vote against this Budget, even though there are some things in it, I am sure, that people in my district are going to benefit from.

Mr. Speaker, I will take my leave at this point. I believe that ends my speaking on the Budget totally. We have had a non-confidence motion, we have had the Budget debate and now the sub-amendment, and I believe we are coming to an end. We might have one more speaker over here after. The Member for Port de Grave was supposed to be back at 10:00 o'clock. He had a function. If he does not arrive, that is fine; he cannot speak if he is not here. He had indicated that he might be back at 10:00 o'clock. Other than that, I believe that is the last speaker for this side on the sub-amendment. We will be moving on, then, to the non-confidence motion. I do believe there are two speakers remaining on that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

The House has considered the sub-amendment as put forward by the hon. the Member for Grand Bank, seconded by the hon. the Member for Bellevue: that the amendment be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words: "and that this House also condemns the government for its failure to present a budget that reflects the possibilities which exist in terms of addressing the needs of the people and dealing with problems such as: out-migration, high fees, the financial crisis in municipalities, the special needs of some school students, road repairs, and the extension of 911 service."

All those in favour of the sub-amendment, please say ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, please say ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair rules that the sub-amendment has been defeated.

On motion, sub-amendment defeated.

MR. SPEAKER: Continuing debate on the main Budget amendment.

Are the members ready for the question?

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am speaking now on the non-confidence motion in this government.

I would like to make a few comments in terms of, when I spoke before, I was talking about the need for infrastructure in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I guess, in the District of Bellevue, when I came on the scene in 1989, previous governments had done very, very little in the district, very, very little in terms of roadwork in the district, some of it in terms of the fringes of the district, on the different sides of the district. There were parts that used to be in Trinity South. The good member, Mr. Reid, who was the Member for Trinity South, had done some fine work in terms of getting some of the infrastructure in some of the communities in the Trinity South part of the district, in the Chapel Arm and Norman's Cove area. Mr. Reid had done fantastic work in that area, and I compliment him for it, but there were parts of Bellevue district, the Southwest Arm, which is now in Trinity North - in 1989, the majority of the roads in that part of the district were gravel roads. As a matter of fact, the only pavement, I think, extended down just beyond Queen's Cove. Right on to Southport were all gravel roads. The road to Hillview and Hatchet Cove and St. Jones Within was all gravel road. As a matter of fact, even the main road in North West Brook itself was a gravel road and there were million and millions of dollars - to show you the way the previous Tory government operated, there was a contract called to pave the road in Deep Bight and, for some reason, the contractor set up in the wrong place and had started to pave the road in Adeytown and was ordered out of there. As a matter of fact, the dividing line between the road in Adeytown and Deep Bight was actually the border of Bellevue district. People would travel into that particular area. In Deep Bight there was a paved road, and when they got to Adeytown there was a gravel road because that was part of Bellevue district.

The way the Peckford government operated was, if you did not vote for that particular government you got no infrastructure whatsoever. As a matter of fact, in the whole District of Bellevue, in seventeen years, there was $50,000 spent in municipal infrastructure. Fifty thousand dollars in seventeen years on municipal infrastructure. As a matter of fact, there were communities in my district that never had water and sewer.

The Town of Come By Chance - next door to, and within its municipality - has the oil refinery, one of the biggest generators of revenue for this Province, employing 1,400 people. Fourteen hundred people directly get their livelihood from the Come By Chance refinery. When I travel out over the Trans-Canada Highway and I see the smoke coming out of the stacks, I say to myself: It is too bad Joey Smallwood did not make more mistakes, because that is what we need in Newfoundland and Labrador: more examples of the Come By Chance refinery.

The Come By Chance refinery got the Exporter of the Year Award and also got an award for being so generous to the communities around where they operate. The Member for Trinity North, the Minister of Health, can laugh all he likes, but Clarenville is where it is today because of the refinery. Without the refinery, Clarenville would be just a small community. The great expansion in the Town of Clarenville was because of the refinery. The refinery contributes a lot to the community of Clarenville, as it does to my district, the people from North Harbour, Swift Current, Garden Cove, Goobies, Sunnyside, Come By Chance, Southern Harbour, Norman's Cove, and all of these communities -

AN HON. MEMBER: Arnold's Cove.

MR. BARRETT: - and Arnold's Cove.

They all employ a lot of people, 600 permanent positions at Come By Chance. With the major renovation work, and the work going on in Come By Chance itself at the refinery, there are roughly another 800 to 900 people who get their livelihood directly from the refinery. I am not talking about the indirect jobs that are provided because of the refinery; I am talking about the direct jobs.

Now, the person who ran against me in the last election, Joan Cleary, she, at one time, wanted the place closed down. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Environment, my colleague for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, who used to be the Minister of Environment, we went to a meeting at Come By Chance at one time and they blocked the doors, Joan Cleary and the crowd. They wanted the refinery closed down.

Now, we did have some environmental issues there, but they were not prepared to work with the company. Vitol had taken over that refinery. The company that had operated before was about to go into bankruptcy. I met with the board of Vitol out there on that resort place out on Portugal Cove Road, and sat down at the table when they had assured me: Mr. Barrett, we are going to spend, in Come by Chance refinery, over the next number of years, half a billion dollars to improve the refinery. I went out and I supported Vitol, stood up in Come by Chance - didn't I, hon. member? - and said that Vitol was going to do great things in the Town of Come By Chance, and great things at the refinery.

They spent millions and millions, over half a billion dollars, doing improvements, but the one thing about that refinery, the technology at that refinery was far ahead of its time. There were certain elements in that refinery, Mr. Speaker, that were way ahead of any other refinery in the world, and now it is able to produce product that is better than any other refinery in the world in terms of the emissions.

Right now, I pass by that refinery, and to show you how this particular government that we have now operates, Mr. Speaker - I drove over it on Saturday night - the road out to the refinery in Come By Chance is practically impassable. You could beat up your vehicle. The tankers that leave that refinery right now, it is almost impossible to drive on the road. This government does not provide the infrastructure in and around the communities where this big activity is taking place.

Mr. Speaker, we can pave roads to golf courses but we cannot pave roads to the refinery. As a matter of fact, the road that is an emergency road, and is used quite frequently by the people from Come By Chance who work at the refinery, six kilometres of that road actually is a gravel road. The emergency exit for the Come By Chance refinery is a gravel road.

This company now, of course, has changed ownership, but it is a very, very great company in terms of providing opportunities. Not only that, but the North Atlantic Refinery, in addition to what is happening in Come By Chance, also have service stations and gas bars all around the Province of Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, earlier in my speech I talked about the closedown of the fishery, the cod moratorium, and what happened back in the 1990s. One of the major employers in my district at that particular time was High Liner, the National Sea plant, in Arnold's Cove. Some 450 people from the District of Bellevue and the District of Trinity North worked at that particular fish plant. As a matter of fact, the cod moratorium, when it closed down, it looked pretty dismal in terms of what was going to happen in that particular area.

Well, I worked with Henry Demone and the people at National Sea, and Bruce Wareham, one of the best business persons in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. REID: Certainly one of the most honest.

MR. BARRETT: The most honest and most community-minded person that you could ever meet, a great love for his community and a great love for what he does.

At that particular time, Bruce came to me and said: There is a clam quota in Nova Scotia, roughly a 3,000 or 4,000 clam quota in Nova Scotia, that is not being utilized. He said: Percy, if this plant was to get that quota we would be able to operate. We would be able to operate and we would be able to maintain the plant and keep it going, hopefully, to some day that the fish will come back.

Of course, as we all know, the fish did not come back, but that quota - and I went to Ottawa and I met with the people in Ottawa - the quota was transferred to the plant in Arnold's Cove and it employed something like 150 people at that particular time. It was great news, and it kept people active in the plant.

Of course, after that, the plant, because it was so efficient - one of the most efficient fish plants in the world is in Arnold's Cove - they were able to go and get the Russian cod and bring the frozen cod into this Province and process it.

As a matter of fact, at the time when National Sea was looking at closing down their fish plant in the Province, I had met with them - because there was one on the South Side and they had other plants in Newfoundland and Labrador - when I met with National Sea at that particular time, they said: Percy, you do not have to worry; the plant in Arnold's Cove will always operate. The reason it will operate is because we can produce and process fish in Arnold's Cove ten cents a pound cheaper, even if we have to truck it from St. John's, than the plant in St. John's.

That was one of the reasons why that plant was so successful. It was because of the leadership of people like Bruce Wareham, the leadership and the people and the workers in the plant. As a result, there was a period in my district when I bragged that the unemployment rate in the Arnold's Cove, Southern Harbour, Sunnyside, Come By Chance area was the lowest in Canada, at 3 per cent. Then I look at Statistics Canada today and I see the reports in terms of population, that the community of Arnold's Cove actually is losing population.

One week last January in my district, in the Town of Southern Harbour, eighteen people left - the whole fiasco with the raw material sharing that this government was a leader in. In the community of Southern Harbour, you have one of the most traditional fishing communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. One hundred-and-twenty fishing enterprises operate out of the community of Southern Harbour. A lot of these people have now gone away because they could not afford to stay in this Province. They were forced out because of the raw material sharing and other factors, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a lot needs to be done. I was proud to be able to represent a district - and one of the other major initiatives that the Liberal government did for the community of Arnold's Cove and partly with the Town of Come By Chance - there was a debate when Hibernia, and Terra Nova was coming on scene, that the oil was going to be pumped out of the ground, pumped from the sea and was going to be transported directly to market from the ship and the GBS itself. Brian Tobin, at that particular time, led the fight.

One of the major employers in my district now is the Transshipment Terminal. Part of it is in Arnold's Cove and part of it is in the Town of Come By Chance. These two communities, of course, not only gain from the employment that is created in these facilities - I mean, I participated a few years ago in a ceremony in Come By Chance when they burned the mortgage for the Town of Come By Chance. Mr. Speaker, we serviced that town from 1989 fully with water and sewer, completely with water and sewer, under a Liberal government. There was not one pipe in the ground when I got elected in 1989 in Come By Chance. As a matter of fact, one of the things that we did, that I disagreed with my government and publicly criticized the government at that time and fought with the people in my district, was the closing of the medical clinic in Come By Chance, because the previous Tory government decided that they were going to put the hospital in Clarenville and there was no need for a medical clinic in Come By Chance. Well, I publicly fought against the Liberal government at that particular time and stood with the people in my district.

Mr. Speaker, after eighteen years, if you are going to win five elections around here and you are going to spend eighteen years in this House of Assembly, I want to tell all the people who just got elected, the new members who just got elected, when the chips are down the only important people - all of those people over there are important people around you, but the only important people are the people who sent you here. When the issues become difficult and when there is raw material sharing or anything else going on in your district - if there is an issue in your district that needs the support of your constituents, make sure you stand with your people and not stand with your colleagues on the other side because the only ones who are important to you, as a representative in this House of Assembly, are the people who sent you. So make sure you stand with your people, that is very, very important.

Mr. Speaker, the community of Come By Chance burned their mortgage. Debt free; one of the very few communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not think the City of Mount Pearl, or the City of St. John's, or the City of Corner Brook, or any other community in this Province can say that they are debt free. Come By Chance is probably the only community in all of Newfoundland and Labrador that is debt free. It is debt free because of the vision of Joey Smallwood. He put a refinery there. The revenue that comes in from that refinery to the Town of Come By Chance is unbelievable, and we were able to burn the mortgage. After six or seven, or eight years, the whole town was serviced with water and sewer.

One of the things that happened in the Town of Come By Chance, when the medical clinic closed down I said to myself: How can you make a good situation out of a bad situation? Well, I was very, very pleased one night to travel to the Town of Come By Chance with the Member for Bonavista South at that particular time, who was the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Aubrey Gover was the minister at that particular time. We travelled to Come By Chance, and that particular night was one of the highlights. We passed over a building that was valued at $1 million to the Town of Come By Chance for $1. That was our commitment to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Once, I guess, we accepted the decision that there was a hospital in Clarenville and that there was no need for a clinic any more in Come By Chance, and you were going with the regional concept in terms of the hospital, the people of Come By Chance and Arnold's Cove, believe it or not, have been one of the big supporters in fundraising for the Clarenville hospital over the last number of years.

Mr. Speaker, what we did do at that particular time was pass over the medical clinic to the Town of Come By Chance for $1. At that particular time, in retrospect, the town was worried whether they would have enough money to be able to pay the light and heat bill for such a large building. Anyway, we went out and marketed the building and rented it out to different groups. Of course, now Come By Chance is in the situation where it is debt free.

Mr. Speaker, it is sad when I see houses boarded up in Sunnyside, Come By Chance and Arnold's Cove, and that is one of the most booming areas of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MR. BARRETT: Just a minute to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MR. BARRETT: Across the road we have one of the biggest operations on the go in terms of the Bull Arm site - not one bit of work going into the Bull Arm site. This government is doing nothing in terms of Bull Arm, in terms of the development. There was a time when there were 5,000 or 6,000 people working in Bull Arm back in the early 1990s under the government that I was part of. It was booming. You could not get a place anywhere in that particular area to rent. Rent was more expensive in Come By Chance, Arnold's Cove, Sunnyside, Southern Harbour and all of those communities, probably twice the amount of what it was in St. John's, Newfoundland. The area was a booming area.

Mr. Speaker, I travel to that area now and most (inaudible) people out there are relatives of mine, and some of them have gone away to the mainland. No longer can the Member for Bellevue get up and brag that the unemployment rate in that area is 3 per cent, and it is a very, very, sad day indeed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further debate?

Is the House ready for the question?

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just for a few moments. I had an opportunity earlier to speak, but there are just a couple of things that involve the district that I represent that could have been probably taken care of in the Budget, not only in my jurisdiction but others as well.

One of the major problems that I had when I was Minister of Municipal Affairs was the THM problem. I remember, very distinctly, being in the middle row, close to where the Minister of Business is now, and many times looking at the situation and questions across the floor about the THMs because of the boil orders. It was a very serious problem, there is not two ways about that. I look today, in 2007, at a report that came out in February, just a couple of months ago, and there are still more than 200 boil orders in Newfoundland and Labrador. Still more than 200.

One of the programs that I was successful in bringing to the House, as a part of government, was called the water disinfection program. We offered up to $100,000 to many of the small rural municipalities in the Province, and many of the members who are in the House now, on both sides of the House, availed of that because the smaller communities could not afford to pay that particular amount of money to bring that kind of service to their residents.

Today, there is no program; that program does not exist. I think that should have been one of the programs that should have been there still, over all of these years, because one of the things that any person should have, regardless of the community where you live, is the right to good drinking water, and that particular situation, as I said, does not exist.

I remember in the House, only a little while ago, responding to a statement by the minister, on May 8, 2007, when he talked about only tap water delivers. Well, there are many, many communities in this Province where tap water delivers water all right, but it is not cleared by Health Canada to drink because of chlorination failures and not meeting standards and so. I think that particular program should have been carried through. It was a program that I was very proud of, because regardless, in many of the smaller communities they might not have had the economic activity to generate jobs but people lived there and they did have the right to good water.

The other thing that the minister talked about earlier was money for the roads, and I think it was approximately $60 million. I was given $1 million. I said it here in the House before - and I am sure people can see it in Hansard - and I will say it again, any money that I can get for the district I am very pleased with. When you look at the Bay d'Espoir highway, which is really the highway for the people on the Connaigre Peninsula, and when you see a lot of economic activity that is generated in aquaculture and so on in Bay d'Espoir and in Fortune Bay North, the road condition is just bad. The thing is that when the road was put there in the beginning, even though it was paved, they did not anticipate the volume of traffic and the weight of the traffic that is going over this road now. At $1 million per year we are looking at doing about five kilometres, and there is about eighty kilometres of really, really bad road. That is about sixteen years to finish it at that pace. The others that we have managed to pave over the last number of years there, by that time they are going to deteriorate as well. These are the things - when we look at that there is extra money in the Budget for that, then, obviously, I think some of these extra dollars could very well be used for that particular purpose.

Again, when you talk about rural Newfoundland - and many of us represent the rural parts of the Province. In this year's Budget there was a $30 million decrease in the amount of money spent on municipal infrastructure for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Last year there was $100 million, this year there is $70 million. I would venture to say that much of that $30 million that is less in 2007-2008 than there was in 2006-2007 is pretty much the result of not doing work in many of the small rural communities. They cannot afford it, Mr. Speaker. The small communities cannot afford the one-third of the amount of money that is needed for the infrastructure and a lot of it is not being used. That, in itself, is not a good situation. We would like every community, even though you cannot generate economic activity in every community in the rural part of the Province, the thing about it is that these people do live in small rural communities and they have the right to good infrastructure, good water and good roads so that if there is a hub outside of their area, then they can commute to that and they can do the necessary travel for them so that they can find a place of employment and places to go to school on buses, or go to a hospital that is outside of their area.

So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my comments.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: No? We have one final speaker or one extra speaker.

The hon. the Member for Topsail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I will be brief. There are just a few other issues that I would like to speak to. I did speak earlier this evening but there are probably three or four issues I would like to address.

My colleague opposite was talking about the condition of the roads, so I would like to have a few comments on the roads, especially the roads as they relate to Topsail district. As we all know, we have over $60 million budgeted for roadwork this year. As many of the members have said in this House of Assembly, they are very pleased with the roadwork that has been approved for their district. I would like to say that I am very pleased with the roadwork that has been approved for my district. I represent the District of Topsail, a very beautiful area of the Province.

The Town of Conception Bay South; Route 60 runs through Conception Bay South and much of the road is in need of repair and maintenance. Of course, each year I have been successful in obtaining funding to have roadwork done within the community, usually about a mile each year. As we all know, roadwork is not cheap. It is quite expensive. Out in my area it costs approximately $500,000 per mile. So, for the last three years we have been doing upgrading approximately a mile a year.

This year the plan is to rehabilitate the Manuels River Bridge. There is a park out in the middle of Conception Bay South called the Manuels River Linear Park. Of course, the bridge is right there by the park. It has been in need of repair now for quite a few years. So, there has been money put in the Budget this year for some rehabilitation to the bridge. So, of course, I was very, very pleased about that. There is about $300,000 that is in the Budget for the Manuels River Bridge. In addition, Mr. Speaker, there have been improvements made to the road from the Manuels River Bridge eastward to the Topsail United Church, for people who are familiar with the area, and this year the plan is to do some additional roadwork from Topsail United Church east, and hopefully we will make it up towards - I do not think we will make it up as far as Frog Pond Road, but we will be moving in that direction, Mr. Speaker. So, of course, I am very, very pleased with that.

I would like to go back and talk about the bridge a little bit more. I know that the current Auditor General did have some comments in his report regarding the condition of the bridges in the Province, and the need to be aware of exactly what the physical condition was of the bridge, and, of course, the state of repairs and also the need to do continual rehabilitation. Mr. Speaker, I am very, very pleased with what has been included in the Budget for my district, and that is a total of $800,000.

There is another area that I would like to speak to, and it really has provincial implications, and that is the additional funding that has been provided for Child, Youth and Family Services. There is an additional amount of $6.5 million provided in the Budget, and I think that the annual cost is about $9 million. The bulk of that money is for extra staff for Child, Youth and Family Services.

Mr. Speaker, I have had an historical association with that department and with that branch of the old Department of Social Services back to the early 1980s, and historically there has always been an inadequate number of social workers, really, to keep on top of the issues faced by the Child, Youth and Family Services Division. Each year it seems like we include a couple of additional social workers, and we have done that over the last twenty years or so, but it sort of just makes a very small attempt to try to get the problem under control. This year there is a significant amount included in the Budget, as I say, $6.5 million, and the intent is to hire quite a few additional staff. I think it is about 118 new staff. This will be a significant improvement to the program.

In addition to the cost of the staffing, Mr. Speaker, there is also money included for training and professional development and things of that nature. So, I think that is something that we should all be very proud of.

Of course, the additional amount in the Budget for Child, Youth and Family Services came as a result of a number of reviews that were carried out during the year, such as the Turner inquiry, and there was an organizational review of the department. Also, there was a review of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, which is a mandatory review. That review was quite detailed and came with quite a significant number of recommendations. Some of those recommendations related to the provision of additional staffing. I think that is something that we should all be very, very proud of, Mr. Speaker.

Another area that I would like to speak to is the additional funding that is put in for mental health. There is $1.6 million put in for mental health. This government, since it came to power in 2003, has recognized the need for additional funding for mental health programs. So, in each of the budgets that have been passed by this government there has been additional funding for mental health services. I was very pleased, and I think I have mentioned this before in the House of Assembly, that I did see a commentary in The Telegram from Mr. Jeff Chalker, who is executive director of the Newfoundland medical health association, and he had some very positive comments with regard to the funding initiatives put forward by this government in the Budget. I can also say that I have received some calls from families who have family members who are dealing with mental illness. They have indicated that they are quite pleased with this government's recognition of the need for more resources to be put into the mental health programs.

The other area I would like to speak to, is that there is about $250,000 budgeted for an Eating Disorders Program. Mr. Speaker, to be honest with you, I think probably a decade ago we did not hear very much about eating disorders. I know that in the last number of years I have become aware that this is something that is quite common, and that when families have family members who have eating disorder problems they really do not know where to turn for help, so I am very glad to see that there is $250,000 budgeted in the Budget for this program. I am very pleased with that.

The last issue I would like to raise - and my colleague from Labrador West spoke earlier with regard to moving from deficits into surpluses so I will not repeat what he said, expect to say that we are still in surplus - we are projecting surpluses in the next number of fiscal years. Of course, the fact that we have surpluses is a very good indication that this Province is now in an improved fiscal position, but I think that we should also be aware that the fiscal agents, and even our own people, do quite a lot of detailed analysis on the Province's financial statements. Of course, we are looking at all types of financial indicators, and almost all of the financial indicators are pointing to an improved financial position. I think that is something that we should be very proud of, Mr. Speaker, and that is the improved financial position of the Province.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down and give somebody else an opportunity to speak.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House now ready for the question?

The House is voting on the traditional non-confidence motion moved by the hon. the Opposition House Leader, seconded by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. It reads as follows: That all the words after "That" be struck out and replaced with the following, "this House condemns the government for its failure to deal with the economic problems of rural areas of this Province and bring forward a plan that generates sustainable economic growth that builds on projects developed by previous administrations."

All those in favour of the Budget amendment, say ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment is lost.

On motion, amendment defeated.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair notes that we now debating the main Budget motion, and the Chair calls for further debate.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I spoke to the amendment and the sub-amendment, and I will speak to the main Budget now. I did not get the opportunity on the first go-round and that is the reason I am the last to speak on this side on the main Budget.

I listened with great interest today, and every other day that the Budget was being discussed, and watched one member after the other. I thought the Premier would leave when I got up to speak. I didn't think he would stay and listen. Anyway, I said to my colleague behind me: How long do you think I will be standing before he leaves the room? One of my colleagues said: No, he will stay for the hour. I said: Just watch and see.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about the Budget, because I listened with great interest as all of these members, or most of these members, got up and talked about how proud they were of this Budget, what great things were in there, and how they were going to slap their backs and beat their chests as they travel throughout their district heralding the good news.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to have caught on, and I listened with interest tonight to one of the newest Members of the House of Assembly, the Member for Labrador West, how he got up and talked proudly of the accomplishments that this government was making, and about the reason he was voting for the Budget.

When I stood for forty minutes this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I talked about the Liberal philosophy and the Liberal way compared to the Tory philosophy and the Tory way when it comes to governing a province or a country. I said at that time that while the Liberals were more interested in looking after those who need help in this Province with social programs, educational programs and looking out for those in society who need the most help, the Tories were more interested in balanced budgets and looking out for corporations and giving tax breaks to the rich, because if you look at the Budget tonight, you will see that the largest tax breaks in this Budget went to the riches people in the Province. In fact, they got a double tax break when everybody else only got a single one.

Now, I also listened with great interest to the Member for Labrador West when he talked about what a mess they inherited when they took the government in 2003. He talked about budget deficits and a mess, and he went on to talk about how great it was today. What a Budget, he said. What a record with Budget surpluses but, again, that is the Tory way. He went on to talk about budget surpluses and letting people go without than talk about budget deficits that you call a mess.

Mr. Speaker, every government since Confederation in this Province inherited - if you listen to the words from the Member for Labrador West - a mess. While you say this government inherited a mess, the Liberal government, when they won the election in 1989, also inherited a mess; if you call a deficit a mess, I say to the Member for Labrador West. They inherited a mess, after seventeen years of Tory rule from 1972 until 1989. I say to the Member for Labrador West, when Frank Moores was elected in 1972 he said there was a mess - if you call budget deficits a mess - after twenty-three years of Liberal rule. If you want to call a budget deficit a mess - all you want to talk about is the budget surplus. Did you ever stop to think - the way you talk about the mess. It is almost like the group that was here before you lining their pockets; put the Treasury into their pockets and walked away.

Well, I was part of the mess that you said you inherited in 2003. That is one thing I never did is line my pockets, and I can say the same for all of my colleagues on this side of the floor and all of my colleagues that I sat with on that side of the floor. Why do we have budget deficits in this Province? We have had them since 1949. In fact, I would hazzard to guess that there is probably only one or two years since 1949 that we showed a surplus.

How do you come up with a deficit? The philosophy of the Tory party is: If you don't have the money, you don't spend it. You have to tighten the belt. You have to only spend the cash that you have. Well, if that were the case, Mr. Speaker, we would not be here tonight. If all governments prior to the one that you are so proud to be a part of today were like your government, if all of our predecessors since 1949 had the same philosophy as you did, we would not be here tonight. I would hazzard to guess - and maybe the Minister of Finance can tell me, the building that we are sitting in and standing in here tonight is probably still somewhere in that deficit that we have. If that is not there, the total cost of this building is not somewhere, or a portion of it, I will tell you what is there, the renovations of this room right here that we are sitting in, that we moved into, I think, in 1990 or 1991. When the Liberals took over in 1989 the House of Assembly was on the top floor of the building. I do not know if a lot of you know that. In 1989 the House of Assembly was on the tenth floor. We moved down here in, I think, 1990 or 1991. I was not part of the government at the time, but what I am saying is that part of the deficit of reconstructing this House of Assembly is probably still there, the debt. If you are saying that you should not spend money - because that is your philosophy - until you have money to spend, what would we have in this Province? Can you really stand and condemn Joey Smallwood?

The Minister of Health, and the Member for Trinity North, said to me tonight: I suppose you are going to get up and give another Joey Smallwood speech? Well, I am proud to say that I knew Joey Smallwood, very proud. I can say one thing, anyone my age and older who is sitting in this House tonight, probably only one reason that you are here is because of - and I can tell you what it is - Joey Smallwood. I would not be here tonight standing in the House of Assembly as the Member for Twillingate & Fogo and the Leader of the Opposition had Joey Smallwood not built Memorial University and gave me free tuition to attend, because I came from a family that could never afford to put me through university. In fact, it was completely foreign to people of my social class to go to university. In fact, when I told my mother that I was going to university, she looked at me like I was a bit strange. Do you know what she said? You can't go to university. You can't afford to go to university. Only rich people go to university.

That was the way she was brought up. In her generation, those were the only people who went to university when it was located down on Parade Street. It was only the elite. In fact, before Joey Smallwood became the first Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador there were only two classes of people in this Province, and I can tell you where most of us, all forty-eight of us, in what class we lived or our fathers or grandfathers lived. Most of us, not all of us. There were two classes, the rich and the poor. There might have been another class, the super rich, but there were only two distinct classes, the rich and the poor. Most of us, and our forefathers, lived in the poor class, basically eked a living from the sea and very little else, and when you left the fishing you went to the lumber woods in the fall and in the winter. There was no such thing as unemployment insurance or social assistance. There was social assistance. Back in the 1930s you used to get six cents a day during the Depression.

Mr. Speaker, there were people who starved in this Province because the very rich only had one thing in mind and that was to become richer, and they did not mind becoming richer off the backs of the very poor, and that was most of us. Joey Smallwood came by and said: If you elect me, I will change that.

I don't care what is the political stripe of any of you in the House of Assembly, if you had to be truthful with yourselves, Joey Smallwood did change that.

The reason I am talking about Joey Smallwood is because you talk about debt. We are still carrying debt, I would say, I would hazard to guess, that was created when Joey Smallwood was Premier of this Province. Do I have a problem with that? No, I do not. If you stop and look at how he accumulated that debt, where he spent the money, we would not have Memorial University today without Joey Smallwood. We would not have had the trade schools that we have, that they call now the College of the North Atlantic, spread all over this Province, without Joey Smallwood. We would not have had most of the schools where all of us were educated, without Joey Smallwood, and that all contributed to our debt. That all contributed to our debt, and every Premier who came after him contributed and added to that debt.

When you talk about how much we owe in this Province today, we all had a part in that, and I have no problem with it. I have not problem with accumulating debt if you do it for the right reasons. There is no one who stuffed their pockets and walked out of the House of Assembly, that I am aware of, rich because of the job they had here. I am going to walk out of here one of these days and, I tell you, I am not going to be rich. It is certainly not because of anything that I am going to take, which the members opposite would lead you to believe that is what we are here for, to stuff your own pockets and do something untoward so that you could stuff your own pockets.

MS DUNDERDALE: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: I am talking about the debt, I say to my MHA, the Minister Responsible for Natural Resources. You are my MHA, by the way. I am talking about the debt, the mess you say you inherited, and I am trying to explain to you where that mess you say you inherited came from.

MS DUNDERDALE: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Look, having watched and listened to you in the last little while, I can see why I did not vote for you. I can pretty well hazard to guess that I am not going to vote for you again, either, because you have not done anything to endear yourself with me. I will tell you one thing: If I abused the people in my district the way you have abused me lately, I would not expect them to vote for me either.

AN HON. MEMBER: I wager a bet that you did what everyone else does in here: vote in your own district for yourself.

MR. REID: Is that right?

AN HON. MEMBER: I wager a bet. (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Yes, I did, exactly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

MR. REID: I must say, Mr. Speaker, I remained relatively quiet here tonight, and the only time that I did have a few words is when I mentioned to the Member for Topsail that her microphone was not working and I could not hear her.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about debt. I was part of a government that incurred debt, but what they are saying, if you listen to the crowd opposite, is that we should not have done that. We should not have run up deficits, is what they are saying. We did the wrong thing, because we passed on a mess to that crowd opposite. That is what he said tonight, the Member for Labrador West.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you, you go and ask the people of Fogo Island -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: - if they should have waited to get their brand new health care facility, until the government had a surplus, until they had no debt. Go ask the people on New World Island if they should have waited for their new school a few years ago, until the government had no debt. Go ask the people in the Towns of Change Islands and Twillingate Island and New World Island and Fogo Island if we should have paved their roads.

I will tell you one thing, we had this discussion in our own caucus one night when Brian Tobin was Premier and I was looking for more money so that we could complete the road on Change Islands. When I got there the road from where you get off the ferry until you get into town was a dirt road, and because I had four islands, I said to the people on the four islands: Any money that I get from Works, Services and Transportation for roadwork I will share it amongst the four islands - to be fair to them. Mr. Speaker, they are out there today with three kilometres of unpaved road because this government opposite, in the fourth year of their mandate, has not given them a square inch of pavement. I think that is criminal.

I will get back to the story I was saying. When we were discussing this in caucus, and Brian Tobin was the Premier - and he was talking about deficit reduction and I was talking about pavement - he said to me: Gerry, the people on Change Islands would rather see a balanced budget than pavement. Do you agree? I said: Premier, you couldn't be further from the truth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: You couldn't be further from the truth, because if you think there is anyone in any of your communities tonight who thinks that you should not pave the road, build the school, give them some drinking water, help them out like the people on the Northeast Coast of the Province are doing without because of the ice conditions, if you think any one of those people are going to say to you tonight: You are doing the right thing by not helping me. You are doing the right thing by not paving my road because you are trying to deal with the deficit.

You do not campaign on that stuff. Not one of you people are going to go out and campaign and say: If you vote for me the next time we are not going to spend any money. We are going to balance the Budget. We are going to pay down the deficit. I tell you, not one of you are going to say it because what you are going to do is you are going to go out and say the things that you are saying in this House for the last couple of days: Look at what we just done for you, and just imagine what we are going to do for you. How many kilometres of pavement will some of you promise in October? How many roads will you say you are going to have done? Every time someone walks up to you and says that they want something: Don't worry about it, vote for me and I will do it.

Your Premier did it in 2003 on Fogo Island when he told them he was going to pave the road from the center of the island down to Tilting. It is not finished yet. He told them he was going to open a hospital that the Liberal Party built. Guess what?

MR. WISEMAN: He opened it.

MR. REID: He opened it. There you go, the Minister of Health said he opened it. He opened ten of twenty beds in a brand new facility, I say to the Minister of Health, after telling the people he was going to open it everywhere he went. He said he was going to eliminate ferry rates when he was on Fogo Island. What did he do? He raised them by 24 per cent and then just dropped them in the Budget by 20 per cent. We are still paying more for ferry rates on Fogo Island today than we were before you were elected, even with the discount that you just gave them in the Budget.

You talk about deficits; I have a deficit, as an individual, and if some of you over there do not, you are lucky. I owe a mortgage on my house. I owe a car payment. If I had to wait until I could afford to buy a house in cash and afford to buy a car in cash, I would not have a car and I would not have a house. Simply because I go out and borrow enough money to put my family into a house, does that mean I have a mess on my hands?

We borrowed money, yes, when we were in government but we also paid the bills. We ran deficits, yes, because we saw the need to balance the needs of the people in the Province against not borrowing, and we borrowed. Now, it is not something you are proud to say you did but what was the alternative, I say to the Member for Labrador West? What was the alternative?

AN HON. MEMBER: Send the ambulance home because you don't have a doctor.

MR. REID: Send the ambulance home because you do not have a doctor? Tell the people that we are not building a ferry, we are not building a school, we are not building a hospital, we are not building a university, we are not building a trades school, we are not going to build runways at our airports, we are not doing any of that because we do not have the money. No, but that is what you call inheriting a mess. I find that a bit repulsive actually, because whoever comes after you will be looking back and saying: What a mess they have inherited from you.

Robert Ghiz just became the Premier of P.E.I. Do you know what he is doing? He is asking for a review of the books so that he can find out what kind of a mess he was left with, the biggest political ploy you have ever seen. Your Premier used that as an excuse in 2004 in the first Budget that he had, to gut the civil service, close highway depots, close courthouses, close social services' offices, lay off teachers and freeze wages for two years. Now all of a sudden, four years later when it is time to go to the polls, what do you do? Open the pockets and pour out the money. Whose money? The money that you made off the fee increases, and the money you didn't pay to the civil servants, and the money you saved by firing them all. That is where it is coming from. That is where the money is coming from, and you want to go out and pat yourself on the back and slap yourself on the chest. Well, excuse me and pardon me but I am not voting for that Budget. I am not voting for your Budget.

Let's talk about fees. In 2005 you increased the fees in this Province by $27.5 million. Some of you new members don't know that, $27 million in one year. The Finance Minister comes in and says: We are raising every fee that you have in the Province. In fact, we are going to invent a couple of new ones, like the polar bear licence and the death certificate.

This year, you come out and announce a $3.5 million decrease in the fees and you are going to slap yourselves on the back and beat yourselves on the chest. You are still fleecing the people in the Province $24 million a year more than we were taking from them when we were in government in 2003. The people of the Province are paying the highest rate in the country to register their vehicle every year, $180. That is $40 more a year than when we were in government in 2003. Yet, you are flush with cash, surplus budgets, you don't have a mess any more, and you want people to vote for that.

There is a host of fees. Every single fee that you could think of: licence fees, your driver's licence fees, an increase for ambulance fees, everything that this government provides, you charge them more for.

Mr. Speaker, what I said today is, we talked about the difference between the Liberal philosophy and the Tory philosophy. Well, it is easy to see, and I mentioned them today, what you spend your money on while you raised the fees for every common person in the Province. You spend it on fibre optic cable and wine and booze for Premiers.

MR. WISEMAN: Don't go down the wine road.

MR. REID: I will go down the wine road all I want, I say to the Minister of Health. I can put my record up against yours any day of the week. Any day of the week. You can talk all you like about what I spent and what I didn't spend. You go back and look through your books and you can present it here in the House on Monday, if you like, what I spent in entertainment and booze and whatever else you can find when I was minister. Do it, because I am not ashamed of it. I broke no rules, I broke no regulations, and I did not abuse it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Never mind talking about my colleagues. Let's talk about some of yours, if you want. Let's have a look at your expenses for the last four years, while you were parliamentary assistant to the minister, and now that you have been the minister. Put it on the table. Don't go over there casting aspersions like I or the rest of us did something wrong. Because, I will guarantee you one thing: After four years of sitting across from your Premier, if he had something like that to wave at me, he would have had it hove out of him long before now.

AN HON. MEMBER: We don't go digging (inaudible).

MR. REID: You don't go digging, no. You don't have to dig; you're down there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, we talk about deficits and we talk about surpluses, but I think the way you rank the success of any society is how they treat their poor. You rate the success of any government on how they treat the poor in their society.

Well, I tell you, if you had to do that with you then you would fail, and fail miserably. Like I said this afternoon, all you would have to do is travel from Bonavista North to Nain today to find out how you are treating the people of this Province. They can't go fish because of ice conditions and you people are letting them go without, in some cases, food because they do not have the money to buy it. That is what I say to the members opposite, and that is nothing to be proud of. That is absolutely nothing to be proud of.

Mr. Speaker, if you don't mind, I am going to switch topics because we are talking about the Budget and, under that heading, you can talk about anything in the Province. I want to talk a little bit about what is happening in our health care system, because that is one thing that you have not bragged a lot about in your Budget. That is one thing that you have not bragged a lot about in your Budget, and it is obvious because you do not have much to brag about. You don't have much to brag about in your Budget, that you have a $260 million surplus sitting the bank, waiting to spend as soon as you find reason to spend it, and we have nurses who are quitting their jobs in this Province because they cannot get a couple of weeks off, after working all year.

When you were in Opposition, you were going to fix all of that. You were going to hire more nurses, give them more money, give them more incentives to stay. Why, all of a sudden, after four years in government, do you wake up and realize that you have not done it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Maybe the minister is saying that we have done it. Well, maybe he can also explain why we have nurses in his own district, this week, standing in the rain protesting against this government because they have not done enough for nurses. They have not done enough to hire nurses and retain the ones that they had, to the point that these individuals who are out protesting cannot take a holiday this summer. Just imagine.

The same is true of LPNs, Licensed Practical Nurses. They are in the same situation and, if I am not mistaken, I heard the minister himself, the other day, saying that we do not have enough of them in the Province.

Why don't you have enough of them in the Province, Minister? You are supposed to be the brain of the Health Department. Why don't we have enough? Might it have something to do with, when you became minister, or when you formed the government along with the Premier in 2004, the first thing you did was lay some of them off? Then, what you did with them, you froze their wages for two years. Then you gave them two and two or three and three. Do you call that an incentive? You are talking about giving people incentives to get them to stay in this Province. Do you call that an incentive for nurses, teachers, or anybody, Licensed Practical Nurses, to stay and work in this Province? Oh, come on in here. We really like you. We really want you to go to work for us, but first of all we are going to fire the ones who are down here in the corner. They are going out the door. We are going to freeze your wages for two years and then give you 3 per cent for two years.

That is a real incentive, I say to the Minister of Health. That is a real incentive. Besides all of those issues, there is a more serious issue. That is, what has been happening in the media in the last few weeks concerning the hormone receptor tests. I think the story needs to be told on it. I think the story needs to be told, what happened, and I will try to explain to the people who are out there listening what exactly happened.

MR. WISEMAN: This should be factual.

MR. REID: The Minister of Health says this should be factual. The Minister of Health, who we call, sarcastically, over here, the poster boy for Trust magazine. I am not going to get into the reason we call him that. It has to do with the by-election back in 2001, when most of us over here, including myself, spent their Easter holidays out campaigning for him as a Liberal, and most of the Tories who were sitting over here at the time spent two weeks of their Easter holidays out campaigning against him for the Tories.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: A lot of them are there. The member who is sitting in the Chair tonight, the Member for Bonavista, was down campaigning against him. The Member for Cape St. Francis, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, was down campaigning against him. The Member for St. John's West spent her Easter holidays campaigning against him. The Member for Baie Verte region spent his Easter holidays campaigning against him.

AN HON. MEMBER: You had a better (inaudible).

MR. REID: Well, all I can say now, your colleagues today who were there at the time do not believe that. Obviously, the person who is sitting in the Chair here tonight, the Member for Bonavista, did not believe that you were the better person or he would not have been out campaigning against you. That is what I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Yes, we all get fooled sometimes. I honestly thought you were the best candidate, but my mind changed on that when I was the Minister of Fisheries, when you were in my office day in and day out, and day in and day out, trying to get me to do things for your constituents, and then I hear you on an Open Line show, after you crossed the floor and went over with the Tories and the Premier, and you said: I made the decision to cross the floor four months ago. Just imagine, he said that himself on Open Line: I made the decision to cross the floor four months ago.

He sat in the Liberal caucus for four months, knowing that decision was made, that he had talked to the leader of the Tory Party, who today is the Premier. He had made that decision and he sat in our caucus for four months. In fact, Mr. Speaker, he burned up a photocopier in our offices, in the backbench offices of the Liberal Party, copying information so that he could take it with him in those four months when he left and crossed the floor. That is what he did, Mr. Speaker. He would sit in caucus meetings when we discussed things, and take that back to today's Premier. He would ask Cabinet ministers like myself questions, or say: Find out this for me when you go to Cabinet. He was taking that information and bringing it back to today's Premier when he was Leader of the Opposition.

Do you understand, now, the irony when we say he is the poster boy for Trust magazine? This is the Minister of Health for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador today. This is the Minister of Health, the same individual who said, when asked by the media a couple of short weeks ago - and said it in this House of Assembly: Why did you decide to withhold the test results of the hormone receptor tests? That is what they asked him: Why did you withhold the information? His answer was: Well, I agreed with Eastern Health. I had to agree with Eastern Health when they had to weigh telling the affected individuals, the 967 women, against the possible lawsuit against Eastern Health. So, he didn't tell them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Well, read The Telegram, they quote you. Yes, read The Telegram. I heard you. It is in Hansard. I will get it for you next week. I will tell you one thing, everything I am saying right now is going out over that microphone, it is going onto a tape downstairs in a room and there are a group of women, as we speak, taking that and typing it on a paper. It comes out on a piece of paper just like this. Exactly the words you say, and that is what the Minister of Health said.

Let's get back to it. In 2005 Eastern Health realized that they had a problem with the testing; not with the individuals who were doing the testing but the equipment, as I understand correctly, that was doing the testing in 2005.

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, can I have a little bit of protection from the Minister of Health who is yapping there all night. If he wants something to say, get up and say it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: You just can't take the truth, so why don't you be quiet?

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Okay. Well, maybe you can get up and enlighten us.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation.

MR. REID: Maybe you can get up and enlighten us because the director of Eastern Health told us that every minister was briefed on this, you, your predecessor, the Minister of Justice today, and his predecessor, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. You were all briefed on this as it unfolded, as early as May, 2005. You were all briefed on this. You were told there was a problem with the testing. You were told about -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: I say to the minister, he said: What about in June, 2003? Ask your deputy minister, who was the Deputy Minister of Health in 2003, because I know nothing about what happened in Health in 2003.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation. The night is late and I know tempers are probably getting a little edgy. I ask members for their co-operation and allow the member to deliver his speech. He has one hour and this debate will come to a close, and we can all go out and shout and holler after.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You have my full co-operation, and I think you have the full co-operation of every government member over there. The only one you are having the problem with - and I know you cannot name him. The only one who is heckling and saying anything over there right now is the Minister of Health. That is the individual that you just had to stand to speak to, but because of the rules in the House, unless you are told four or five times, you cannot mention them by name to tell them to be quiet. He is the only who is making all the noise over there now.

Now, in May 2005 Eastern Health realized that they had a problem with the testing. They went to government and they told them, at that time, that they had a problem with testing. They did not realize the severity, and they went again in July of that year.

Just think about it, Mr. Speaker, there were 967 women who were tested, and it was realized by Eastern Health that there was a problem with the equipment that did the test. Now, I would have assumed that the first thing that should have happened is that someone should have picked up a telephone and said: We have a decision to make. Eastern Health came to government, came to the minister: We have a decision to make.

I know which decision I would have made at the time: Let's tell the people who had the faulty tests, the 967, that there was something wrong with their test and that we are going to retest them, we are going to redo your tests, and tell the people at that time. Instead, Mr. Speaker, they redid the tests, and it took a period from May 2005 up until November 2006 before all of the retesting was complete and the final report came in.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the minister is over there yapping. Maybe he can get up and tell me when the tests were complete. I will sit down right now and you can tell me when the tests were complete.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members again for their co-operation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Colleagues, I ask members again for their co-operation.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank you. You have my co-operation. I am permitted to speak. I am standing in the House of Assembly. It is my turn to speak. I listened to all of those people over there tonight.

AN HON. MEMBER: And you heckled every one of them.

MR. REID: No, I did not heckle every one of them, and I think the Government House Leader would have to admit it. There is no one heckling me now, with the exception of one individual, and that is the Minister of Health. I just asked him if he wanted some of my time to stand up and tell me when the tests were complete.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: I am saying that the final test and the final study on that was done in November 2006. So, it went from May 2005 until November 2006, some seventeen months from the time they started the retesting up until it was complete. As they were going through these tests, it is my understanding now that they started to call up the individuals and tell them if there was a problem.

Mr. Speaker, the problem I have with that is this: Had all of these individuals been called at the time and told that we are going to do these retests but it is going to take fifteen or seventeen months, some of these people would have gone elsewhere and had an alternate test done in this country. Some of them may have been able to do that, because people in this Province are doing it now on a regular basis.

I had an individual who I know quite well, I say to the members opposite, including the Minister of Health, who was given a clean bill of health in this Province about three months ago and he decided to take it upon himself to go to Alberta and have a different test done. When he had that test done, the results were that he did not have a clean bill of health.

What I am saying to the minister, rather than keep that information from those women, if he had called them up and told them that the test results were faulty and that we are going to do those retests and it is going to take seventeen months, maybe some of those individuals would have gone elsewhere for some other type of test. That is the problem. What the minister did, or his predecessors and Eastern Health, they decided that they were going to keep that secret, and herein lies the problem.

Mr. Speaker, we had a problem that came to light last week about the radiologist on the Burin Peninsula, and I honestly believe that would never have come to light except for the questioning in the House of Assembly by the Opposition parties and the media in this Province who originally broke the story on the faulty hormone receptor tests, that none of this would have ever come to light. As a result of the questions that were asked by the media and the Opposition, I think the government realized that they cannot hide this stuff, that they cannot keep this stuff secret any more. That is the reason why the Premier blurted out here in the House of Assembly today that there is another problem about to be announced in the next few days.

It is unfortunate that this had to happen. It is unfortunate that these faulty tests of these 967 people had to happen, but if there is one thing that came out of it, Mr. Speaker, it is that I think in the future we are going to get the information a lot faster, because I think the government learned from their mistake in trying to hide that information from these people and the general population.

Mr. Speaker, what the Premier did yesterday is that - if you listened to the chronology of what happened, and if you listened to the Chair of Eastern Health, and if you listened to the minister, Eastern Health says that as soon as they heard about these faulty tests they brought it to the minister, and I think at the time it was Mr. Ottenheimer - I mean, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I am not supposed to mention his name. He was told.

So, Mr. Speaker, the minister knew, the deputy minister in the department knew, and Eastern Health knew. Mr. George Tilley, who is the CEO of Eastern Health, they knew when this first broke and they have known ever since.

Now, Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier made a very unusual move, one I do not think he should have made. He came out yesterday morning, with no fanfare, and announced that the Deputy Minister of Health was gone. He had called him over to his office and said: We want to remove you from Health. You can have a job in Tourism, but you are out of Health. The reason he said that the Deputy Minister of Health had to leave is because he was too close to the issue and that when the public inquiry and the judicial inquiry started he was too close to the issue to be working as the Deputy Minister of the Department of Health.

Mr. Speaker, I asked a question today of the Premier: If the deputy minister was too close to this issue and he was asked to leave - because he is no longer working for the public service in Newfoundland and Labrador - if he had to leave, then why is the minister still sitting in his chair? And, just as importantly, why is the director of Eastern Health still employed?

The deputy minister is only the conduit, the middleman between Eastern Health and the minister. The minister is the ultimate boss in Health. So, if you are going to take out, fire or dismiss the deputy minister, who is in the center, why do you take him out and leave the other two, who were closer to it than the deputy minister, in their positions?

There is only one reason, Mr. Speaker: They needed a scapegoat. They needed someone to pin this on so that they could walk away and say: Well, we have it done now; we have removed the individual. We are going to have an investigation and everything is going to be all right.

Well, that is unfortunate because the individual they removed is a very honourable individual. Anyone who has ever known or worked with him, or for him, knows that he was an honourable individual, intelligent, articulate, well-respected throughout this country. Prior to becoming the Deputy Minister of Health now, he was the Deputy Minister of Health from 1996-1999. He was the Deputy Minister of Transportation. He was the Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs. He was the CEO of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. This individual that the Premier saw fit to move out of government yesterday won the national Award for Excellence in Public Administration. Just imagine, given a national award for his dedication and hard work to the civil service and to the people of this Province. He was recognized nationally by his peers, and this is the individual yesterday to whom the Premier said: No, no, we cannot keep you over there; you have to go.

Yet, you are going to leave the minister there, and you are going to leave the director of Eastern Health there. I asked a question today: Premier, if you are going to remove the deputy minister, what do you do with the director of Eastern Health? Do you know what the answer was that he gave to the media? Do you know what the answer was that the minister gave to the media? We can't remove or fire Mr. Tilley from his position because he does not work for us. He works for Eastern Health.

That is what he said. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you something. Mr. Tilley was hired by the Board of Directors of Eastern Health. Guess who appointed the Board of Directors of Eastern Health? This government and the minister. The minister and the Premier and this government hired or appointed every single director in Eastern Health, on the board of directors. Then they tell me that they have no control over Mr. Tilley or Eastern Health?

Did anyone ever see Mr. Tilley or the Board of Directors of Eastern Health? Do any of you even know who is on the Board of Directors of Eastern Health? Because you do not see them out making announcements about how many nurses they are going to hire next year, and how many they are going to fire. You do not hear them out when there is an extension going on a building, and there is something positive. You see the minister or the Premier. Everything in health that is positive, it is the minister or the Premier who gets out and makes the announcement. Anything that is negative: Oh, that is Eastern Health. We don't have anything to do with that crowd over there. They make their own decisions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Education, the same thing.

MR. REID: Education is the same thing.

It is ironic, Mr. Speaker, that I was looking through a Hansard - this is a copy of the words that are said in the House of Assembly - because the Minister of Health said today that he had no control over the Eastern Health board. That is what he said.

AN HON. MEMBER: He never!

MR. REID: He did.

The Minister of Health said today that they have nothing to do with Eastern Health care. They cannot dismiss Mr. Tilley, and the reason they cannot is because that is an independent organization. They have their own board of directors.

MR. JOYCE: Who said that, the Minister of Health?

MR. REID: The Minister of Health.

Mr. Speaker, let me just read something to you. This same Minister of Health we have sitting here today, when he sat over here, on May 6, 2003, when he was in Opposition, let me tell you about how he said the Department of Health operated when we were in government.

He says, "It talks about: the Department of Health and Community Services is only but one player...". He says the Department of Health and Community Services is only one player that provides health services in the Province. He goes on to say, "There are many people involved with the delivery of health services in this Province, but there is only one body that is accountable...". There are many bodies and many organizations involved in health care in the Province but there is only one body that is responsible and accountable, and that is the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and on behalf of the government, it is the minister who is accountable for health services in this Province. Now that came from Ross Wiseman on page 879, on May 6, 2003.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that he knows full-well that it is unparliamentary to read a member's name or to say a member's name. A member should always be addressed by the executive position that they hold or by the district that they represent. So I ask the member to -

MR. REID: I am sorry about that, Mr. Speaker, a little lapse in judgement there, but when the Minister of Education was up today in her ministerial statement talking about Williams and Dave Denine, I thought we had changed the rules. So, I am sorry. I will not do it again, Mr. Speaker.

In 2003, when he sat in Opposition, today's Minister of Health said that there is only one body that is ultimately responsible for health care in this Province and that is the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Minister of Health, represented by the Minister of Health. Today he goes in front of a camera and says: There is nothing we can do with Eastern Health. We cannot fire Mr. Tilley. Not saying that he should be fired or not, but the excuse that he is using for taking out the deputy minister and not taking out Mr. Tilley is that we cannot fire him because we never hired him. That, Mr. Speaker, is a problem.

You talk about great budgets, but you have some serious problems in Health, and the one we just witnessed is the most serious one that I remember in my life of politics or in my lifetime. It is the most serious issue, that when a government, a Minister of Health and an Eastern Health Board knew about faulty tests and decided to keep that information from the general public, but more importantly, decided to keep it from the affected women.

I think, Mr. Speaker, what you are going to see in the courts is that the courts will agree that it was not the right thing to do, especially for the reasons that were given by the Minister of Health. The reason we did not give the information is because we had to weigh the cost of giving them the information against the cost of a possible lawsuit against Eastern Health. In other words, we had to be more concerned about how much money we were going to lose in a lawsuit than telling these individuals. You are putting the health care of people in this Province below the dollar. It is more important to protect the money than the health care. That is despicable, Mr. Speaker, and that is not being political. I think that anyone in this Province who heard the truth about this would think the same thing. That is what I think, Mr. Speaker. Anyone in this Province who heard the truth about this story would say the same thing because there was a conscious decision made not to inform these people and the reason it was made, according to today's Minister of Health, is because they were afraid of how much they were going to get sued for. That is totally unacceptable, Mr. Speaker. I just hope that this government learned their lessons, but it is obvious they did not when they dismissed the Deputy Minister of Health yesterday and left the minister, who was part of that decision making, and the director of Eastern Health in their positions. I find that just as despicable, because the buck stops with the minister. The buck stops with the Premier and the Minister of Health, and the previous Ministers of Health who also knew this and decided that they were not going to tell people.

Mr. Speaker, to get back to the Budget, when we talked about: Will I be voting for this Budget? - and I have already told you that I will not be voting for the Budget. There are lots of reasons, but I will go to my own district and tell you why I am not voting for this Budget. There are many districts like mine in the Province, rural districts in this Province that lives, for the most part, from the sea; who makes a living off the fishery.

Mr. Speaker, we are looking for money, all throughout that district, to provide infrastructure in terms of water and sewer and roads. Right now, roads are the biggest problem in that district. The Minister of Transportation wrote me after Christmas and asked me where my priorities were for roadwork in my district. I gave him that in February. I have written him once or twice since then to ask him when he was going to make some announcements for my district. I know that councils in my district have written him as well. His response to them: When the decision is made he will inform them. He has done that to a number of councils throughout my district. Most recently, he made a comment in the local paper, the local RB paper that is in my district called The Pilot, that yes, indeed, he was going to give some money for roadwork in my district this summer but, basically, stay tuned for the announcement. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is June 1 tomorrow. Actually, it is going to be the first of June in nineteen minutes, and we have not heard a single word from the minister about how much roadwork we are going to get.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of the members got up tonight and talked about tourism. The new Member for Ferryland got up and talked about tourism and the not so new, but not so old, Member for Argentia - Placentia & St. Mary's is your district, I think, is it? Is Placentia & St. Mary's the name of your district?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: He got up tonight, as well, and talked a lot about tourism. He, along with his colleague for Ferryland district, talked about tourism and what money tourism was going to generate in our Province. Well, there are a number of tourist destinations in this Province. The main one, I think, if you look at all the statistics, is Gros Morne National Park. We have Trinity and St. John's, and up the shore here, up the Cape Broyle area. I would hazzard to bet that the second largest one, or the third largest tourist attraction in this Province is Twillingate. Every bus tour that comes into the Province ends up in Twillingate. They are on the bus tours and most tourists go to Twillingate. Well, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you what, they are not going to be coming much longer with the condition of the roads, Route 340.

MR. COLLINS: (Inaudible) Placentia.

MR. REID: The Member for Placentia said they are going to go to Placentia. Well, I was driving out the highway, I must say to him - last Friday morning I was heading out the highway and I was just stopping to pick up a cup of coffee at the Irving station in Moorlands when an individual came on who had driven up from the ferry terminal - he had not taken the ferry, and you probably heard him. I think he is probably from St. John's. He said: The road that leads from the Trans-Canada Highway down to Argentia is probably the worst piece of road he has ever driven on in his life. Now, I do not know if you heard him or not but he did say it. If you think that they are going to be hauling their trailers and their $250,000 rigs down over that this summer, I think you are sadly mistaken. They might drive up over it because they might be unfortunate enough to come across The Gulf and land in Argentia and have no other choice but to drive up over it, but they are probably not going to drive down over it, according to the individual who was on Open Line. So, the tourists are not going to your district either, and I do not think you should be up bragging about the great condition of the roads in your district as well.

Mr. Speaker, what I was saying is that Twillingate is a tourist destination for most of the tourists who come into this Province. The roads are in a deplorable condition and they need to be repaired, but this government will not put a cent into the district.

One of the PC candidates who wants to run against me in the election next time was on Open Line today telling Linda Swain what she was going to campaign on; what Gerry Reid is not doing, and this, that and the other thing. She said: We need roadwork in our district. Do you know what Linda Swain said to her? How can you blame that on Gerry Reid? The Tories have been government now for the last four years, why aren't you talking to them about paving? Oh, she said, I never thought of that.

Mr. Speaker, it is just not the road leading to Twillingate. Every road on New World Island, and the trunk roads, needs to be recapped or redone. You say: Why didn't you do them before? We did the best we could. We paved a lot of roads when we were in government. We have been criticized for wasting money here tonight because we ran up a deficit, according to the Member for Labrador West, by putting the pavement that we did put down on New World Island, Twillingate Island, Fogo Island and Change Islands. The bit we did put down was a waste of money according to that member, because we ran up the deficit.

On Fogo Island they need paving, Mr. Speaker. They need paving going to Cottlesville. They need paving in Morteon's Harbour, Tizzard's Harbour, Valley Pond, Carter's Cove, Virgin Arm, Parkview, Hillgrade and Newville. Mr. Speaker, they need it in Cobbs Arm and Pikes Arm and Toogood Arm. They need it in Kettle Cove. They need it in Crow Head. They need it in Durrell, because the roads need to be repaired. Some of them have been down for eighteen years now and have not been touched. I would like to have recapped and repaved everything in that district, in my last few terms as their MHA. We were working on it and we were getting it done. I can guarantee you one thing right now, that piece of road on Change Islands would have been done. It would have been done three years ago had we been re-elected, I can promise you that. It would have been done. To leave a dirt road in this day and age, and you talk about all the money you are spending on transportation to another beautiful area, tourist attraction; not to mention those on Fogo Island.

Mr. Speaker, how can you brag - everyone of them brags about all the money they are spending on road construction and in every district in the Province there are people calling out for roadwork. It is not just mine. In order to get to my district I have to go two ways, I have to go out to Lewisporte and down through the Member for Lewisporte's district or I have to go down through Gander Bay, and that is the way I go. It is the closest. Boy, I am telling you, you are not going to hear that member stand up and brag about the road conditions in his district and how great they are. You are not going to hear him brag about how great the roads are going down through Gander Bay and across the causeway, and down through Gander Bay North and across the road that is now in the Minister of Fisheries district - going to be in the next election - from Victoria Cove or Rogers Cove, or (inaudible) Cove and Boyd's Cove. I tell you, that is not a great road to drive on.

If you drive down the road in Farewell, which is in the Minister of Fisheries district, I am telling you, sir, that is nothing to be proud of, because at night if you cannot see the holes you are liable to get lost in them, or if it is raining you do not know how deep they are, so you are not going near them anyway. Deplorable! Despicable! So it is not just my district that is suffering.

That is the spin that you want to put out there: Vote Tory and you will get your road paved. There is not much evidence of that in Gander Bay or Horwood, or in Farewell.

MR. RIDEOUT: Horwood will be done this summer.

MR. REID: Okay. It is going to be done, is it?

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Oh, yes, it would have to be. There is an election coming up in the fall. The minister says it is going to be done this summer.

MR. RIDEOUT: Let me tell the hon. member (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Now, Mr. Speaker, I never interrupted him once today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Right, so let me finish my speech. I only have another, I think, twelve or fourteen minutes here.

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying, I am not voting for this Budget when you have a Minister of Transportation that has not announced five cents for roadwork in my district.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

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

MR. REID: I cannot believe that I started at 10:48 p.m.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I never not got into everything else that is not going to my district and the problems that they have.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Well, maybe I will get back next week because there has to be another bill dealing with money here somewhere.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: There is one, so I will get an hour to speak on that, too.

MR. RIDEOUT: No you do not.

MR. REID: I think I get an hour to speak on every bill, I say to the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Unless you are going to close the House tonight and not open anymore, I have another hour somewhere next week, I will guarantee you that. If you do four bills, I get four hours.

Mr. Speaker, there are lots of things that are lacking, not only in my district but in every district in this Province and there is not a lot of evidence that there is a lot of money in this Budget that is going to alleviate the problems that these people and these communities are facing. You can talk about your surplus budgets all you want and what a great job you have done. Most people in the Province are smart enough to realize what you have done to them. For three years in a row you have raped, pillaged and burned the public service and everything else. Now all of a sudden you are going to throw back a few dollars at them and pat yourselves on the back and slap yourselves on the chest and say what a wonderful government you are. I do not think people are as naive as what you thing, Mr. Speaker, and we will see the outcome of that in the not to distant future.

Mr. Speaker, it is 11:50 p.m. on the last day of May and I will be back in the not-too-distant future for another hour, because I am not finished with the Budget yet, Mr. Speaker. I will have another hour, unless you don't bring any more bills.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board speaks now he will close debate on the main Budget.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, thank you.

On April 26, 2007, I stood in this House for an hour-and-a-half and introduced and read this Budget, and it was an honour and a privilege for me to do it.

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, would you get something from Beauchesne and throw it at the Member for the Bay of Islands?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, we have a company in my district called 3 T's. Here we have the 3 N's: the nattering nabob of negativism.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands, speaking on a point of order?

MR. JOYCE: Yes.

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

MR. JOYCE: I say to the Minister of Finance: I never lost a thirty-year-old friend because I would not stand up for my principles.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation.

There is no point of order.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

A little over one month later, Mr. Speaker, after hearing lots of debate, lots of debate throughout the Province and lots of debate here in this House, it is now time to conclude this debate. Again, it is an honour and a privilege for me to do it.

It is 12:00 o'clock at night. I will get up tomorrow at 5:00 a.m. to catch a flight to Deer Lake, so we might as well stay here all night and complete this debate.

MR. REID: You're not going to Ireland, are you?

MR. T. MARSHALL: I am going to Deer Lake, Sir. I am going to Corner Brook.

Mr. Speaker, this Budget, I guess, based on the debate that we have heard in this House with the Opposition, obviously they have a duty to oppose the Budget and the government obviously supports the Budget, but it is helpful to take a look at what other people in the Province have to say, and it is a pleasure to look at and see the people in this Province who have acclaimed and who have praised this Budget, this fourth Budget of the Williams' Administration.

The Federation of Labour has acclaimed this Budget. Students have acclaimed this Budget. The police, health advocacy groups, the nurses' union, the Association of Registered Nurses, the Federation of Independent Business, CUPE, Mr. Speaker, have acclaimed this Budget, the Federation of School Councils, women's groups, municipalities such as the City of Corner Brook and the Town of Harbour Breton, as examples. Chambers of Commerce in Corner Brook, in CBS, in Pasadena, in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and in Stephenville have acclaimed this Budget. Mr. Speaker, NAPE has acclaimed this Budget. Seniors groups have acclaimed this Budget. The St. John's Board of Trade, the President of Memorial University of Newfoundland, the principal of Sir Wilfred Grenfell College, the head of the Marine Institute, the head of the Newfoundland and Labrador Hospitality Association, all of these independent groups have acclaimed the fourth Budget of the Williams' government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Because, Mr. Speaker, and as a result of all of this, The Telegram and The Western Star have called this Budget the most generous Budget in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: It is a Budget that gives the people of this Province the biggest tax cut in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: It is a Budget that puts $160 million in the pockets of people. It is a Budget that helps people pay their bills. It lets them spend their money the way they want to spend their money. It takes them from having the highest tax rate in Atlantic Canada to the Province with the lowest tax rate in Atlantic Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: It effectively gives the people of this Province, the taxpayers of this Province, a raise of between 1 per cent and 2.5 per cent, a real after-tax raise.

This is a wonderful Budget, Mr. Speaker, because it helps the people of this Province. It helps them - as a women said to me once: You politicians have to help us pay our bills. This Budget is going to help that women pay her bills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, what we have been able to do this year, as has been said over and over again, is because of the increase in our resource revenues, because of the increase in the oil and gas, because of the increase in our mineral revenues; but, in addition, it is because of the increase in the Atlantic Accord.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, what was happening - because we had the oil and gas and we had the minerals and we had the non-renewable resources when our friends on the opposite side were in office - why weren't they accomplishing what we could do? Why could they not give the people tax breaks? Why could they not make payments on our debt? Why could they not have increased spending like we are, spending an additional either $258 million or half a billion dollars in additional spending? Why could they not spend $440 million modernizing the infrastructure in this country?

I will tell you why they couldn't: because, as the resource revenue was coming in, the equalization was going down, so we were not getting any further ahead. We were staying in first gear. The difference, of course, Mr. Speaker, the difference that everybody in Newfoundland knows, is because of the actions of this man who negotiated -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: - because of the actions of this Premier who negotiated the Atlantic Accord of 2005 which allowed us to keep the oil and gas resources and not lose our equalization at the same time. It was done for a time-limited period. It was done to give this Province a chance to get ahead. It was done to allow us to pay down some of our debt. It was done so that we could diversify our economy so that we would be ready for the day when the oil and gas was no longer there; $305 million in this Budget that would not ordinarily be there except for the efforts of the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: That $305 million allows us to have a surplus this year of $261 million, the largest surplus in the history of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: By having a surplus, Mr. Speaker, we can now start paying down our debt. Sixty-six million dollars this year will go down on our debt. We will finally reduce our debt.

The Leader of the Opposition talked about how terrible it was because we wanted to pay down our debt. We want to pay down our debt because we do not want to pay interest to the moneylenders out there. We want to spend that money helping the people of this Province with health care and education and more police officers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, we are also going to diversify the economy by attracting business, and one of the ways of doing that is by lowering taxes. Another way of doing it is having business attraction methods. There is going to be $30 million that the Minister of Business is going to have to give grants and to give loans to attract businesses to come to this Province, because businesses will invest and they will create jobs for our people, and that is what we want.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: There is $70 million, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to invest in our renewable resources. We are going to leverage the money we have, the non-renewable resources that we have now, we are going to leverage those monies to transition our economy so that we can develop our renewable resources, so that we are ready for the day when oil and gas is no longer there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: There is going to be $70 million to stimulate business growth and create jobs in the rural regions of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: This will include investments in forestry, investments in mining, agriculture, aquaculture and the fishery sector, along with targeted programs for small and medium sized business.

We are investing an addition $1 million this year, as we have done every year since we have been in office, in tourism marketing, and I am told by the head of Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador that is working and tourism numbers are up already with the anticipated bookings.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: That brings the tourism marketing budget to about $11 million. That is almost double what it was when we first took office.

To promote economic growth, we will spend $440 million to modernize our infrastructure, as part of a $2 billion infrastructure strategy which was announced last year. There will be $66.5 million under the Provincial Roads Program, a total of $160 million on roads. We are going to build long-term care facilities, we are going to build health clinics, and we are going to build schools, because they are needed in this Province, but if you do not have the revenues and if you do not manage them properly you are not able to do that.

We are going to invest in the innovative economy. We are going to have a new strata of jobs, not just jobs based on our resources, not just jobs based on the fact that we might be regional centres or regional government centres, but a new strata of jobs, a new tranche of jobs based on investments in innovation, based on research and development, because out of that research and out of that technology entrepreneurs will seize those new products and seize those new ideas and create new businesses and bring our educated kids home to work in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: We are also investing in people. There is $6.7 million in response to the recommendations of the Skills Task Force, chaired by the hon. Member for St. John's North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: There is $1 billion in the Budget for education. There is $2.2 billion in the Budget for health. There are tuition freezes at Memorial University. Students are going to get up-front grants - that is what we are going to do for students, up-front grants - so that they do not have to be so heavily involved in debt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: We are going reduce the interest rate on their loan by 2.5 per cent.

More importantly, Mr. Speaker, the best thing that this government has done to show that this government is a responsible but caring government, is what we have done in terms of the drug program. The cost of drugs can ruin families, and last year we brought in a program, the Low Income Drug Program, that adds 96,000 people who are going to get benefits from this government to help them with their drug costs; but there were people left out, there were people such as the people who suffer from MS. There were 600 of them who could not qualify, their incomes were too high for them to qualify for the four drug programs that we offer in this Province, so we brought in a plan and we thought about helping them, but then we realized that there are many other. There are people with diabetes, there are people with cancer, there are people with all kinds of diseases who have drug costs that can be a catastrophe for them, so we brought in an enhancement. The Minister of Health brought in an enhancement plan that is going to help people who have very high drug costs so that no one making under $40,000 a year will have to pay more than 5 per cent of their family income on drugs. That is a huge help to the people of this Province. It is a great item that shows that this government, more than anything else, cares about the people of this Province and cares about vulnerable people in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, we are spending $28.9 million of new monies in the Poverty Reduction Strategy. That is $91 million this year. We have made a commitment - this government made a commitment - that we would take this Province from having the highest rate of poverty to the lowest rate of poverty in ten years, and we are doing that. The program that we have instituted is a model. The head of the National Association of Welfare, the head of the National Anti-Poverty Association, have pointed to this Province and said we are doing it right. We are not there yet, we have a long way to go, but, Mr. Speaker, for the people of this Province who need help, for the people of this Province who are vulnerable, we will get there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, under the leadership of our Premier, this government has a vision for this Province, it has a plan for this Province, that sees a prosperous Province with a self-reliant people. Our government, under the leadership of the Premier and under this Budget, will move us to achieve this vision. We will strengthen our fiscal economy. We will strengthen our fiscal capacity. We will become self-reliant, and we will do this by paying down the debt to eliminate the burden on our children and their children. We will do it by diversifying and growing our economic base. We will pursue a fair fiscal balance between all levels of government, and we will reduce our reliance on equalization payments.

Ladies and gentlemen, we will forge ahead and enact this vision despite any obstacles that anyone tries to put in our way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I move passage of this motion, that this House supports the budgetary policy of this government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): The motion before the House is: It is moved and seconded that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Division has been called.

Call in the members.

Division

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Williams; Mr. Rideout; Mr. Ottenheimer; Ms Dunderdale; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Tom Marshall; Mr. Byrne; Mr. Wiseman; Mr. Fitzgerald; Mr. Harding; Mr. Oram; Ms Burke; Mr. Skinner; Ms Whalen; Mr. O'Brien; Mr. French; Mr. Young; Mr. Hunter; Mr. Hutchings; Mr. Baker; Ms Johnson; Mr. Ridgley; Ms Elizabeth Marshall; Mr. Forsey; Mr. Collins; Mr. Dinn; Mr. Cornect.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Reid; Mr. Parsons; Mr. Butler; Mr. Barrett; Mr. Langdon; Mr. Sweeney; Mr. Joyce; Ms Michael.

Mr. Speaker, the ayes 27, the nays 8.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I have received a message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: All rise.

The message is from the Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Honourable Edward Roberts, dated 14 May 2007.

As Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I transmit Estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year ending 31 March 2008. By way of further Supply and in accordance with the provisions of sections 54 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these Estimates to the House of Assembly.

Sgd.:

Edward Roberts, ONL, QC

Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Message be referred to a Committee of the Whole on Supply.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The Committee is ready to hear debate on Bill 2, 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, 2008 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service, and the resolution that accompanies that particular bill.

Resolution

"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, 2008 the sum of $3,317,361,800."

CLERK: 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, 2008 the sum of $3,317,361,800.

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The resolution is carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

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, 2008 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service." (Bill 2)

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 4 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 4 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 4 carried.

CLERK: The schedule.

CHAIR: Shall the schedule carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

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'.

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, 2008 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'.

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, 2008 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'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 2 carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 2 is carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I move that the total contained in the Estimates in the amount of $3,317,361,800 for the 2007-2008 fiscal year be carried.

I further move that the Committee report that the Committee have 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 that 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'.

The motion is 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: 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 $3,317,361,800 contained in the Estimates of Supply for the 2007-2008 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. RIDEOUT: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the Committee have leave to sit again?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: 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 that the Committee have adopted a certain resolution and recommend 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'.

Carried.

CLERK: 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, 2008 the sum of $3,317,361,800.

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'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: 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, 2008 the sum of $3,317,361,800.

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Main Supply bill, Bill 2, 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 Ending March 31, 2008 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 2)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce Bill 2?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

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, 2008 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," carried. (Bill 2)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 2 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 2 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is 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, 2008 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 2).

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Main Supply bill be read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 2, 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, 2008 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service, be now read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 2 be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is 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, 2008 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 2)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Main Supply bill be read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 2 be now read a third time.

Is it is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 2 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is 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, 2008 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 2)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 2, 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, 2008 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service, has now been read a third time and is ordered that the 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, 2008 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 2)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the night is getting long. I thank members for their participation, for their co-operation, and for passing the Main Supply bill. The people in the Province who are due funds from the government can rest assured that they will be paid for the next twelve months.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do adjourn until tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do now adjourn until tomorrow, Monday, June 4, at 1:30 of the clock.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

This House now stands adjourned until Monday at 1:30 of the clock.

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